asked what was the status and constitution of the British and Chinese Corporation that declined the loan for the building of the Canton-Hankow Railway; and who were the leading members composing it?

Particulars as to the British and Chinese Corporation will be found on page 1083 of "The Stock Exchange Official Intelligence (1909)," of which there is a copy in the Library.

asked if the independence of Bulgaria had been recognised by the British Government; and what, if any, terms had been made with the Bulgarian Government for the payment of compensation for the railway taken over and for the Eastern Roumelian tribute?

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. Provision is made by Article 3 of the Russo-Turkish Protocol, recently negotiated at St. Petersburg, for the payment of 42 million francs as compensation for the railway, and 40 million francs for the Eastern Roumelian Tribute. It has been agreed to determine by arbitration the shares of the first-named sum accruing respectively to the Ottoman Government and to the Oriental Railway Company.

Are these sums to be paid by instalments spread over a number of years, or is it provided that they shall be paid in cash?

I think that that ought to be the subject of a separate question.

Can the hon. Gentleman say who are to be the arbiters?

No; I do not think that has been settled.

asked the Secretary for the Home Department whether he was aware that the provisions of section 6 of The Ground Game Act, 1880, with regard to the setting of spring traps in the open, were habitually disregarded, and that cruelty to animals, as well as the illegal taking of game, had been thereby caused; and whether he would introduce further legislation, or take other measures in order to secure the due observance of the law in this matter?

The Secretary of State has no official information about this matter, but he believes that traps are often set in the open, and that cruelty is caused by them. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are about to issue a leaflet on the subject, which will no doubt be widely circulated, and the Secretary of State proposes to send out a circular to the police.

Will the officials of the Board of Agriculture issue recommendations with regard to the laying down of poison in the open?

That question should be addressed to my hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture.

asked what steps had been taken under the agreement and protocol between England and Germany with regard to sleeping sickness to preserve Nyassaland from this disease?

The Agreement in question related only to Uganda and German East Africa. So far as Nyassaland is concerned I am glad to say that the extensive investigations which are being made in that Protectorate have failed, up to the present time, to reveal the presence of the tse-tse fly which transmits the disease. These investigations will be continued, but there is good reason to hope that Nyassaland is not exposed to the risk of an epidemic similar to that which has wrought such havoc in Uganda.

Is it not a fact that this fly travels long distances? Has the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that under this Agreement and Protocol sufficient steps have been taken to prevent its introduction into Nyassaland?

The fly does not, I think, travel very far from its particular place. On the whole question I would refer the Noble Lord to the many reports which have been issued from the Colonial Office on the subject. We will do all we can in the matter; but there is not much fear at present of the disease spreading to Nyassaland.

asked whether a sum of approximately £7,000,000 had been spent by Great Britain in East Africa; whether the annual outturn of that Protectorate was valued at about £6,000,000; whether of this raw material valued at £58,356 was imported in 1907 to the United Kingdom, and raw material valued at £315,147 to foreign countries; whether corresponding figures for 1908 were now available; and, if a somewhat similar ratio obtained, what steps would be taken to obtain for Great Britain some return upon the capital expended?

In asking the question the hon. Member said: The sum £6,000,000 should be £600,000.

I concur in my hon. Friend's figures, except that I do not know what meaning he attaches to the expression "annual outturn" of the Protectorate nor how he arrives at a sum of £6,000,000 for the amount of the annual outturn. He has, however, now corrected that figure. The exports from the East Africa Protectorate for the year ended 31st March, 1908, were valued at £105,182 to the United Kingdom, £79,960 to British Colonies, and £329,910 to foreign countries—£515,052 in all, while the imports were valued at £1,251,027, including Government imports, specie and goods in transit, or £799,717, exclusive of these items. The corresponding figures given by my hon. Friend relate to the year ended the 31st of March, 1907. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question, we cannot hope to reap the full reward of our expenditure in East Africa for many years to come, but it will be seen that the trade of the Protectorate with the United Kingdom and British possessions is already considerable, and is rapidly increasing.

asked if there were any import and export duties levied in British East Africa; if so, whether they were the same or higher or lower than those levied in German East Africa; and if there was any preference given to goods imported from the Mother Country in either case?

There are both import and export duties levied in the East Africa Protectorate. It is impossible within the limits of a question and answer to give a complete list of these duties or to compare them with those levied in German East Africa; but the hon. Gentleman will find full information with regard to the tariffs of both places in the "International Customs Journal," published by the International Customs Tariff Bureau at Brussels, copies of which I shall be glad to place at his disposal. The General Act of the Conference held at Berlin in 1885, to which both Great Britain and Germany are parties, precludes any preference being given to goods imported from the Mother Country in either case.

Generally, are the duties higher in German East Africa than in British East Africa?

The hon. Gentleman will see all that from the book with which I will furnish him. From the last part of the reply he will see that we cannot get a preference, nor can Germany.

asked what sum had been received by the Crown in respect of the annual rent of £143 0s. 1d. reserved to the Crown on a grant of the lordship of Cyfeiliog, in the county of Montgomery, in 1664; and when the last payment of rent was made?

The Commissioners of Woods, etc., by whom this rent would be collected if it were in charge, inform me that it has never been collected since the land revenues were placed under the management of those Commissioners, not being included in any of the charge rentals of that Department. Whether it was redeemed at some date subsequent to 1664 or lapsed from non-collection is not known, but in any case the recovery of the rent would now be barred by statute, as it has not been collected within 60 years.

asked the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether, in accordance with the unanimous wish of the people of Kingstone, the Charity Commissioners could see their way to alter the imposition in their scheme of a £15 limit to the spending of charities amounting to over £46 on the objects for which they were left by their founders?

The answer is in the negative. These charities, amounting to £44 6s. 6d., have not been expended as directed by the founders, but have been applied in indiscriminate doles in some cases to able-bodied men in receipt of full wages.

asked the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he is aware that certain charities in the parish of Kingstone, Herefordshire, have always been spent, as intended by their founders, on coal and clothes for the poor of the parish; that some of these poor people have also been in receipt of outdoor relief, but on the same scale as in neighbouring parishes where there are no charities; and, seeing that no aid is thus given to the rates, and section 26 of the scheme of the Commissioners is thus not contravened, whether the Commissioners will allow this charity to be given as before?

It is true that prior to the scheme of 23rd December, 1908, persons in receipt of outdoor relief have received benefits from these charities. This was improper, as under a long series of decisions of the Courts, from 1744 onwards, such persons are not eligible for such charities. The Commissioners therefore do not propose to alter the scheme made in accordance with the law, from which they have no power to depart.

Is this a case in which the objects appointed by the donor of the charity cannot be carried out?

The objects appointed by the donor of the charity have not been carried out, and the Commissioners have made their scheme at the request of the Parish Council.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he was aware that the steamship "Ionian," which left Montreal and Quebec for Glasgow early in July, 1908, had on board, in the second class, several persons suffering from consumption, some in an advanced stage; and, seeing that no isolation was effected, would he suggest to steamship companies that in future consumptive passengers be carried in deck cabins only instead of below deck, where no isolation against infection was possible?

I am informed that one of the second-class passengers on the voyage referred to was a person suffering from consumption, that he was isolated from the other passengers, and that the cabin was afterwards disinfected. I believe the steamship companies are fully alive to the necessity of isolating these cases.

Was it not found on inquiry that the person was not isolated?

That is not in accordance with our information, but I will make further inquiry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say why the Return of Accidents and Casualties on Railways, together with the reports of the inspecting officers, assistant, and sub-inspecting officers of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, has not yet been issued for the three months ending December, 1908; and can he say when this Return may be expected?

The returns of accidents and casualties for the year 1908 have, as the hon. Member is ho doubt aware, been issued a few days ago. I hope it will be possible to issue the Reports for the December quarter very shortly, but certain information necessary for the purpose was not received until the 15th of the present month.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he can take steps to have issued, with the least possible delay, the Return of Accidents and Casualties on Railways, with the inspecting officers, assistant and sub-inspecting officers' reports for the three months ending March 1909?

There will be no avoidable delay in the issue of the Summary and Reports for the quarter ending March, but several of the Reports have yet to be received.

Might I ask if the hon. Gentleman will kindly make an attempt to get these Reports out much earlier than they have been. They are a long time behind every year?

Yes, Sir. No effort will be spared to try and get them up to date.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether any agreement had now been come to between the Commissioners of National Education and the Department for the teaching of cookery and laundry lessons in national schools; and, if so, would he state how much is to be paid per pupil for this instruction?

The Department are not in a position to spend any portion of their funds in giving instruction in cookery or laundry work in national schools. They are, however, willing to try the experiment in one or two selected centres of giving instruction to pupils in national schools for the payment mentioned in the rules of the Commissioners of National Education, namely, five shillings per head. This proposal necessitates some small modification in the rules in regard to which the Department are still in communication with the Commissioners.

Am I to understand that these instructions will only be given where the local authorities concerned consider it is desirable?

Certainly.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, how many coastguard stations have been closed in Ireland since May, 1905; will he state the total number of men withdrawn from these closed stations; how many coastguard stations now remain open in Ireland, and the total number of men employed at these; and whether it is proposed to close any further Irish stations?

Fifty-two coastguard stations and detachments have been closed in Ireland since May, 1905. Two hundred and seventy-nine men were withdrawn from these closed stations and detach- ments. One hundred and forty-nine coastguard stations and detachments now remain open in Ireland, and 812 men are employed at these stations and detachments. Approval was given to the closing of the station at Portaferry, but it has now been submitted for consideration that this station may be retained and the station at Strangford closed in lieu. It is not proposed to close any further Irish stations.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Government have adopted any standard of strength to which the British Navy should attain in sea-going torpedo craft on the same lines as the two-Power standard in capital ships; and, if so, what is that standard?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. If the hon. Member will consult the Navy List, he will see what the standard is which the Admiralty considers sufficient.

