Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 6: debated on Wednesday 16 June 1909

House of Commons

Wednesday, June 16, 1909

Private Business

Sligo and Bundoran Railway Bill,

Considered; to be read the third time.

Returns

Gas Undertakings

Return ordered "relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom, other than those of Local Authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of December, 1908 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 180, of Session 1909)."—[ Mr. Tennant. ]

Return ordered "relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to Local Authorities for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1909 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 181, of Session 1909)."—[ Mr. Tennant. ]

Oral Answers to Questions

Questions

King's Birthday (Holiday)

asked whether, on the occasion of the King's birthday, it is intended to grant the same holiday to the men employed at the Deptford Victualling Yard and the West India Dock Naval Stores as to those engaged at Woolwich and Pimlico?

It is not proposed to make any change in the present year.

Will a holiday be conferred on the Navy on account of the King having won the Derby?

Yes; the holiday on the King's birthday is at present paid for, but I do not think that is the substance underlying the question of the hon. Member for Deptford.

Battleships (Relative Values)

asked what, in the opinion of the Admiralty, are the relative values, for the purpose of computing the two-Power standard, of battleships of identical fighting power at Kiel, Toulon, Pola, Nagasaki, San Francisco, and New York?

May I ask, before the question is answered, whether any useful purpose is served by answering the question in view of the fact that the two-Power standard has been abolished?

The relative values of battleships of identical fighting power in these respective ports would be one of equality.

But for the purpose of the two-Power standard which is that of an aggressive fleet of foreign ships against a defensive fleet of British ships in home waters, what would the relative value of those ships be?

The hon. Member has not stated to me where he pre-supposes the battle fleets are to come in contact with each other.

Naval Review (Imperial Press Delegates)

asked how many battleships, armoured cruisers, other cruisers, scouts, and destroyers were present at the review of the Fleet at Spithead on 12th June; were all these ships in full commission; and how many of each class were laid down since 1st April, 1906?

24 battleships, 16 armoured cruisers, 7 other cruisers, 4 scouts, 46 destroyers. All were in commission with full crews. Three of the battleships, the "Bellerophon," "Tememire," and "Superb," 1 armoured cruiser, the "Invincible," and 1 destroyer, the "Mohawk," were laid down since 1st April, 1906.

In view of the fact that only 10 per cent. of these ships were provided by the present Government is there any intention at once to proceed with the four additional battleships?

I do not see the immediate connection between the premises and the conclusion.

South Atlantic Squadron

asked for what purpose the South Atlantic Squadron was constituted in 1904; and why it was abolished the same year?

The South Atlantic Squadron was constituted for convenience of administration in 1903 from the vessels employed on the South East Coast of America and West Coast of Africa. The squadron was withdrawn at the end of 1904 as part of the general scheme of redistribution of the fleet which took place at the time.

Could the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? For what purpose it was constituted? What was the object of placing the ships in those waters?

I think any question as to the purpose of the administration in 1903 had better be addressed privately to the hon. Member for Fareham.

Am I to understand that I am not to address the right hon. Gentleman as the responsible Minister in charge of the Admiralty?

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the purpose for which a change was made in 1903. I suggest that any question as to what the purpose may have been should be addressed to the hon. Member for Fareham.

Royal Marines

asked what number of Royal Marines were on shore and embarked on each 1st April for the last five years?

The number of Royal Marines who were on shore and embarked on each 31st March for the last five years were as follows:—

Does not this great diminution in the number of Marines ashore greatly diminish their military efficiency?

Naval Ratings Available on Shore

asked how many active-service ratings remained available on shore on 12th June?

This information cannot be given without reference to the Home Ports, and cannot be obtained in time to answer this question on the day for which it is put down.

Airships (Naval Guns)

asked whether steps are being taken to fit warships with any guns capable of firing at such an elevation that they may be used conveniently against airships?

The design of mountings suitable for this purpose has been commenced with a view of supplying them to ships should future experience show this to be desirable.

Royal Naval Reserve (Nucleus Crews)

asked whether the Royal Naval Reserve is trained on ships with nucleus crews or in full commission; and what was its strength on 1st April last, and on the same date in 1906?

As a general rule the training of executive officers and seamen and stokers of the Home Royal Naval Reserve takes place in ships with nucleus crews—that is to say, the Third Division of the Home Fleet; but when more convenient—for instance, when ships are in Scotland—men are embarked for training in fully-manned ships. Warrant engineers and engine-room artificers of the Royal Naval Reserve carry out their training in fully-manned ships. The strength of the Home Royal Naval Reserve on 1st April, 1906, was 1,965 officers, 27,209 men; total, 29,174. And on 1st April, 1909, 1,836 officers, 20,216 men; total, 22,052.

May I ask whether this diminution of 7,000 may not be due to the objection of the men to serve in the nucleus crews of the ships?

Oh, no, Sir; the diminution was contemplated at the time the change was made in 1906.