Is it three to one?

No, Sir.

Is it not the fact that one Power alone—namely, Germany—has 96 destroyers under 12 years of age to our 83?

The underlying supposition of the question of the hon. Member is that no destroyer is of value after 12 years of age. I cannot accept that as true.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman and the Admiralty are satisfied with the strength of our destroyers for service in the North Sea?

Yes, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the two floating docks, provided for in this year's programme, are intended to accommodate ships of the "Dreadnought" class?

I have nothing to add to the answer given to a similar question on Monday last, namely, that the designs are now under consideration.

May I be allowed to submit a point of order? The right hon. Gentleman has not returned a "yes" or a "no" in answer to my question, nor an answer which is a diplomatic mixture of the two He has not refused an answer even. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has he done?"] Am I not, therefore, in order in putting down my question as frequently as I like, and appealing to my hon. Friends on both sides of the House to support me?

However often the hon. Member puts his question down he cannot compel a Minister to answer. I understood the First Lord to say that the matter was under consideration.

I asked about the designs, Sir?

Well, he said the designs were under consideration. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question about the end of August. [Loud laughter.]

May I ask if the construction of two floating docks has been definitely decided upon, and where they are intended to be placed on the East Coast?

I prefer not to answer questions upon that point at the present moment. It is true that two floating docks are provided for in this year's Estimates.

Is it usual for the Admiralty to decide to provide two floating docks without it being decided what they are to be for?

No, Sir, that is not quite the point. We have decided to have two floating docks, but we have not yet definitely determined upon the design of the floating docks. When the design is definitely determined upon then I shall be happy to communicate the fact to the hon. Gentleman.

When the right hon. Gentleman mentions the design does he mean the design or the size of the dock?

The design covers the size.

No.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication as to the time when the designs will be completed, to enable the House to judge?

I shall be glad to have notice of that question. I will consult the Director of Naval Construction.

With regard to the further answer, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the design covers the size, is he aware that there are different designs of floating docks?

The hon. Member would be well advised to put his question on the Paper.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what would be the draught of a battleship of the "Dreadnought" type which had a 10 per cent. list; whether there was at present any dry dock in this country which would admit a ship of that draught; and, if not, what steps the Government proposed to take to remedy the deficiency?

I do not understand what is meant by a 10 per cent. list; but if the Noble Lord intends that the ship should heel over to an angle of 1 in 10, then the "Dreadnought" at a draught of 26 feet 6 inches would, with this list, have a draught of water of 29 feet 6 inches. There are in this country at least 10 dry docks which would admit a ship of such draught.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be a highly dangerous operation to dock a battleship in a dry dock with a 10ft. list?

It would be if there was no water in it.

That was not the question asked. I have replied to that question of the Noble Lord.

May I further ask if it is not a fact that a battleship with a 10 ft. list would require a much wider dock than if the ship was upright?

Will the hon. Member De so good to put the question of the 10ft. list on the Paper?

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he could now state whether it is his intention to propose the adoption of the Census Bill in the present Session?

The matter is still under consideration.

asked the President of the Local Government Board what is the total cost, up to the 31st March, 1909, of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal appointed on the 7th May, 1908; what is the estimated further expenditure of this Commission; whether the Local Government Board has adopted the recommendations made by the Commission in its Fifth Report; and what are the present regulations of the Local Government Board as to sewage disposal?

The Royal Commission was appointed in 1898. The total cost up to 31st March last was £56,061, including the net cost of stationery and printing, but excluding the cost of accommodation. I understand that an estimate has not been framed of the future expenditure which may be required. The Local Government Board are acting on the recommendations made by the Royal Commission in their Fifth Report. It is their practice to advise local authorities to carry out these recommendations, but they have not issued any regulations on the subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman furnish me with a copy of the regulations?

The hon. Gentleman asked me if the regulations were issued. I have just told him there were none. It is the custom of the Local Government Board to advise the local authorities, but no regulations are needed.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state the amount of land which, during the present year, it has been arranged to acquire in Kent for small holdings, the situation of such land, together with the acreage, and the number of applicants who will be satisfied thereby?

The answer is so long that I will not read it out, but will circulate it with the Votes. [ See Written Answers this date. ]

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state how much the stamp of 6d. on allotment letters brings in, and what it brought in during the last financial year when it was 1d.?

I am unable to give the information asked for in the first part of the question as the official records do not distinguish between the 6d. and the 1d. stamp on letters of allotment. In the last complete year (1898–9), in which the duty on all letters of allotment was 1d., the produce of the tax amounted, approximately, to £2,000.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any revised salary scheme for supervisors and officers of the Outdoor Excise Department is under the consideration of the authorities; if so, whether by it the maximum salary of officers will be raised to £300 per annum, and, if no such scheme is being at present considered, when a revision of salary will take place?

No revised salary scheme for supervisors and officers of the Outdoor Excise Department is under the consideration of the authorities.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that those landlords who have given their tenants the advantage of purchasing their holdings under The Irish Land Act, 1903, are, pending the receipt of the purchase money, suffering a loss of income of at least 20 per cent., he can see his way to allocate the money raised for land purchase to paying the bonus at once to these landlords as some alleviation of their loss?

The answer is in the negative. It would be impossible to pay the bonus until the advance on which it is to be calculated has been sanctioned.

asked on what date and under what Vote was a special sum of £50,000 granted to the Congested Districts Board last Session; and is it proposed to make any similar grant during the current Session?

The £50,000 in question was not a grant, but a loan from the Local Loans Fund issued under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891. It does not, therefore, appear in any Vote. Half of this sum was issued in the past financial year and half is to be issued to the Congested Districts Board in the current year.

asked the Chief Secretary whether Marlborough-street College, Dublin, is the original college for the training of national school teachers; whether it is still open to and attended by teachers of all denominations on equal terms; whether in 1890 the then Chief Secretary established what he called a principle which would secure an all-round equality of treatment as between Marlborough-street College and the three denominational training colleges in Dublin; whether after these three colleges had been provided with free homes in accordance with this arrangement, they were described by the Commissioners of National Education as equipped in every respect, domestic and educational, m a style that is unsurpassed in completeness in any of the colleges in England and Scotland; whether Talbot House is still retained as the main residence for the girls in training at Marlborough-street; whether during the last session there were 956 absences in less than seven months for 165 girls in training; whether in 1898 the then Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that the girls were not permitted to lift their windows at night lest the disgusting language of the streets should reach them; and whether the condition of things thus described in 1898 is substantially unchanged?

further asked whether at the opening of the new residence for the men in training at Marlborough-street Training College, Dublin on 24th August last year, the resident commissioner said it was unfair that the lady students, who had to live in Talbot-street should be treated so scurvily as compared with men, and spoke of the clamorous need of a new residence for these young ladies, and that His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was present in his official capacity to declare the new residence open, said that the next step, and a most important one, for which it was to be hoped that the way would be cleared as quickly as possible, was the provision of new residential accommodation for the girl students, and refused to admit the force of what he described as the arguments, so called, presented by the Treasury against producing the required funds; whether, in view of these statements of His Excellency and the urgent needs of the case, he can state if proposals will be submitted to Parliament this Session to provide a new residence for the women students of Marlborough-street College, on she site already provided at so great a cost; and, if no such proposals are to be submitted to Parliament, what are the reasons for refusing to do so?

I have nothing to add to my reply to the two questions in similar terms asked by the hon. Member on 7th December last.

Is it to be understood that there is no hope of those additional schools being constructed?

The hon. Member knows that a sum was given to the Commissioners of National Education which was supposed to be sufficient both for men and women. The men absorbed the whole sum; the women undoubtedly received somewhat obscure treatment, but I am not in a position to hold out any hope of any further grant.

Is not that a great injustice?

Well, I do not know whose fault it is.

asked the Chief Secretary if he can state when the purchase agreements of the tenants on the Tighe estate, situate near Tubbercurry, county Sligo, which were signed by them in June, 1905, will be perfected and the property finally vested in the Estates Commissioners.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that it is expected that the sale of this estate will be completed and the holdings vested in the tenant-purchasers during the course of the next few months.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the result of the inquiry instituted in December last regarding the death of John Stenson, which was caused by the reckless firing of the police on 29th October, 1908?

As promised in my reply to a question asked by the hon. Member on 26th November last, I have caused confidential inquiries to be made with regard to the statements of the hon. Member as to the conduct of the inquest in this case. As the result of these inquiries I am satisfied that the Coroner gave the next of kin of the deceased every opportunity of producing any evidence he wished to offer, and did not say that there would be a magisterial investigation. As regards the charge of reckless firing I must repeat that the police appear to have behaved with great discretion and to have been completely under control.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have advanced money for the purchase of the Kellet estate, county Meath; and if any, and what, provision was made for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings on the estate?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase money of portion of this estate has been advanced. As the hon. Member has already been informed the vendors arranged to make 100 acres in their occupation available for distribution, but the smaller occupiers refused to accept the allotments offered to them or to complete the purchase of their holdings.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have given land to two men named Govern and Shalvey on the estate of the trustees of Hussey, Rathkenny, county Meath; if they were occupiers of uneconomic holdings; upon whose recommendation they were allotted holdings; and under what section of the Act of 1903 the Commissioners acted?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that the land in question was with their approval sold by the owner under section 2 of the Act of 1903 to these two men, who were tenants on the estate.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that an evicted tenant named Kate Smyth, of Horistown, Beauparc, county Meath, has applied for reinstatement in her former holding; and will he state what action the Estates Commissioners have taken in her case?

An application has been received by the Estates Commissioners from Mrs. Smyth in respect of a holding at Horistown at one time occupied by her husband and now held by another tenant. It was not lodged within the time prescribed by the Evicted Tenants Act, and no action has been taken on it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received any report from an inspector of theirs with regard to the distribution of the balance of untenanted land on the estate of the trustees of Hussey, county Meath; and whether the occupiers of uneconomic holdings in the district may hope to have their claims considered?

I have nothing to add to my reply to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on 29th March last.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he gave me no reply on that occasion?

I have fortified myself with a copy of that reply, and it was that the residue of these lands was being distributed for small occupiers, and that I was not aware of any alleged dissatisfaction or unrest.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that with regard to a housing scheme under consideration at the time of the passing of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908, the Kells urban district council applied to the Local Government Board to extend the period of repayment from 40 to 80 years, and that the Board refused and fixed the repayment period at 60 years; and whether, having regard to the hardship the shorter period will inflict upon the occupiers of the proposed new houses, he will ask the Local Government Board to reconsider their decision and accede to the request of the Kells urban district council?

Eighty years is the maximum period for which money may be borrowed under the Act. The period in the case referred to was, as usual, determined by the Local Government Board after full consideration of the character and durability of the proposed houses. These are, as I am informed, of cheap ordinary construction, and I see no reason why the decision of the Board should be reconsidered. I understand that a similar period of sixty years has been fixed in other cases recently, and that no objection has been raised.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. N. O'Donohoe, chairman of the Gort District Council and a justice of the peace for the county Galway, was refused admission to visit Galway Prison when he called there recently; whether, notwithstanding the fact that he has exercised the right of visiting Galway Prison for years back since his appointment as magistrate, any special order has been issued by the Prisons Board to the governor of the prison directing him to refuse admission to magistrates of the county when they call to make an inspection in the exercise of their office; and will he lay upon the Table of the House any such order and explain under what power and authority the governor of the prison refused admission to Mr. O'Donohoe and relatives of untried prisoners?

Mr. O'Donohoe was refused admission to the prison under a misapprehension, as it was believed that the prisoners whom he asked to see did not come from a district where he had jurisdiction. Subsequent inquiries have shown that this was a mistake, and the governor of the prison has been so informed. No order was issued by the General Prisons Board on the subject, but the governor has no power to admit magistrates not being visiting justices and not having jurisdiction in the place where the prison is situate, unless prisoners from their districts are confined in the prison.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. O'Donohoe frequently visited prisoners before, and, having regard to the fact that the people of the West of Ireland, and particularly Galway, have a very strong suspicion that the governor acted at the instance of the authorities with a view to manufacturing evidence, will instructions be given to the governor to prevent a recurrence of such discreditable proceedings in the future?

The hon. Member knows a mistake arose on the part of the governor. He has been informed that Mr. O'Donohoe is entitled to visit the prisoners in the prison, and no further difficulty will arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether, since the day of the refusal by the governor to admit the friends of the prisoners, the informer, in this particular case, was spirited into the prison, and, if so, for what purpose?

I do not know.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Kirkwood estate, situate at Cloonligh, county Roscommon, near Carrick-on-Shannon, who purchased their holdings about 10 years ago, had their crops and stock destroyed by floods in 1903, in consequence of which they find themselves unable properly to stock their lands; whether the Irish Land Commission is in a position to advance money to them to give them a chance properly to work their land and meet their annuities; and, if so, whether the Land Commission will take this case immediately into their consideration?

The Land Commission have no information with regard to the losses stated to have been suffered by these tenant purchasers who became proprietors of their holdings in 1898, nor have they any funds from which the advances suggested in the question could be made.

I desire to ask the Prime Minister when the second reading stage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill will be taken?

asked the Prime Minister a similar question.

Perhaps I may reply to the hon. Member for Denbigh District at the same time. I am not able at present to fix a definite date, but I hope that an opportunity may be found in an interval between the necessary stages of our financial business. My hon. Friends may be sure that the Government are anxious for the House to pronounce its opinion on the second reading as early as possible.

Does that mean directly after the Budget Resolutions have been passed, or after the second reading stage of the Finance Bill?

No, Sir; I cannot say anything definite upon that point.

Can the Prime Minister now announce the terms of reference to the sub-committee of the Committee of Defence which is inquiring, or about to inquire, into the readiness for war of the fleets in home waters?

I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given yesterday on my behalf by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War.

How long is it likely to be before the right hon. Gentleman announces the terms of reference?

The general reference is perfectly well known, and at this stage, or any other stage, to announce the specific terms of the reference would not be in the public interest.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to announce whether there will be any Report, full or condensed, of the proceedings?

That question must be answered hereafter.

asked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Poor Law Commission dealing with Scotland would be issued?

No, Sir, I am not in a position at the moment to give any definite information.

I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War how many of the Field Artillery batteries which practised on Salisbury Plain in 1908 were up to the strength in draught horses; and whether, in order to practise such batteries as six-gun batteries with a first line of wagons, the whole of the draught horses of the two other batteries were required?

In reply to the first part of the question, it is understood that all the batteries were approximately up to strength in draught horses. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

also asked whether, in support of Horse Artillery batteries which practised on Salisbury Plain in 1908, it required the draught horses of a brigade and a half to turn out one battery at war strength; and what steps are being taken to obtain an adequate supply of draught horses for the Horse Artillery batteries?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This is in accordance with the approved peace establishment of draught horses for the Horse Artillery batteries, which are fully maintained. There is at present no difficulty in obtaining horses for this purpose.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether there is a single battery in the United Kingdom up to war strength in draught horses?

The hon. Member seems to think we keep in time of peace our horse supply up to war strength, but we do not.

I understand that these batteries are merely up to what is called peace strength, and this has nothing to do with war strength at all.

Yes, there is a peace establishment and a war establishment.

Is there a sufficient number of horses registered at the War Office for these artillery batteries which they can lay their hands on when necessary?

Up to the present there certainly has not been, but we have been doing everything in our power to remedy that state of things, and we have made considerable progress towards it.

I desire to ask the Secretary of State for War how many lads reached the age of 21 and were in consequence discharged from Woolwich Arsenal since the beginning of the year, and how many men reached the old-age limit, and were discharged for that reason, during the same period, and what is the reduction in number of workmen employed in consequence of these discharges?

Forty-eight lads left since 1st January last on reaching the age of 21; and 10 lads who had previously reached that age and had been temporarily retained also left. Sixteen men reached the old-age limit and were discharged. As none of the above lads or men have been replaced, the total of the above figures— i.e., 74—gives the total reduction in the number of workmen. The number of workmen is still in excess of the minimum fixed, but, as I have already stated on more than one occasion, the reductions necessary to reach this limit are taking place by way of wastage only, and not by discharge.

I understand that not only have none of these men been taken on, but that no men have been substituted in their places?

No; none have been added to the establishment with respect to them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 57 lads under notice to go? I have all their names in my pocket.

I am not aware of that. It may be that they have attained the age of 21, but I do not know. My hon. Friend had better put down a question.

Is it not possible to afford some facility to re-engage these lads instead of throwing them into the ranks of the unemployed?

Not unless we oust adult men who have wives and families to provide for.

asked the Secretary of State for war what was the price paid by the Government for the land at Ardhallow, Dunoon, now used as a fort; what was the acreage of that land; and what was the figure at which it was valued for rating purposes before the purchase took place?

The area of the land purchased was 22¼ acres and the price paid for the property in 1899 was £5,000. The valuation for rating purposes prior to purchase was £138.

Will the Secretary of State for War state the names of the contractors and their places of business who have been successful during 1909 in obtaining contracts for painting under War Office contracts in Great Britain and Ireland?

Subject to certain reservations, the names of firms obtaining Army contracts will be published in the monthly "Board of Trade Labour Gazette." In the case of the smaller contracts, which are so numerous that this method of publication would be inconvenient, I hope to arrange for giving the names on application.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the manner in which certain contracts were carried out last year by a certain contractor?

That is another matter altogether, and if the hon. Member will put a specific question to me on the subjest, I shall be glad to give him an answer.

asked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Congested Districts Board recently communicated with the proprietor of the island of Lewis in regard to the application made by the cottars of South Shabost for the adjoining sheep farm of Dalbeg, will he state the nature of the reply; and whether the proprietor is prepared to place the farm at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board for the creation of new holdings?

The petitioners in this matter have been informed that the proprietor has given full consideration to the application in question, but is not prepared to deal with the farm as suggested by them.

Is the Lord Advocate aware that, although the Eleventh Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland is stated in the Votes and Proceedings of 19th April to have been presented and to lie upon the Table, it is only in dummy form in the Library; and will he state when it will be issued to Members?

It is hoped that the Report will be very shortly available in its complete form.

Can the Lord Advocate state when a Committee to deal with the question of minor legal positions in Scotland will be appointed?

I hope that the Committee referred to by my hon. Friend will be appointed within a very short time.

Will this Committee deal with the age limit of sheriffs in Scotland?

No, Sir; that does not come within the scope of that inquiry.

asked the Postmaster-General, how many measurers his Department employ to do their, work in Scotland; and in what towns their places of business are situated?

There are seven firms of measurers employed by my Department on post offices and other public buildings in Scotland; of these seven, four have their offices in Edinburgh and three in Glasgow.

I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the universal interest taken in the Budget, and in view of the fact that this will be the first financial statement of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, you will arrange for the Galleries to be open to the public. [Cries of "No, no."]

I am afraid the notice is rather short to make arrangements to open the Galleries to the public; but, in order that the public shall be informed as fully as possible of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have arranged that the front row of the Members' Gallery shall be at the disposal of the reporters, so that they will have further accommodation, in addition to that provided by the Press Gallery. The occasion is an important one, and perhaps the friends of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have an opportunity another year of hearing the statement.