New Battleships (Contracts)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any official information to show that one of the capital ships of the German naval (1909) programme is to be constructed in the imperial yard and the contract for the other would be placed with a private firm; and whether, having regard to the previous announcement that the contract for these vessels would be withheld until after the conditions for tendering had been drawn up late in the summer, the provision made in the present Navy Estimates for the laying down of four battleships in the current financial year is sufficient?

We have no official information as to the facts alleged in the first part of the question.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has any unofficial information on the subject?

I only know the circumstances which are known to the hon. Gentleman opposite. He probably read the statement in the newspapers which I have read.

Jury System in Gold Coast Colony

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received the promised Report on the jury system in the Gold Coast Colony and West Africa generally; and, if so, will he lay it upon the Table?

The Governors of the West African Colonies and Protectorates have been requested to furnish the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers; but, as it will be necessary for them to consult their law officers and the judges, and, having regard to the time required in any case to receive replies from the Governors by post, I am afraid that it will be some time yet before all the Reports are received.

Indentured Labour (New Hebrides)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the number of natives indentured for labour inside the New Hebrides group during 1908 and 1909; and how many were indentured for labour outside the group, male and female respectively, and to what territories they were assigned?

The particulars at present available are as follows: For the year ended 31st December last the British Resident Commissioner issued 20 licences to recruit a total of 730 labourers for service with British subjects within the group. Up to the 31st October last the engagement of 155 labourers under these licences had been notified. For the current year the Resident Commissioner has issued three licences to recruit 85 labourers for service with British subjects within the New Hebrides. No natives of the New Hebrides have been recruited for labour outside the group in any place under British control. Further particulars, with which I shall be happy to supply the hon. Gentleman, are expected to arrive in a few weeks.

May I ask if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will secure the figures covering the natives recruited for other British territories outside, such as New Caledonia?

Well, as I explained in my answer, no natives can be or will be recruited for New Caledonia outside the group by our own officials, but under the condominium it is possible for French agents to recruit for work outside the group. On that I will endeavour to obtain information, but it may be difficult to get it.

May I ask if the Government do not require their Resident Commissioner to send these figures regularly, so that we may have a general understanding as to the recruiting of natives, both for our own territories and others outside?

I think the figures will be available, but I wish to enter a caveat, and state that we are dealing with this matter under the condominium between England and France. I am not quite certain that the figures will be available, but I will endeavour to get them.

May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he will publish the terms under which licences to recruit are granted?

Of course, the terms of the agreements have already been made public, but if there is any general wish that I should lay further Papers on the subject I will be glad to do so.

If my hon. Friend will put down a question on the Paper I will be glad to answer it.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform us whether the recruiting of women and children is prohibited by the French?

Education Inspectors, Orange River Colony (Dismissal)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give the promised information respecting the recent dismissal of three British inspectors of education in the Orange River Colony, and, in particular, what are the reasons alleged for such dismissal; and whether any opportunity was given to the officials to explain or defend themselves against the charges, if any, made against them?

The Secretary of State has not yet received a full statement of the facts, but has been informed by the Governor that in the opinion of his advisers the inspectors in question were guilty of perverse misconstruction of Ministerial and Departmental instructions in regard to the recent Education Act, thereby showing want of sympathy with the purposes of the Act, if not actual opposition to it, and rendering their further retention of office impossible. No definite charges are understood to have been preferred. The action taken appears to have been within the competence of the Government, and has been approved by the Legislative Assembly. It is understood that any leave and pension privileges which the officers may possess will be recognised.

Do His Majesty's Government propose to take any action with regard to this matter, or are they awaiting further information on the subject?

I am not very clear what action we could take, because the matter is one within the competence of a self-governing colony. In any case I think it would be no doubt wise to wait for further information. I observe in yesterday's papers that Mr. Brown, who is not unfavourable to the British official view, was reported to have defended the Government on this matter, and I think, to have said that the Government has been unfairly treated. That was in the "Morning Post" of yesterday, so that there must he some further information which has not yet come to hand.

Persia Railways (Russian Rights)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement between Russia and Persia providing for certain preferential and exclusive rights in respect of railways within the latter, in favour of the former, country is still in force?

I am not aware that there is any such agreement as is described by the hon. Member. But if he refers to the Agreement which formed the subject of the reply to the hon. Member for the Ripon Division on the 10th instant, the answer is that that Agreement is still in force, as far as His Majesty's Government are aware.

May I ask whether there was any agreement in existence before the recent troubles came on?

Not that I am aware of. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there was no agreement for the construction of railways.

Works Department, Egypt (Administration)

asked whether any steps have yet been taken to reform the administration of the Works Department in Egypt?

All the information in my possession on this subject is contained in the last paragraph of section 25 of Sir Eldon Gorst's Annual Report for 1908. (Egypt, No. 1, 1909, page 24.)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the late Consul-General for Egypt reported that the administration of this Department was simply scandalous?

I think if the hon. Gentleman will refer to that paragraph he will see that reforms have been effected and are now at work.

Sir Horace Plunkett (Mr. Roosevelt's Letter)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the letter addressed by Mr. Roosevelt to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, in which acknowledgments were expressed to Ireland and Sir Horace Plunkett, was forwarded to the Irish Office?

My right hon. Friend has already in effect answered this question. He has stated that he consulted the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to whether there was any reason for departing from the usual practice of not publishing officially private communications of this nature. Of course, my right hon. Friend asked the Chief Secretary to peruse the letter.

Am I to understand that the Foreign Office considers that this communication from President Roosevelt was a private communication, and not intended for publication?

Is it not a fact that this letter has been published by Sir Horace Plunkett, both in America and in Ireland, until we are all sick of it?

I would say that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) should speak for himself.

Troops in Crete (Evacuation)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any change of plan with reference to the evacuation of the island of Crete by the troops of the protecting Powers?

Post Office Rules (Opening of Private Letters)

asked the Postmaster-General if he will explain the rules or practice governing the opening of the letters of private persons while passing through the Post Office, especially how it is that, while there is no instance of crime being prevented or detected by opening the letters of known criminals, letters to and from persons acting in the public interest and from public motives, if troublesome to the Government, are opened in transit; and whether the right of the Department to open private letters is claimed in the public interest or only in the interest of the Government for the time being?

The only provision in the Post Office Regulations of the kind re- ferred to by the hon. Member is that authorising the opening of letters which prove to be undeliverable, for the purpose of securing their return to the senders. The Postmaster-General and his officers have no power to open letters for any other purpose, except under the express authority and direction of a Secretary of State, or, in the case of Ireland, of the Lord Lieutenant, issued in virtue of section 56 of the Post Office Act, 1908, which reproduces the earlier statutory enactment contained in 1 Vic., cap. 36, section 25. It is not within my province to deal with the other points raised in the hon. Member's question.

Post Office and Fair Wages Clause

asked the Postmaster-General whether the inquiry into a complaint made in January of last year respecting the firm of Charles Webster, Limited, mail contractors, not observing the fair wage clause in the payment of the farriers in their employ has yet been completed; if so, will he state with what result; and whether he can state the amount of the present contract, and when it terminates?

I have recently called upon Messrs. Charles Webster, Limited, to increase the wages paid to the farriers whom they employ in connection with their contract for mail cart services; and I hope to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement with them. The contract will terminate on 30th June, 1910.

Postal Servants (Vaccination)

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the medical men attached to his Department are refusing to accept persons for employment unless they can exhibit good marks of primary and secondary vaccination; and whether this is done with his sanction?

Candidates for employment in the Post Office who have a conscientious objection to re-vaccination are allowed exemption therefrom on making a statutory declaration to the effect that they conscientiously believe that re-vaccination would be prejudicial to their health. Primary vaccination is, however, necessary. There is no reason to suppose that the rules are not properly observed; but if any case thought to have been improperly dealt with is brought to my notice I will have inquiry made.

Old Age Pension Cancelled (Mary Mulhern, Strabane)

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state why Mary Mulhern, Stragally, Strabane, who received the old age pension for over four months, has now been refused further payment at the post office at Commeen; and will he say whether she can renew her application and prove that she is over 70 years of age, if that be the ground of refusing her the pension?

I have already asked the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question for a week or 10 days. That time has not yet elapsed, and we have not yet obtained the further information that he asks for. If he puts down the question for this day week I hope then to have the information.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been postponed three times?

Landless Cottars (Lewis)

asked the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Board propose to take any steps to provide land for the landless families of six cottars of South Shaldbest, who recently, to save their children from starvation, planted potatoes on a corner of Dalbeg Farm, Island of Lewis; and whether he is aware that the heads of these families are men of unblemished character, and all have served for long terms in His Majesty's military and naval forces?

The men referred to, whose description as given by my hon. Friend I have no reason to doubt, have chosen to take the law into their own hands by entering on and utilising land for which another person pays rent, and I cannot admit that such action constitutes a claim on the Congested Districts Board. As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 28th April, the Board do not propose to take steps in the direction indicated, as the proprietor, having given full consideration to the cottars' application, is not prepared to subdivide the farm for this purpose.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Secretary for Scotland to do something for these unfortunate people, or whether it is the practice in any civilised country to send their soldiers and sailors to gaol for preventing their families from starving, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inquire into the matter?

May I ask whether one of the objects for which the Congested Districts Board was instituted was to take land for landless people?

Scotch Fishery Board Cruiser

asked the Lord Advocate if he will state the name of the new Fishery Board cruiser; whether her trial trip was satisfactory; and what waters she has been detailed to patrol?

The official trial trip of the new fishery cruiser "Norna" was run on 4th May, and proved quite satisfactory. The Board's cruisers have no fixed patrol, but are moved about according to the exigencies of the service.