Will adequate accommodation for the officials of the Inland Revenue and the Treasury be provided?

Yes, any officials whose business is connected with the Budget or financial matters will have places put at their disposal to-morrow, if those demands are backed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I beg to give notice that this day four weeks I will call attention to the divergent statements of Ministers with regard to the two-Power standard, and move a Resolution.

This day four weeks, to call attention to the administration of British railways, and move a Resolution.

This day four weeks, to call attention to the administration of British railways, and move a Resolution.

It is a singular coincidence that on 28th April, 1890, exactly 19 years ago to this day, the Select Committee of the House of Lords, called Lord Dunraven's Committee, made a Report. That Committee sat over a long period, and examined no less than 291 witnesses. It reported that sweating had been known for 50 years. It referred to: "A rate of wages inadequate to the necessities of the workers or disproportionate to the work done." It reported that the state of things which existed involved excessive hours of labour and insanitary state of houses. The Committee also said:— These evils can hardly be exaggerated. The earnings of the lowest classes of workers are barely sufficient to sustain existence. The hours of labour are such as to make the lives of the workers periods of almost ceaseless toil, hard and often unhealthy. The Committee concluded with the impressive remark that:— We make these statements on evidence of the truth of which we are fully satisfied, and we feel bound to express our admiration of the courage with which the sufferers endure their lot, of the absence of any desire to excite pity by exaggeration, and of the almost unbounded charity they display towards each other in endeavouring by gifts of food and other kindnesses to alleviate any distress for the time being greater than their own. All, or nearly all, of the recommendations of that Committee have been embodied in new legislation. Has there been any considerable improvement in the interval? Let us hope that there has. Miss Squire, a very competent inspector of factories, says that the conditions have been largely improved since that Committee sat, but, in spite of this and of the great prosperity enjoyed by the bulk of the nation, the Home Work Committee reported last year that there was:— No doubt whatever that the number of sweated individuals is very large, and that it is still true that the evils of sweating are very great. That Committee also reported that:— The earnings of a large number of people are so small as alone to be insufficient to sustain life in a most meagre manner, even when the workers toil hard for extremely long hours, that the conditions under which they live are altogether pitiable and distressing, and that sufficient evidence has been put before us to show that sweating still exists to such a degree as to call urgently for the interference of Parliament. The Bill which I am now asking the House to read a second time is an attempt to deal with these conditions of labour. The principal of this legislation was introduced to this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, who has been the author of so many schemes for social progress. May I felicitate him on the important stage which has been reached now by a measure which I know is near his heart. It is a pleasure to me to reflect that I have been associated with him from the beginning with this legislation—in this and many other endeavours in the direction of industrial improvement. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham, who moved the Sweated Industries Bill, and whose interest in this matter we all recognise, admitted that the principle of his measure was of a limited scope. At the outset let me disabuse the minds of some hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Baronet who sits for the City of London of the fear that our proposal is one which is going to apply to all trades. They may say that it is the thin end of the wedge. It is not a wedge at all. Our remedy is only intended to apply to a very limited extent. It is a remedy which has reference to low wages, and does not deal with the question whether State action can, or ought, to control wages. The general rates of wages throughout the country will be settled by other means than this Bill—that is by economic forces. It is generally accepted that State interference with the remuneration for labour can only be justified in exceptional cases where two fundamental conditions are absent—I mean the mobility of labour in its true sense and effective organisation. It is only in those two cases that we propose to apply this legislation. Indeed, the application of this measure is very limited. It is intended to be applied exclusively to exceptionally unhealthy patches of the body politic where the development has been arrested in spite of the growth of the rest of the organism. It is to the morbid and diseased places—to the industrial diphtheritic spots that we should apply the antitoxin of trade Boards. Incidentally, may I say, that these spots are not peculiar to this country. The same evils exist in other industrial countries—France, Germany, Austria, and the United States of America. The House will be familiar with the theory and practice of the pocket money wage earner. A girl may wish to have a little work to do although she may possibly live in a very comfortable home. Wages with her are not the primary consideration. She simply wants to supplement her income, and she is not particular as to the rate of wages that she may get. Thus we have the paradox that the same result is achieved by the ignorant whim of the comparatively well-to-do person and of the dire necessity of the starving. Both accept work at sweated rates, and the result is sweated trade. The trade becomes a parasitic trade, feeding upon other industries and trades in the country and on the wealth of the nation, for in such a case the wages bill of the sweated industry is largely paid by the relatives with whom the worker lives, by the poor law, by the community who subscribe to hospitals and asylums, by charity, and by a proportion of the cost of old age pensions. I think I may say that such a trade is a parasitic trade, when we hear the argument, "Is it not better that you should give the girl some work rather than no work—that she should be sweated rather than starved?" To that I reply, "No, a hundred times No." In the first place the argument is false, because starvation is not an alternative but usually an accompaniment of sweating, and I agree with the witness who gave evidence before the Royal Commission on Labour, that it is easier to starve without the work. One of the best results of this Bill will be the recognition of the inefficient and unemployable by the State. It is far more humane, far safer, and far cheaper that the nation should recognise and deal with these sweated workers. If the girl is sweated, rather than go to the poor law she drags others down with her into this industrial abyss. It is to combat these evils that we are introducing this Bill. It is at once an experiment and a revolution—a new step in the social progress. These conditions which are now familiar to the House demand drastic treatment and, therefore, I feel that no apology will be expected of me because we are introducing a drastic measure. Parliament, quite two generations ago, enacted that payment of wages should take place in the coin of the realm. Parliament has also decreed that Government contractors shall pay a definite and standard rate of wages, and great authorities like the London County Council have decided that their contractors must pay a minimum rate of wages. This is the first occasion, certainly in modern Parliamentary times, in which any Government has proposed machinery, first for deciding, and secondly for enforcing, a legal rate of wages. To that extent the proposal is new—to that extent the proposal is a revolution. Now, may I address myself to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who said that such a Bill as this is going to alter the whole system on which the fabric of British trade has been built up. He says it is going to do little or not much good to the workers. Now, I assume that the argument is based on the assumption that if you raise the rate of wages you necessarily increase prices. I should like to quote an extract from an interesting Report written by Mr. Ernest Aves (quoted in the Report of the Homework Committee). He says:— Some of the fallacies, mainly traceable to an assumed fixity in the determining conditions—personal and economic - which underlie this assumption in its application to certain industries are recalled by Victorian experience, and the extent to which the combined view is held that special boards have increased wages and have not increased cost is of practical significance, since it is found to prevail in several of those trades in which the evil of underpayment is apt to be most prevalent. The special boards themselves may or may not have sent wages up to the extent often assumed or even at all. The fact remains that in several trades in which wages have tended upwards there is much testimony to the fact that neither cost nor price have been similarly affected, and in some instances it has been admitted that they have tended in the opposite direction. I have expressly avoided dealing with the Australian experiment because I am perfectly aware that the conditions in this country are so entirely different from those in Victoria; but I do think I am entitled to say, at any rate, that it has been proved that the assumption that invariably and inevitably an increase of prices must take place with an increase of wages is not a fact. Well, again, I should like to remind the House that am increase of wages brings increased efficiency, and increased efficiency brings an increase not only in quality but in quantity. There is, no doubt, that it further stimulates resource on the part of manufacturers and the inventive genius of the people who give their minds to mechanics.

As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I should like to say that I never stated that an increase of wages must be accompanied by an increase of price. What I said was that unless an increase of wages was accompanied by an increase of price, an industry might disappear.

I am endeavouring to show there are many things upon which an industry can draw before it becomes extinct. The Home Work Committee found material difference existing in the rates usually paid by different employers in the same town at the same moment for the same work. Again, I would like to remind the House that high wages do not carry with them high prices. That is proved by the sweated trades. Certainly low wages do not necessarily carry with them low prices. That was certainly proved in the cotton and the iron and steel trades of this country, where you have in many cases existing minimum rates of wages which have not been found to raise prices. Furthermore, there are certain profits of the middleman—exorbitant profits, as some of us think—which will disappear. Trade boards in their establishment will bring together not only the workpeople but the employers. They may possibly find it convenient to make arrangements; they may, at any rate, have a chance to make arrangements by which they will be able to avoid some of the very violent competition which they now wage against each other, and they may be able to effect considerable economy. It may also be urged that they will also endeavour to raise prices. If they do so they will only do it temporarily, because there is sufficient capital to set up new factories or workshops, and that will soon bring back prices to their old level.

I think I have demonstrated that the experience which we have, at any rate, has shown that normally a rise of wages does not bring about a rise in price. It is ridiculous to assume that a rise in wages must bring about an increase in price. But suppose it does, let us imagine what will be the result. Will the worker be harmed by a reduced demand for a dearer article? Unless the decrease in the demand is very great, I say this, with great conviction, that it would be better that the worker should be employed on a lesser demand, with reasonable hours of work at a fair rate of wages, than on a great demand with long hours at sweated rates of wages. [Ironical cheers.] I suppose what is running in the minds of the hon. Gentlemen who cheer is that you are going to invite foreign competition from abroad. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is it."] Then I say to those hon. Gentlemen who cheer, remember that these trade boards are composed of the best representatives of the trades that the Board of Trade can find, and they will be and ought to be the guardians of the interests of the trade, as they are both employers and employés, dependent upon the prosperity of the trade. Look at the great staple industries, I say, again. Look at the cotton trade, where the wages are highest. They compete against the same trade in India and Japan, where the wages are lowest, and they are not afraid of foreign competition. They have never found it difficult to compete against India and Japan in the neutral markets of the world.