Small Holdings (Kent)

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the members of the Edenbridge land club recently applied to the Kent County Council for a farm known as Skeynes farm, which was then vacant and suitable for division into small holdings, but that, owing to delay on the part of the council in taking steps to secure it, the farm has now been relet; whether any report has been made by the Commissioners to the Board with regard to this parish; and, if so, whether the Board will now forward the report to the county council, under the terms of the Act, so as to ensure the provision of land for these applicants?

We are in communication with the county council as to the acquisition of the farm mentioned, and have forwarded to them a copy of the report of our inspector who visited the parish.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question as to whether a report has been made by the Commissioners to the Board with regard to this parish?

We have sent a copy of the report of our inspector to the county council.

Am I to understand that the county council will be obliged within six months to carry out a scheme in that parish?

Are there any circumstances in which the Board will be willing to issue a report to the county council for the enforcement of the Act?

Argentine Cattle (Infection)

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether there exist at the Board of Agriculture well-authenticated cases of infection from Argentine cattle, slaughtered at ports of disembarkation in the United Kingdom, being communicated to cattle and herds in this country; and, failing such records, will the Board of Agriculture reconsider its decision to prohibit the entry of Argentine cattle here, even though slaughtered at entry here?

There is no record of the occurrence of any cases of the character to which my hon. Friend refers, but, as I have already stated in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division, the Board are not in a position, in view of their statutory duties in the matter, to adopt the course suggested.

Police Weekly Rest (Provinces)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue a circular to provincial police authorities pointing out that he proposes gradually to introduce into the regulations of the Metropolitan Police the system of a weekly rest-day for that force, and urging the provincial, county, and urban police authorities to make similar arrangements for the police forces under their control.

This matter rests entirely upon the local authorities. The Committee which reported on this matter recently recommended that the Bill applying to the whole of England should not be proceeded with. No doubt the action of the Government in regard to the Metropolis, in deciding to give the police a day of rest, may influence authorities outside the Metropolis.

Is it not a fact that different counties have already power to grant one day's rest to the police?

Gravity of Beer

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of samples of worts or beer taken from brewers for sale for analysis of the original gravity during the period when the Inland Revenue staff, through work in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act, was insufficiently manned, say, during each of the half-years ending the 31st March, 1908, and the 31st March, 1909, with, for each of these periods, the number of brewers sampled and the number of cases in which the original gravity was found to exceed by one degree or more the gravity entered by the brewer; the number of surcharges of duty; the number of compromise fines inflicted, stating the highest and lowest fines; the number of prosecutions in court; and the number of cases pending?

I am causing to be printed with the Votes the information asked for by my hon. Friend. [ See Written Answers this date. ]

Cider Tax (Yield)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of revenue he estimates to receive from the proposed tax on the manufacture of cider for sale?

As was stated in the answer given on the 20th May to the hon. Member for the Ross Division of Herefordshire, I am not in a position to give an exact estimate of the revenue to be derived from these licences.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of persons who keep cider for sale?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this tax will fall with special severity on Somersetshire and other places in the West of England where cider is made?

I hope to be able to give a more definite answer in a short time with regard to that.

Taxation of Ungotten Minerals

asked if clay will be classed as a mineral under the Finance Bill; and, if so, whether the whole of the land of the Thames Valley will be subject to the tax on ungotten minerals?

asked whether the term mineral includes liquid minerals, such as metalliferous waters produced at Harrogate and Bath, and natural gas produced at Heath-field, Sussex?

I will answer these two questions together. Any minerals which have a separate market value as such will be liable to duty under the Finance Bill.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question whether clay is a mineral is already before the House of Lords on appeal?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that these minerals in the Thames Valley have no separate market value at all.

Valuation (Experience of Commissioners)

asked whether any one or more of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have had any practical experience of the valuation of houses and also of land, including agricultural land; and, if so, where and how that experience, in the case of each of the Commissioners, has been gained?

The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are not presumed under the Finance Bill to be technical experts. Their function will be to exercise practical judgment in deciding valuation questions with the aid of the professional staff with which they will be supplied.

Am I to understand that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have had no experience of the valuations which are mentioned in the question?

I am not aware that they are technical experts, but they decide as judges with the assistance of technical experts.

The question I ask is have they or have they not had practical experience? I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that I must understand his reply, in the absence of definite information, to mean that they have not had practical experience.

Income Tax (Isle of Man)

asked whether, under the Finance Bill (clause 50), residents in the Isle of Man will be able to claim exemption, abatement, or relief under the Income Tax Acts, or whether they will, for the purposes of these Acts, be regarded as residing outside the United Kingdom?

The Isle of Man is not included in the United Kingdom for purposes of taxation, and persons resident in the island are not resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of clause 50 of the Finance Bill.

Grants for Road Improvements

asked whether it is still intended that the yield of the taxes on motors and petrol should be earmarked for road improvements and administered by a central road authority; whether it is intended to make grants from the produce of these taxes to local authorities to defray the cost of ordinary road maintenance; and, if so, whether, if agricultural land is to be relieved of highway rates to the extent of 4d. in the pound by this means, any money will be left at the disposal of the central road authority for road improvements?

asked whether it is intended to devote any portion of the proceeds of the petrol duty or the extra licence duty on motor cars to the reduction of the existing highway rates?

I will answer these two questions together. I must refer the hon. members to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Barkston Ash Division.

Is there to be only one central authority or is there to be one for each country?

That question does not arise at all out of this. I would like to have notice of it.

New Licence Duties (Yield)

asked what is the estimated yield in the Metropolitan area, during the present year and a full year, respectively, of the new licence duties on publicans' full licences and hotels and restaurants respectively, assuming the number of licences to remain unaltered?

also asked what is the estimated approximate yield in the present year and a full year, respectively, of the new licence duties on publicans' full licences and hotels and restaurants, respectively, assuming the number of licences to remain unaltered?

I will answer these two questions together. The duties on publicans' full licences and hotels and restaurants are made subject to provisions by which, in the case of hotels and restaurants, the duty on the licence is to be charged by reference to the proportion which the receipts from the sale of liquors bear to the total receipts from the business of all descriptions carried on in the premises; or, at the option of the applicant for a licence, may be 33 per cent. of the annual compensation value, which will have to be ascertained and certified; and in the case of public-houses of an annual value exceeding £700, the duty on the licence may, at the option of the applicant for a licence, be an amount equal to half the annual compensation value, which will a minimum duty of £350. The existing definitions of an hotel and a restaurant are not continued, and it is impossible to say how many existing licences granted as for public-houses will be renewed as for hotels or restaurants as now defined in the Bill. I am unable, therefore, to give any reliable estimate of the yield of the new duties for these houses either in the Metropolitan area or generally.

Motor Taxes (Method of Charge)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether the proposed motor taxes are in substitution for those existing, or if they are calculated as a charge by way of Super-tax?

The proposed motor taxes are in substitution for the smaller existing licence duties on motor cars.

Old Age Pension Officers (Gratuities)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to take any action with regard to the numerous complaints which have been addressed to him as to the inadequacy of the gratuities given to Excise officers and supervisors for the amount of extra work caused by the introduction of old age pensions?

further asked whether, seeing that Excise officers were promised adequate payment or remuneration for the extra work of old age pensions, the right hon. Gentleman will explain why this was afterwards altered to insufficient gratuities?

I have already expressed my appreciation of the excellent manner in which the pension officers performed their duties in connection with the introduction of old age pensions. A sum of £40,000 was voted by the House for the payment of gratuities to the officers concerned, and I do not propose to ask for an increase of this grant. I may add that the gratuities awarded increased the salaries for the quarter ended 31st December last of the officers to whom they were granted from 10 to as much as 75 per cent.

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question whether he promised adequate payment for the extra work, and why he has only given gratuities, which are insufficient?

I do not agree that they are insufficient. Inquiries have been made into some of the complaints, and it has been found that they are without foundation.

Excise Officers' Double Duty Pay (Bridgnorth)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explain why, in view of the fact that the printed regulations of the Excise service state that an officer will be paid double duty allowance for every day he is responsible for such duty, the Excise officer of Bridgnorth first station was only paid double duty for 53 days for the period ending 11th January, 1909, although he actually did double duty for 73 days; and is he aware that other officers have been treated in the same way?

The printed regulation is as stated, but the principle underlying this regulation is that double duty should be paid only where an officer is required to perform more than a fair day's work in one day. In consequence of the cessation of the local taxation licence work and certain relaxation in the survey of Excise traders authorised during the last quarter of the past year, there was a considerable decrease of Excise work in many stations, and consequently it was decided that double duty should not be paid where an officer was required to perform the work of more than one station unless the combined duties constituted more than a fair day's work. This modification of the regulation was applied in the case quoted, and I am assured that the officer was paid double duty on every occasion upon which he performed more than a fair day's work.

Spirit Duty (Medical Preparations)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the additional duties proposed to be levied on chloroform, ether, and collodion are to be imposed for the purpose of raising further revenue or for the purpose of protecting whisky and other potable spirits from unfair competition?

I am afraid that I do not quite understand the hon. Member's question. If he means to imply that there is any serious risk of chloroform becoming a substitute for whisky and other potable spirits, the supposition, if he will pardon my saying so, seems to me to be somewhat absurd.

What is the object of making the tax on collodion and chloroform 6s. and on whisky 3s. 6d.?

It is not a duty on products. It is purely a duty on spirits, and it is to meet the practical difficulty of exercising the necessary supervision in every chemist shop and of making special exemption of small amounts of spirit included in these separate preparations.