But let us consider what other nations are doing. For instance, take Germany. Germany has an elaborate Factory Code, and she held an exhibition in Berlin similar in character to our Sweated Industries Exhibition. There is at the present moment a Committee of the Reichstag considering the further limitation of home work, and it is proposed to empower the Federal Council, and also the local police, to make rules requiring all home-workers to be furnished with a wage-book, or labour ticket, and to see that in every room in which home work is carried on there should be posted a statement of the wages to which each worker is entitled. The Governments of Bavaria and Baden have recently made investigations into these industries through their factory inspectors, and the reports which have been published as a result contain various recommendations as to their legal regulation. The measures suggested by the Bavarian Report (1907) include—(1) the obligation to employ wages books or tickets, (2) the extension to all home-workers of the insurance laws, (3) obligatory registration, (4) the fixing of minimum rates of wages with allowances for rent, light, heating, and time lost in fetching and delivering work, and (5) inspection of the dwellings used for domestic industry. That is beyond any proposals that we offer by this Bill, and those are the proposals of Germany. Austria is also making certain proposals, which I have not time to go into, but there was held in 1906 a conference under the auspices of the International Association for Labour Legislation at Geneva, where certain resolutions were passed in regard to the social conditions of home workers, the industrial condition of workers in Europe having regard to the competition with foreign nations, and the finding of a legislative remedy. Arising out of that meeting there has been held, in conformity with the resolution passed at Geneva, an inquiry in France in regard to what is called the French lingerie trade, which is famous all over the world and very expensive. That inquiry has elicited the fact that 56 per cent. of the home workers in this white lingerie trade work an average of more than ten hours a day, at rates of pay not exceeding 1½d. an hour, 50 per cent. of them have net earnings of less than £16 per annum.

I think I have said enough to show that public conscience on the Continent of Europe has been aroused with regard to the evils of the sweating system, and it will not be very difficult for us to arrive at an agreement with foreign nations similar to that which has recently been carried out in the Bill of last year for the prohibition of the importation or use of white phosphorus in matches. If prices are not raised it leaves me free to assert that competition in the markets of the world is an unreal and negligible bogey, and what objection have hon. Gentlemen then to this legislation? Is it going to be asserted, as I have heard it asserted, that it will be so difficult to enforce that enforcement will be impossible, and evasion will be the rule rather than the exception? I think that argument implies want of grasp of the principle which underlies this Bill, and that is that the determinations are not going to be exaggerated beyond what the trade will bear by those who are dependent upon the trade for a livelihood. The decisions of the trade boards will be in harmony with and representative of trade opinion. I will ask the House whether evasion is a reason for inaction? We know that new principles have been carried out in the law of this country in regard to work and wages. The provisions as to particulars and truck are evaded to a great extent and to an injurious degree, but I am sure that hon. Members below the Gangway will bear me out when I say that enormous good has resulted from those enactments, and are we going to deny the indubitable benefits of this legislation simply because we are afraid that for some of those who are most in need of it our intentions may be frustrated? I cannot help thinking that that is not good argument.

There are certain criticisms which have been made upon the details of this legislation. They are largely Committee points, but there are one or two which I think I ought to advert to. The hon. Member for Durham said that he objects to the centralising organisation embodied in the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley said it was doubtful policy to appoint committees throughout the country and co-ordinate the whole. I say that, after all, this Bill carries all that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley would wish, because the district trade committee will make suggestions which will go forward to the central trade boards, and I maintain that the suggestions of the district trade committees will be seldom altered by the central trade boards. The right hon. Gentleman said, "That wages should be fixed in the first instance between the workers and their employers in the localities, and that the co-ordination should come afterwards." That is, I think, exactly what we have done, because, so far from the localities being debarred from making their own suggestions for the government of their own local trade, we have provided by clause 12 that "no such minimum rate …. and no variation or cancellation of (it) …. shall have effect unless either the rate has been recommended by the district trade committee or an opportunity has been given to the committee to report thereon to the trade board, and the trade board have considered the report (if any) made by the committee." It seems to me that the principle of local government could not be given wider application. The hon. Member for Durham and others have also complained of the optional character of the Bill. I do not know whether by that he alludes to the setting up of the trade boards or to making their determinations compulsory. Probably both. [An HON. MEMBER: "Both."] On the question of setting up the trade boards, I think there is very little indeed to be said. The Board of Trade are the proper authority to set up these bodies, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the intention of the Board of Trade to set them up. The word "may" is inserted in the Bill to be on the safe side, in order, if it is found impossible to set them up in any particular trade and in order that we shall not be guilty of a legal offence if we fail to achieve the impossible. I think the House will believe in the integrity of our intentions, and I trust it will not withhold its concurrence from our prudential motive.

With regard to making the determination compulsory, the Board of Trade is the authority responsible to Parliament, and that being so, it should retain to itself the last word in this matter. I think an arrangement can be arrived at between hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and ourselves which we practically came to yesterday, by which we may arrive at a working agreement. I think I have shown that the evil with which we are attempting to deal is a real evil, that it is of old standing, and that it clamours for remedy. I have also shown that our remedy has the same inspiration and the same objective as was possessed by the old reformers, and proceeds upon lines parallel with those which have led the State to interfere with the control of the hours of labour, and the conditions of safety and sanitation. Our remedy only gives statutory sanction to principles and methods adopted in numberless cases by voluntary agreement, which have been attended with the greatest possible success. I do not anticipate from this legislation either dislocation of trade, damage to employers, or diminution of employment. Our proposals are very limited in their application, they are limited to those plague spots of industry where, without drastic treatment, they will continue, as they have continued for three-quarters of a century, feeding upon the national wealth, supplying recruits to our hospitals, asylums, and workhouses, and swelling the ranks of the unemployed, and being the forcing grounds of the unemployable. When I am told that this legislation will subvert the foundations upon which the commercial supremacy of this country is based, I decline to believe that the commercial supremacy of this or any other country rests upon sweated labour. If I am told capital will not stand it, I answer there is another and a greater capital with greater claims upon us. It is against the drain upon this capital that this effort we are making to-day is directed, against this waste we protest—I mean the life capital of the nation.

I congratulate the hon. Member who has just sat down upon the feeling and the eloquence with which he has described the objects of the Bill, and also on the long association which he has had with the subject. I speak for myself only and not for the party, though I think a good many of the party will agree with me, and with certain reservations I approve and wish to support this Bill. I think, in the main, the points on which I differ from the hon. Member are Committee points, and I reserve entire freedom for myself in the Committee stage as regards the machinery of the Bill. I doubt the centralising character of some of its provisions. I desire to keep an open mind, but I very much prefer the machinery set up by the Bill of the hon. Member for Durham. I do not think the Board of Trade ought to have a discretion to enforce or not to enforce the provisions of the Act, and, above all, I do not think the Board of Trade ought to have a discretion, as a mere Department of the Government, to extend its provisions to any trade. I think that is a dangerous provision. It is not in the least necessary. The Bill is an experiment, and if it works well in its experimental stages there will be no difficulty in Parliament extending its provisions. My hon. Friend behind me on another occasion viewed with just alarm the power of the Department to extend its provisions in this matter. I also have my doubts about the wisdom of granting such wide powers of delegation to the trade boards and the trade committees which are to be set up.

I would not have made any reference to a point of controversy which, of course, must be raised by some of the remarks which were made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with regard to foreign competition. I do not wish to argue the question now, but in my judgment—this has always been my opinion, and I expressed it in this House six years ago—it is quite idle to suppose that you can maintain the two systems together—one which sedulously protects against unfair competition, leading to disastrous results at home, and one which, on the other hand, welcomes and invites foreign competition. I have considered the subject many times, and might adduce some portions of the hon. Member's speech as corroborative of the view which I hold. I do not believe it is tenable that these two systems can continue. I certainly take some of the admissions which were made by the hon. Gentleman as supporting that view, and if hon. Gentlemen wish a further discussion on the subject—a discussion full of value—it is in the evidence given, especially in the hook-and-eye trade, before a Select Committee of this House. I would not have said this much had not the hon. Gentleman invited some discussion of this matter, and had hon. Members opposite not been responsible for refusing permission even to introduce a Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Thanet a short time ago, and recommended to the House in a speech which, in my opinion, was full of the most weighty and cogent argument.

With these reservations, and they have really been forced upon me, I support the principle of the Bill. I do not believe myself that the evil is very widely spread, but I am entirely convinced that it has been established that an evil of an intense kind exists in certain quarters and in certain trades—an evil really which it is almost tormenting to reflect on if you suffer your imagination to dwell upon it. It calls most peremptorily for the intervention of this House, because those who suffer by it are the weakest, the most defenceless, and the most unorganised section of workers. The condition of some poor women and girls in this trade is infinitely behind that of slaves. When we reflect that these people have no political power, I think their condition makes a most cogent appeal to the chivalrous instincts of the House, and I say their condition is not only piteous, but it is a menace to the essential well-being of the State. But more than that, and this I wish to address peculiarly to my hon. Friend behind me, this state of things has been known officially for nearly 20 years. It was brought to light by an investigation ordered by a Unionist Government presided over by a Unionist Chairman. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is one of the kindest hearted men in the House, and when it is a question of the animal world, I think the most sentimental man in the House. Certainly he would be the last to oppose the provisions of this Bill, or to apply a remedy to this state of things if we could establish that it was consistent with sound principle and sound precedent to do so.

But you cannot.