Vandyck and Holbein Pictures (National Gallery)

asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House by whose authority the picture in the National Gallery of the Marchese Cattaneo, by Vandyck, bears an inscription stating that it was purchased with the aid of a donation from Messrs. Colnaghi; whether all other subscribers to purchases are entitled to he similarly honoured; whether he can state what was the price paid for this Vandyck and the sum contributed by Messrs. Colnaghi, and what proportion their contribution bears to the total profits of the firm over the sale; whether it is to mark the gratitude of the nation for the munificence of the firm to the National Gallery that the portrait of the late Mr. D. Colnaghi has been placed on exhibition there; whether there is any intention of placing on the recently-acquired Norfolk Holbein an inscription stating that it was purchased with the aid of a donation from Messrs. Colnaghi; and, if so, whether arrangements can be made for such inscription to state also the amount of such donation and the firm's profit on the sale?

The answer to the first part of the question is that the inscription referred to was placed on the picture by the authority of the Trustees of the National Gallery. It is in accordance with the usual practice of the Trustees to record such a donation both on the frame and on the notice board of donors. The price paid for the Vandyck in question was £27,000, towards which Messrs. P. and D. Colnaghi contributed £2,000. There were no other private donors. I have no information as to the cost price to the vendors (Messrs. Colnaghi and another) of the picture. There is no portrait of Mr. D. Colnaghi in the National Gallery. The hon. Member is confusing Messrs. P. and D. Colnaghi, of 13, Pall Mall East, with the late Mr. Martin Colnaghi, of the Marlborough Gallery, Pall Mall, whose portrait was given by Mrs. Colnaghi, in November, 1908, and accepted by the Trustees as a memorial of that gentleman's munificence in bequeathing four pictures, and also in making the Gallery his residuary legatees subject to his wife's life interest The question of what inscription, if any, shall be placed on the Norfolk Holbein is one for the decision of the Trustees of the National Gallery.

May I ask whether it is the hon. Gentleman's view that a mere abatement of price by the vendor can be regarded as in any sense a cash contribution?

I cannot give an answer on a matter of opinion. I can only state the facts.

Does the £10,000 given by the nation go into the pockets of Messrs. Colnaghi as profit?

I do not know. I understand they did make a profit out of the transaction, but whether that particular £10,000 I cannot say.

Rectified Spirits of Wine (Spirit Duty)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the extra duty of 3s. 9d. per gallon on spirits will mean 6s. per gallon extra duty on rectified spirits of wine, so largely used in pharmacy, in the preparation of medicines, ether, chloroform, salvolatile, balsam, tinctures, etc.; whether he is aware that wholesale druggists are already charging 6s. per gallon extra; and whether, in these circumstances, he can relieve the friendly societies' medical associations by exempting spirits used for medicinal purposes only?

I am aware of the fact mentioned by the hon. Member, and have given the matter very sympathetic consideration. I should have been glad if it could have been feasible to exempt from the additional taxation spirits used for medicinal purposes only, but, as I have already explained to the House, the practical difficulties are very serious.

Commercial Petrol

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the purchasers of petrol for commercial purposes other than for use in motor cars will recover the penny a gallon which they will lose through the operation of the Finance Act; and what is the estimate of the expense of the collection and return of this duty?

I am afraid I cannot undertake to advise on the first point raised by the hon. Member. If the price of petrol is raised by an amount exceeding the duty of 3d. a gallon, it is clear that either a profit is being made out of the duty or the additional increase in price is due to some other cause. The cost of collection of the duty and of the arrangements for rebates may be expected to amount to about £30,000 per annum.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman, in the statement he made last week, say that the extra price was 4d., and that it must necessarily exceed 3d. to the sellers to recoup them for the extra capital they will have to employ?

I am quite certain that I never expressed any opinion. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to.

The other penny may be attributable to the normal rise in the market price and not to the taxation.

Land Purchase Annuitants (Ireland)

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with a view to discussion of the Irish Land Bill, if he will state the number of land-purchase annuitants in Ireland, and the number of these in whose cases legal proceedings were instituted for recovery of overdue purchase annuities at 1st December, 1908, and 1st June, 1909, respectively; the numbers of payers of interest in lieu of rent; and the number of these proceeded against, at those dates?

The Land Commission inform me that the number of land-purchase annuitants now on their books is 142,976, while the number of payers of interest in lieu of rent is 168,517. Proceedings for the recovery of the arrears of instalments of land-purchase annuities which fell due at 1st November and 1st December, 1908, have been taken by the Commissioners in 4,964 cases, while proceedings for the recovery of the interest in lieu of rent which accrued due at 1st November last have been similarly taken in 9,476 cases. In the great majority of cases in which proceedings are taken, the amounts due are recovered before the next gale day. No proceedings have yet been taken for the recovery of the instalments and interest now in course of collection in respect of the gales due 1st May and 1st June, 1909.

Evicted and Untenanted Farms (Ireland)

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when a landlord refuses to sell an evicted and untenanted farm to the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of reinstating the evicted family under the Evicted Tenants Act, do the Commissioners acquiesce in his refusal without reason stated; and, if they require a reason in every case, what objection is there to stating the reason given by Colonel Smythe, of Barbavilla, for refusing to sell the Riggs evicted farm on his estate for the reinstatement of the evicted family?