I think there is a certain amount of justification in that statement when the Minister who introduced this Bill described it as a revolution and an experiment. I must dissociate myself from that language. I should not have supported this Bill if it were revolutionary and an experiment. It is experimental in character, but I hope to show that it is conducted and based upon principles which we on this side of the House are above all concerned to maintain, and for which we have abundant precedent in the history of our party for our action in that matter. Of course, the question is one of wages. We are all familiar with competition as affecting the rate of wages, which has been settled in grooves quite familiar to this House. Gradually that competition has been evolved in such a way as in all the organised trades to put organised labour in conflict against organised capital. It is not always in conflict, it is often acting in harmony, but it is the organisation of labour which makes it competent to treat with organised capital. Normally that is quite adequate to ensure, by the dealing of the market, fair play as between employer and employed. Now and then there are strikes, but more often arbitrators or umpires are appointed to settle differences. In this evolution, which was the product of laissez faire, for a long time the party to which we belong considered it necessary in 1875 to still further forward the powers of trade unions in order to give the trade disputants as much equality as the law would give them. That was done in 1875 by a Conservative Government, and it was called "The Charter of Trade Unions" for many years, and no doubt the trade unions have since that date faced employers in the organised trades upon terms of very large equality. But the other conditions of labour have not been left to the stress of competition in the least. It is perfectly familiar to the House that the hours of labour, the sanitary conditions of labour, the safeguards of life and limb, and barriers against death and disease have been long regulated by many Acts of Parliament with which the Unionist party has had a close and, as I think, a most honourable concern. I cannot accept the statement of the hon. Member that the intervention of this party had only been made in such matters as these under very restricted conditions. The legislation of last year in the Eight Hours Miners Bill is an absolute contradiction of that allegation.

The Miners Eight Hours Bill did not deal with the question of remuneration.

I do not think that remuneration and labour can possibly be considered separately. Remuneration cannot be considered as a different economic factor from the hours of labour. The one must affect the other. However, that is merely a parenthesis to guard myself. What I say is that the questions of hours of labour, sanitation, protection against accident, disease and death have all been subject to regulation in this House, and by the assent of both parties. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Truck Act, to which, I think, the hon. Gentleman made special reference, affected the question of the payment of wages. Legislation of this country for 60 or 70 years has said: "You shall not pay except in coin." Of course, the Truck Act prescribes a method which affects the wages bill. It seems to me—and this I address particularly to my hon. Friends who may have been frightened by that language—plainly contrary to fact to describe a Bill which deals with these matters as a revolution. It follows by the closest analogy all the legislation to which I have just referred, and develops it on its true line and principle. I freely grant that it is an experiment, and that is why I wish it to be kept as an experiment should be kept, within somewhat close limits at first in order that we may watch the true results of the experiment. I do not wish to place in the hands of any Department, however able and well-wishing, the extension of this experiment without more authority and with the case contemplated by the Bill.

We must have Parliamentary sanction for the Orders which are to lie on the Table of the House for a period.

I expected an interruption of that kind, but not coming from the President of the Board of Trade. He should know that the provision as to rules lying on the Table of the House for 30 days is not a very effective objection. If I may commend the matter to my hon. Friends, I would ask what is this Bill? Well, in the first place, it does not take up the attitude of legislation which we have had frequently to deplore in this House of attacking people as if they were—I call it penal legislation—public enemies. On the contrary, this Bill rests on a much sounder principle, namely, that there are good employers. It acknowledges their existence, and, above all, it utilises their efforts. The Government have shown appreciation of the value of getting workers and employers together in a room. The Bill encourages confidence, it facilitates agreement by persons who have a vital interest in the well-being of trade, and a vital interest in maintaining it, if possible, in a prosperous condition. Just in the same way, when by the conflict of antagonistic trades, you sometimes arrive at an agreement, but sometimes you arrive at an impasse. This Bill provides a trained man to decide when an impasse arises, but much more often I hope he will guide the trade board to a decision by advice, and not by being required to give a definite decision. This whole system has worked well under skilled persons. This whole system has been worked under very difficult circumstances and in very different trades. It has been worked in organised trades, where you are able to take witnesses and get coherent statements as between the two parties. It has been worked by a gentleman of great experience and skill, who has devoted many days and months to the consideration of the subject. The machinery of this Bill is necessary in order to apply that system, which already has been proved in the organised trades to be, at any rate, of a good deal of value to trades where the workers have not education, have not representatives, and are too timid and miserable to be able to organise their trades, which are often ones of some complexity for themselves. All this Bill does is to take, as it were, the methods which in the organised trades have been arrived at by long evolution, often involving very great suffering. You endeavour to replace their want of organisation in these very miserable and poor trades by the aid of the State.

I have not endeavoured to cover the whole ground, but I do not disguise from myself that there are some formidable and serious difficulties in this legislation. It has been said that there are certain poor workers who cannot earn more than the pittance which they do earn. That probably is perfectly true, and the establishment of a minimum wage in their trades and industries will probably deprive—it is said that it will deprive—these poor people of their employment. I admit that that probably is true, and that you will give by this legislation no further opportunity to that patient valour and that innate self-respect which is shown by these poor people, and which has driven them to accept the miserable wages and the conditions of horror in order to preserve their self respect and to preserve them from the workhouse. I believe that will be the case, and to withdraw that employment from these people, and to take away that opportunity of their showing their immense courage, is a very serious step; but on the whole I think it can be justified in the first place by an argument, which is a very valuable one, made by the hon. Member for Paddington at a former stage. These industries are often parasitic. These workers are often relieved by the poor law; their wages are supplemented by it, and, therefore, they cannot be said to be dependent wholly on the industries. Moreover, I myself face the position—I think it is useless not to have the courage to face it—that it is absolutely better that some industries should perish than that they should continue necessary under such conditions as now obtain. I say that more particularly in view of some of the recommendations of both the majority and the minority of the Poor Law Commission. They point out that in the future unemployed persons should be in the first place rigidly classified, that in the case of those who have shown—I do not think they say this, but I say it—that in the case of those who have shown such splendid moral virtues and courage as are involved in facing these tremendous hours of labour, if the industry be destroyed which has evoked those qualities, it is the duty of the authority which shall then be set up to educate them in other employments and provide for them temporarily during the course of their education. That appears to be the answer with respect to the maintenance of those industries which involve such deplorable consequences. That is the most serious argument that I need notice at the present time. I do not think that I need enter into others on the second reading of the Bill. They can be dealt with in the Committee which I have no doubt will be set up. "That our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth; that our daughters may be as corner stones, polished after the similitude of a palace," is a noble aspiration. I can imagine no more humane aspiration, but I must say that it seems a mockery if we remain 20 years after the evils have been exposed without moving—not by a revolutionary measure, but by a measure which has much principle and reason to support it—in the direction of aiding those who really have to go through life without any hope and without any joy.

I rise to support the second reading of the Bill as one actively associated with one of the main industries concerned. I am in cordial agreement with its main principles, because the measure proposes to deal with an admitted evil—namely, that of sweating—and in so far as it seeks to secure a fair and living wage to those engaged in the industries named in the Bill, I believe it will receive the support of every side of this House. I believe the Bill ought to go to a Committee for careful consideration. I quite admit that the concerns proposed to be dealt with by the Bill are exceedingly serious, and, in my opinion, prolonged consideration will be necessary if the Bill is to be of value to the workers or to the trades. It may quite easily be harmful to both. I am perfectly well aware that the lace manufacturers of Nottingham view the Bill with considerable alarm. They believe it will be harassing and vexatious. The Lace Finishers' Association of Nottingham, as well as the Chamber of Commerce of the city, believe that the proposals in the Bill will prove serious and harmful to the trade. I have their reports in my hand, and both of these associations report unanimously in that direction. But I believe they are both mistaken. I have no doubt the Bill will be seriously opposed by both these associations. For my own part I regard the fears expressed by these societies as greatly exaggerated. I imagine that things will go on pretty much the same after the passing of the Bill as they have before. I have no fear, at any rate, that the industries concerned will be ruined, and I think the establishment of trade boards and trade committees will be of very considerable value to the trades themselves, and to fair employers the establishment of minimum rates of pay can do absolutely nothing but good. The trades concerned, I am quite certain, will easily accommodate themselves to the new conditions.

In the lace trades in Nottingham, so far as indoor workers are concerned at any rate, the wages earned as a whole are probably higher than among any other class of female workers in the country. The workers' point of view, therefore, is important, because this Bill affects not only the outdoor worker but the indoor worker. But I want to remind the President of the Board of Trade that the establishment of minimum rates for highly skilled workers may result in the reduction of wages rather than in their increase, because it is important to remember that minimum rates have a tendency to become maximum rates, if not very carefully applied; and in that case of course from our point of view they would do more harm than good. Even at the present moment in Nottingham a majority of the lace finishing houses have already agreed on a minimum rate of pay for outdoor workers, and the conditions from that point of view have considerably improved, or at any rate have somewhat improved during the past year. But I want to call the President's attention to clause 6, because it is there proposed that any employer shall in cases to which the maximum rate is applicable pay wages to the person employed at not less than the minimum rates. I want to ask in the case of out workers who is the person employed? Is it the middle woman who takes the work from the warehouse, or the person she employs to do the work? If it is the person who does the work who is to receive the minimum rate of pay, and who is to pay the middle woman in the lace industry? The middle woman for outdoor work is absolutely indispensable. She is the person who receives the work from the various warehouses, distributes it to the people in their own homes, who do much or little of the work according as their circumstances permit, and she collects the work when it is finished, takes it back to the warehouses, and then pay the wages according to the amount earned, and thousands of pounds every week are paid in Nottingham in wages for outdoor work in this manner. Does the Bill seek to improve the lot of the outworker? So far as the lace trade is concerned the work is intermittent. Now it is busy, and now it is slack, and workers have to accommodate themselves to this by arranging their household accordingly, and there are many of these families wholly dependent on the outdoor work that they do. I want to ask is the Bill likely ultimately to do them any good? Will they thank the Government for it? I believe that the very greatest care will be necessary in the Committee stage of this Bill, and that it will be better to go slowly rather than to make haste perhaps in the wrong direction. With regard to the trade committees which the Bill proposes to set up, it seems to me that the Bill is over-weighted so far as officialism is concerned. It is proposed to set up in every trade three officials. Inspectors and supervisors may also be appointed. It will certainly be very expensive, and it is rather calculated, I think, to be irritating than to do any real good. With regard to clause 18, in which it is proposed to pay the representative members of these trade committees out of pocket expenses and reasonable remuneration I am afraid that that may be open to considerable abuse. My own opinion is very strong that in this particular very much better voluntary work could be done, and it is work that is far more likely to be helpful than if these trades' representatives are paid. I believe a better class of men or women, as the case may be, will be secured if this voluntary principle remains, but having said so much I may add that I shall vote with much pleasure for the second reading of this Bill.

moved as an Amendment to leave out all the words after "That," in order to insert, "In the opinion of the House, no legislation can be effective to secure fair wages for workers in this country which does not prevent foreigners who work at lower wages from sending the product of their cheaper labour here in competition with them." In proposing the Amendment of which I have given notice I hope it will not be necessary to detain the House at any great length, because some of the chief arguments on which the Amendment is based were urged with great force, and I hope not wholly without effect, in the course of recent Debates upon this and cognate subjects. I think it may be taken as agreed that there is a general desire in all sections of this House and among all classes of the public that some effective steps should be taken to put down sweating. To put it down with a strong hand it should be in such a way that any legislation directed against sweating should operate upon that evil, and not to the detriment of any trade in which that evil exists. The present Bill claims to deal with the evil of sweating, but it claims to deal with the evil of sweating in British labour by British labour. I submit it is equally important to protect British workpeople against foreign sweating, for sweating is equally mischievous and equally unfair whether it be British or foreign. In the evidence given before the Home Industries Committee, to which reference has been made in the course of this Debate, some interesting particulars were mentioned and some striking examples were given of the effect upon British industries of sweated labour carried on abroad—notably in the evidence of Miss Davis and of Miss Walker. The objection to this Bill is that in providing for fair wages in this country it will leave foreigners free to send their products here without any restriction. It has been said that the lines of industry concerned in this Bill are not such as are likely to be affected by importation. I cannot conceive it is possible that that contention would be seriously maintained by anyone who is cognisant of the facts.

The trades affected by the Government Bill are the trades of tailoring, cardboard box making, machine-made lace making, and ready-made gloves, and these are precisely the trades in which the lowest wages are paid. They are precisely the trades in which sweating of the workers is carried on—a fact which is sufficiently established by the introduction of this Bill and the limitation of its operations to these particular trades. These are trades which are sweated both at home and abroad, and at home because they are sweated abroad, for it is unquestionable that the low rates of wages paid for piecework in these various trades would not be acceptable in this country, and would not be accepted, if the miserable people who are compelled to accept them were not compelled thereto by the knowledge that the rates which are offered to them, miserably mean and contemptible as they are, are still a trifle higher than the rates paid on the other side of the Channel; and that if these people refused to accept these mean and contemptible wages it would be perfectly possible for their employers to send the labour which they now give to them to the other side of the Channel at still lower rates. In each of these trades the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill would inevitably raise the cost of production here, and what producer would submit to the increased cost if he could avoid it? And he could avoid it in these trades. He could avoid it by the simple expedient of having his goods manufactured abroad, where the provision of the Bill would not apply, and sent over here, whither they may be freely sent. The Secretary to the Board of Trade has said that evasion is no reason for inaction, and I am sure with that we shall all be in hearty agreement. The evasion of this law, if it becomes law, certainly would be no reason for inaction, but it would be a reason for strong action, and it is the strong action that my Amendment advocates. If you are going to legislate against an evil and you can prevent the evasion of your provision, why not prevent the evasion; and it is to that end that my Amendment is directed. If the expedient of importing from abroad at lower rates of wages than those which obtain at these trades in this country were generally adopted, our workpeople would be exchanging their underpaid labour for no labour at all; and that is not what the authors of this Bill aim at. We should in fact be prohibiting sweating at home for the benefit of the sweater abroad. We should be diminishing the amount of goods produced under sweated labour here, and increasing the amount of goods produced by sweated labour abroad. Even if this method of evasion were not generally adopted, those engaged in the trade who might not attempt to evade the provisions of the Bill would find themselves undercut by their less scrupulous competitors, and there would be no difficulty in transferring to foreign countries the labour employed in the trades concerned. As the Secretary of the Board of Trade has pointed out, the capital required in these businesses is extremely small and can easily be found. The Secretary to the Board of Trade has characterised the fear of foreign competition as an unreal and a negligible bogey, and he has suggested—it seems to have come rather as an afterthought—that there might be some means of arriving at an agreement with foreign nations to prevent this foreign competition. If this Bill had contemplated anything like that, my Amendment would have been unnecessary, but I suggest that what the Secretary to the Board of Trade says comes as an afterthought. Whether it would be valuable to arrange with foreign countries against the importation into this country of goods produced by sweated labour is a matter on which we need not at the present time express an opinion. The hon. Gentleman said that we had come to an agreement some years ago with reference to working phosphorus, but the cases are not at all analogous, and indeed are scarcely comparable. It is easy enough to understand that you may induce a foreign nation to enter into arrangements with a view to saving the lives and health of their citizens. That one can easily understand, but it is not so easily understandable that you would be able to induce foreign nations to enter into an agreement not to take advantage of your legislation for the benefit of their own citizens. I have said that if you are going to prohibit the employment of labour on sweated terms in this country, you must—in order to make that proceeding effective—take steps to prevent the importation into this country of goods produced by sweated labour abroad. That is particularly necessary in the case of the trades affected by this Bill. What is the position of these trades abroad? According to the recent publications of the "Office du Travail," the earnings in the tailoring trade in France, in the workroom where the ordinary class of goods is manufactured, are these: The men average 4f. a day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under protection."] Under protection? If they were without protection they would have the same sort of sweated wages that we have here. With regard to the men and women who have to work at home, the condition is very different from what it is here, the earnings being from 1f. 50c. to 2f. for a day of 12 hours. Workmen who work in the shop are paid from 5f. to 7f. a day for first-class goods, and the women are paid 2f. to 3f. a day. In the blouse trade in France, which is one of the four trades affected by this Bill, for a flannel-cotton blouse payment is 75 centimes, and for a lady's blouse of merino and cotton the payment is 50 centimes. It cannot be said that these figures are of very ancient date, because I have got them from the official record published in the "Office du Travail" in 1907. Then in regard to the lace trade, what difficulty would there be in the way of the transference from England to Calais or to any near place on the French coast of a trade which is no longer to be carried on under sweated conditions in England? According to the report in the "Office du Travail" in 1896, the salaries in the French lace industry employed in respect of tulle made by machinery was 4f. 95c. per day for men, and 2f. for women. There would surely be no great difficulty in transferring from England to France the card-box trade, where, according to the same official record, the rate is 3f. 50c. to men, and 1f. 45c. to women, for a day of 12 hours. They are not even limited to going to France. If it is desired to send the work abroad because it can no longer be done on sweated terms in England, it could be as easily sent to Belgium. According to the "Confection de Vêtements," the wages in Belgium for workmen over 16 years of age (according to the "Recensement Générale des Industries et des Métiers," published in 1902 by the Ministre de l'lndustrie et du Travail de Belgique, page 272), of 3,583 workmen, whose wages had been ascertained, 56 per cent. earned less than 2f. 50c. a day; 31 per cent. from 2f. 50c. to 4f. 50c. a day, and 12 per cent. more than 4f. 50c. per day. Of 1,002 women over 16 years of age 42 per cent. earned less than 1f. a day, and 49 per cent. from 1f. to 2f. 50c. a day. It is indeed the fear that the work may be sent to Belgium that induces the workers of London to work at the sweated wages which they now receive. In the lace trade in Belgium similar conditions exist. The wages of men over 16 years of age in the Belgium lace trade range from 2f. 50c. to 5f., while the wages of women range from If. 50c. to 3f. 90c. a day. In the cardboard box trade in Belgium of workmen over 16 years of age, calculated on 231 ascertained cases, it is found that 15 per cent. earned less than 2f. 50c. a day, and 73 per cent. earned from 2f. 50c. to 4f. 50c. a day. Of women over 16 years of age, in the 42 ascertained cases, 25 per cent. earned less than 1f. a day, and 70 per cent. earned from 1f. to 2f. 50c. a day. I say these figures establish absolutely two propositions. First of all, that the sweated rate of wages in England are influenced by the still more sweated rate of wages on the other side of the Channel, and consequently if you impose upon the manufacturers in these four trades incapacity to pay the present sweated rates of wages, there will be no difficulty in getting labour on the other side of the Channel, unless you take some steps to prevent it, which at present, however, in the absence of international agreement, such as has been outlined or suggested by the Secretary to the Beard of Trade, are not contemplated. I should like to go back to the proposition laid down by the expert witnesses before the Commission on Home Industries, that wages cannot be permanently raised above the market rate; but that is what this Bill proposes shall be done. It has been said that this is a revolution and an experiment. We can leave the revolution out of the question. An experiment undoubtedly it is—an experiment made, of course, in good faith, and made for an object which appeals to the sympathy of all men. Why not make the experiment under conditions which will give it a fair chance of success? Why should you make an experiment which has no chance of success? This experiment is foredoomed to failure because you are making it under conditions which are impossible. No legislation will effect a rise of wages which does not compel all competitors in the trades affected, whether British or foreign, to observe the minimum rate. This Bill overlooks that most important point, and it is for that reason I have moved this Amendment. Perhaps I should not be in order were I to attempt to discuss whether the report is true that at a later stage the Government will consent that this Bill shall not apply to Ireland. I do not suppose it is necessary to point out that if any such arrangement should be made the evil against which I protest would be intensified beyond all measure, because you would not only have goods produced by sweated labour and sent here from Belgium and France and other foreign countries, but you would have Ireland transformed into the very home of sweated industries. I have no doubt, or I think we all hope, that this report is without foundation.

indicated assent.