The Estates Commissioners are the judges in each particular case whether the land is suitable for their purpose and whether any valid objection has been raised to its acquisition. They have exercised their discretion in the present case, and have decided not to acquire the lands.

Purchase Agreements (Ireland)

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will explain why the Estates Commissioners, while in theory holding a vendor's bailiff or servant incompetent as a sole witness of a purchase agreement, still in practice enforce payment of interest in lieu of rent, with costs, under an agreement in their possession witnessed only by the vendor's bailiff, and further vitiated by duress; and whether, in view of the hardship this imposes upon poor people and the danger of the agreement becoming confirmed without any investigation, the Commissioners will consider the advisability of rejecting all such agreements in the first instance?

As the hon. Member has been informed on more than one occasion, it is the practice of the Estates Commissioners to inquire, when an estate is being dealt with in its order of priority and before the holdings are vested, into any allegations that the tenants were induced to sign purchase agreements under duress or by other improper means. It is not proposed to alter this practice.

May I ask is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioners have actually obtained a decree, and will he say are the Commissioners collecting this money for the landlords entitled to seize the necessaries of life, and do they intend in this case to seize the cow which supplies the widow and her children with milk, there being no other property worth seizing?

Police Protection (Case of W. Jones, County Longford)

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a man named William Jones, of Rap- paree Hill, county Longford, who is under police protection, makes it a practice to parade the streets of Longford in the most defiant manner on the market days, and on one occasion at least presented his revolver at the crowd in the market place, thereby endangering the peace of the town and the lives of the people; and what proceedings have the authorities taken to prevent such conduct on Jones's part?

So far as the police are aware, this man never paraded the streets of Longford in a defiant manner. It is true that he once drew his revolver, but on that occasion he was surrounded by a hostile mob, and some stones had been thrown. The police told him to put up his revolver, and he did so.

Old Age Pensions (County Longford)

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the reason Margaret Murphy, aged 74 years, of Killnacarrow, Tasheny, county Longford, was refused an old age pension by the Local Government Board for Ireland, as she seems justly entitled to one on account of her age and poverty?

This woman's claim was disallowed on the ground that her means, as calculated under the Act, exceed £31 10s. a year. I am informed that she has a farm of 12 Irish acres, on which there are six head of cattle and other livestock in proportion; and three acres of the holding are under potatoes, oats, roots, and hay.

Direendaragh School, County Kerry (Teacher's Salary)

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state what steps have been taken by the National Board of Education to inquire into the claim for increment in salary due to Mrs. Sullivan, of Direendaragh school, near Kenmare; can he state the reason of the delay, extending over eight months; and can he state when the increment will be paid?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the question under consideration in this case is not merely whether an increment of salary can be granted, but also whether the teacher can be promoted from the second to the first section of the first grade. Before granting such promotion, the Commissioners require a very high degree of proficiency and exceptionally good reports, and they must be satisfied that the in- stitution in which the teacher is serving is, from an educational point of view, a first-class primary school. Had all these conditions been fulfilled, Mrs. Sullivan might have been promoted more than a year ago, but the reports at that time were not sufficiently satisfactory to warrant it. The Commissioners are still in correspondence with the manager as to the school curriculum, and until this correspondence is completed they cannot come to any final decision on Mrs. Sullivan's case.

Finance and Irish Land Bills

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will place on the Order Paper at an early date for consideration in Committee on the Irish Land Bill the Amendments rendered necessary by the proposals of the Finance Bill increasing the burdens and liabilities of annuitants, and of the whole population of Ireland?

I am not aware that the proposals of the Finance Bill necessitate any Amendments in the Irish Land Bill.

Evicted Tenants, County Monaghan (Reinstatement)

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many applications for reinstatement have been received by the Land Commission from evicted tenants in North Monaghan; how many of these cases have been inquired into and reported on and how many have been rejected; how many have been reinstated in their own holdings, and how many have been provided with other farms, and in how many cases have the claims been approved by the Commissioners and the applicants noted as suitable persons to be provided with holdings; and will he state if the compulsory powers under the Evicted Tenants Act have been put in force in any case in North Monaghan; and, if so, will he give the names of the cases and the result of the proceedings?

The statistics of the Estates Commissioners are not compiled according to Parliamentary Divisions. The figures for the county Monaghan are as follows:—550 applications have been received from persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants or as representatives of deceased evicted tenants. Of these 190 were not lodged within the time specified in the Evicted Tenants Act, and have not been inquired into. After inquiry 150 applications have been rejected, 187 applicants have been reinstated in their former holdings or provided with new holdings, and 23 have been provisionally noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land. One hundred and twenty-six acres of untenanted land have been acquired under the Evicted Tenants Act on the estate of Thomas Keenan in county Monaghan.