I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman assent to that, and I will say nothing further on the point. I beg to move.

I desire to second the Amendment, because I happened to be a member of the Committee which sat on the Home Industries question, in which no one feels more interest than I do, and a desire that legislation on the subject should be placed on the Statute Book. I heard the witnesses who came before that Committee and saw the evils from which certain of our fellow-countrymen are suffering. But I am also affected by the fact that this Bill deals with only half the difficulty, and, therefore, I implore the House to consider the Amendment which the hon. Member for Thanet has moved. In legislating in these days I think we want to count the cost more than we do at present. We want to foresee when this Bill is passed what effect it will have. I for my part view with a great deal of dread the effect of foreign competition upon our workers in this country. The whole House, I am sure, desires to benefit the home workers. There is no question about the merits of this Bill. But while we are trying to do good we should take care that there is no ill result. I know a factory which has been closed owing to the conditions of factory labour. That factory has been in existence one hundred years. It has now been closed and the machinery in it has been sold to America, and the amount of that machinery has to be added to our exports. That is a melancholy state of affairs. Take other trades. I am speaking of trades outside those which will come under this particular Bill, but which may be affected by later legislation. Take the case of German cartridge makers. I think it has been admitted that in Germany they make better cartridges than we do in England. The cartridges they manufacture for miniature rifles and also for the army shoot straighter than cartridges manufactured here, and they are in many ways superior to the English-manufactured article. Why is that? Simply because our regulations with regard to explosives and the rules under which cartridges are manufactured do not apply in Germany, where, consequently, they are able to supply a better article at a cheaper price than we can in this country. That is a cognate example of what will take place in regard to those trades which are mentioned in the Bill.

I do hope that the Board of Trade may see their way, if they do not adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend, to adopt some safeguard by which this evil can be avoided. We do not care what they call it; we will not consider it any attempt towards Tariff Reform if they will only consider this matter on a practical basis, if they could only see their way to get a certificate from a consul abroad that goods should not come into this country without some sort of protection or safeguard, however slight. Other suggestions might be made to remedy this evil, but I do earnestly appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to consider this matter. It was mentioned during the course of the Home Industries Committee that, as a matter of fact, one of the trades here affected, viz., lace making in Belfast, was absolutely being undersold in the market place of Belfast by lace at the present time being made in Japan under conditions that were absolutely different to the manufacture of lace in that country. It must be borne in mind that the people we are now trying to help are not altogether on our side. There are a great many persons who strongly object to legislation on the subject. I recollect listening with great interest to one poor woman who came before the Committee. She said she preferred very much working at home to factory labour of any kind. She said it would be better for her to accept a lower rate of wages if she could take the work home than work in the factory. We understood her on the subject, and we saw at once her point. She said she would have to walk a considerable distance to the factory, wait her turn amongst a large crowd of persons, and sometimes there would be no work to be got. If she went into the factory she would have to work certain specified hours, and do nothing else during the time. On the other hand, if she could take her work home she could do it when she liked, how she liked, and in intervals of domestic work. She was very strongly against legislation in the direction of killing home industries. I venture to second the Amendment.

I rise to support the principle of this Bill, and I agree that it is not revolutionary in character, but that it is experimental. I do not know if I should be in order in expressing my appreciation of the high tone and deep sympathy of the speech of my right hon. Friend with the weak and helpless of our land. If the Bill is experimental in character I quite agree that its application must be cautious, that we should be content to go step by step, and that extreme care should be taken that typical cases only should be included in its application. I go so far as to say that in any attempt to increase the standard wage we ought to exercise great care that it should be done gradually, and not to cause any more hardship than possible on the trade interests affected thereby.

I think it would be of interest to the House and may help the House to form a judgment on the principle of this Bill if I were to lay before them a particular industry, which is largely located in my own Constituency. To my mind it is a typical case to which this Bill might be safely applied—I refer to the chain trade. T am going to content myself by shortly stating the facts, leaving those facts themselves to supply the argument. I am going to inform the House first where the chain trade in this country is located. With the exception of five firms, the whole of the chain trade is located in a small area about three miles square. It is situated in the corner of South Staffordshire, where it joins on to North Worcestershire. The greater part is in my own Constituency, part of it is in the Constituency of North Worcestershire, represented by my right hon. Friend, and also partly in the Constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, both of whom, I am glad to say, support the principle of this Bill. I will call this particular area in which practically the whole of the trade is located the Cradley area. The five firms outside that area, who alone are interested in the making of chains in England, are situated at Pontypridd, Chester, St. Helens, Gateshead-on-Tyne, and Shifnal, so that we have here a trade which is centred in a small area, and I think I shall be able to point out that, therefore, it is the more easy to apply the principle of this Bill.

Secondly, as to the extent of this trade, I think for the purpose of explanation I might divide it into three classes. There are first what is called the good employers—I am glad to say the great bulk of them come under that designation—I think they are about 30 in all, and employ about 1,400 hands. The adjective "good," is relative only to the standard of wages which those employers pay. I am happy to say that the best relations exist between those employers and the operatives, and that they pay a standard rate of wages accepted by both those parties. It is one evidence of the good effect which trade unions have had upon our industries. I believe it is a fact that prior to the formation of a trade union among the chain-making operatives about 15 years ago, strikes and disputes, and differences between masters and men were of constant occurrence, whereas since that time, now over 15 years ago, not one single strike has ever occurred. Then comes the small sweating firms. They are, I believe, about 12 in number. I use the word sweating not in an offensive sense, but simply to indicate that they are paying a rate of wages much below the standard rate of wage. I believe as a matter of fact they are paying as much as 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. below the standard wage. These few firms, about 12 in number, employing from 5 to 30 hands each, employ altogether about 200 hands.

In addition to those two classes of employers there are the outworkers. I do not know whether the House is cognisant of what an outworker in the chain trade means. An outworker is one who goes to the manufacturer's warehouse, gets the iron, takes it home, and in a small workshop which is called a domestic workshop attached to their own home, they make up this iron into chains. They have to return that chain to the warehouse of a certain weight as against the tonnage of iron which they have taken away. Those outworkers comprise about 800 to 1,000 females, and also about 800 men with a few boys. Let me say that the evil of sweating and female labour is confined altogether in this trade to the Cradley district. With regard to the five firms I have mentioned, there is no female labour at all, and there are no outworkers at all, except in the Cradley area. I have already said that the good employer pays a standard wage, and the small manufacturers, whom I designated as sweaters, paid from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. less than the standard wage. Then comes lastly this blot upon our fair name, the case of these outworkers. It is evident that the trade is a laborious and exhaustive one, yet the wages of the outworkers range from 6s. to 12s. per week, and the wages paid to those females range from 4s. to 7s. per week. Although I admit with respect to a few of the females, about 50 in number who make a special quality of chain they are able to earn from 10s. to 12s. per week. In order to obtain those wages they have to work long hours at this laborious and exhaustive work. Those outworkers are employed partly by the good employers and partly by the sweaters. I believe the proportion is about one-half each. The good employers are only too anxious that the standard of wages should be lifted up and improved, but the force of competition is such that unless it works all round it is quite impossible for this to be done.

Lastly, I want to state to the House what is the opinion of the chain trade as a whole with regard to being scheduled under this Bill. I think that upon this I can place very strong testimony before the House. I am informed by the hon. secretary of the Chainmasters Association—who has been secretary for 25 years—that every one of the good employers agrees that this trade should be placed in the schedule of this Bill. They say not only that the sweating is bad for the employés who receive such miserable wages under such hard conditions, but also that it is fatal to the reputation of the trade itself. Only last Saturday I was speaking to the ex-Mayor of Dudley, who gave me a concrete case illustrating this phase of the question. He told me that a few months ago he was in Canada, going about with his eyes open to gain all the information he could industrially, and when in one of the shipping yards he saw a quantity of chain. He referred to the fact that he was then Mayor of Dudley, near Cradley, the home of the chain trade. "Oh," said the gentleman to whom he was speaking, "you know Cradley, do you? All I can say is that we shall have no more chain from Cradley, as the last lot we had was such shoddy stuff that it broke like single wire." The hope and expectation which the good employers have as to the ultimate effect of this Bill is that it will prevent this shoddy manufacture of chain which is being sent abroad to the detriment of the good name of the trade. Then I am able to state that practically the whole of the 1,400 hands engaged by good employers in their factories in the Cradley area are anxious that the Bill should apply to their trade. In addition to that, practically the whole of the outworkers are looking forward with keen anxiety to the scheduling of their trade as the only hope they have that their standard of living will be raised, and that they may be enabled to face life with a little more hope and joy. The only firms for which I cannot speak are what, without any desire to be opprobrious, I call the sweating firms, and the operatives engaged by them. I am happy to think that this is not a party question. The amount of chain imported into this country is a negligible quantity, and among the good employers are both Tariff Reformers and Free Traders. I believe the chairman of the Chainmasters Association is a Tariff Reformer. I hope that this grave scandal, which for over 20 years has been apparent in the industrial life of our country—this employment of female labour in such exhausting work at such scandalous rates—will, by the operation of this Bill, soon be at an end, that their conditions of life will be improved, and that, if they are to continue in the industry, they will have a fair reward for their work. The system has been looked upon by both parties as one of those blots which we all desire to see eliminated. We look upon this Bill as the first practical attempt to remedy this and similar abuses, and therefore I warmly support it.