Eviction at Knockahur, County Kerry

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Mr. Jeremiah Harrington, of Knockahur, county Kerry, a tenant on the Drummond estate, now before the Estates Commissioners, was evicted last week; and whether the Commissioners have taken or propose to take any steps to effect a settlement?

I am informed that Jeremiah Harrington was evicted on the 5th instant. He had not signed an agreement for the purchase of his holding, and was therefore liable for payment of rent to the owner. The case is not one in which the Estates Commissioners can intervene.

Having regard to the fact that this tenant offered £102 out of £109, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Estates Commissioners to prevent any more evictions on the estates in county Kerry?

I really do not think I can interfere in a matter of this sort. The hon. Member appears to be under the impression that evictions have already ceased in Ireland. That is not the case unless agreements have been come to for the purchase of the land.

Would the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Estates Commissioners, because they certainly can prevent evictions?

I have no business perpetually interfering with the discretion of the Estates Commissioners. If the hon. Member likes I will communicate with them in this particular case.

I do ask him to communicate with them on this and the other cases in county Kerry, because they seem to be altogether on the side of the landlord.

Eviction at Muckross, Clonakilty

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a promise was made by the Estates Commissioners last October that compulsory powers would be put into operation for the purpose of acquiring the farm from which Daniel O'Leary was evicted from the landlord, Mr. Beamish, Muckross, Clonakilty, in whose hands it is, with a view of reinstating O'Leary; and, if so, what steps have since been taken to give effect to that promise?

The Estates Commissioners tell me that no such promise was made. The hon. Member was informed in October last that the Commissioners contemplated proceedings for the acquisition of the holding in question under the Evicted Tenants Act. The Commissioners have since made further inquiries, and have directed the publication of a notice of their intention to acquire the lands.

Evicted Tenants Reinstatement (South Cork)

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that, in view of the unsatisfactory progress made by the Estates Commissioners in the reinstatement of the evicted tenants in South Cork, a request was recently made by the direction of the local executive calling on the Commissioners to send down an inspector to the constituency for the purpose of selecting certain cases presenting no legal difficulty for immediate reinstatement; and, if so, will the Estates Commissioners comply with the request?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that they cannot trace the receipt of the communication referred to. Their statistics are not compiled according to Parliamentary Divisions, but the following figures will show the progress which has been made in reference to applications received from persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants or representatives of evicted tenants in County Cork:—1,077 applications were received, of which 138 were not received within the period specified in the Evicted Tenants Act, and have not been inquired into. After inquiry 603 applications were rejected, 163 applicants have been reinstated or provided with new holdings, and 173 others have been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land to be acquired by the Commisioners. An inspector is at present engaged in county Cork in connection with the reinstatement of evicted tenants.

Belfast University (Language and Agriculture)

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has noticed that in the statutes made by the Commissioners for the new university at Belfast the Irish language is not expressly included in the subjects of the faculty of arts, and has, if any, only a secondary and indefinite position there, and agriculture is not included in the subjects of the faculty of science; and whether, having regard to the importance of the language and of agriculture in Ireland, he will make representations to the Commissioners for the national university at Dublin, unless already assured on the point that those two subjects shall be given their due position in the statutes now in preparation?

In the statutes for the Queen's University of Belfast Celtic languages and literature are included in the subjects of the faculty of arts. Agriculture is not named as a separate subject in the faculty of science, but it is open to the senate from time to time to make additions to the subjects if they think fit. As regards the remainder of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the statute for the National University of Ireland, which has recently been issued as a Parliamentary Paper.

Artists Corps

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the establishment of the 28th County of London (Artists) Rifles was reduced from eight companies to four companies when allotted as an Army troops infantry battalion; whether all the other 23 battalions Army troops in the Territorial Force, with the exception of the infantry of the Honourable Artillery Company, have an establishment of eight companies; and, if so, why a distinction has been made in the case of the Artists Corps, whose present strength is approximately 700?

When the London corps were originally arranged into divisions and brigades, the Artists Corps was omitted from any brigade group owing to shortage of men enrolled, but was retained to be an officers' training corps, with the establishment of four companies, to which its existing strength entitled it. Subsequently the corps declined to become an officers' training corps, and it was decided to allot the unit for Army troops. After careful consideration, it has been decided that if this unit can undertake that a percentage of its members will be prepared to join the Territorial Force as officers, if required, on mobilisation, the War Office will be justified in giving the corps in exchange for this undertaking a full establishment of eight companies.

We have not stated the percentage so far. We will state that afterwards. I have reason to think that arrangement will be agreeable.

Shropshire Yeomanry Horses

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the horses of the Shropshire Yeomanry during this year's training did not receive enough oats to keep them in condition, that the oats were of bad quality, and some of the hay unfit for anything but store cattle, he will state what action he proposes to take?

The horses of the Yeomanry receive the same ration of forage as that authorised for horses of the Regular Army, which is considered sufficient to keep them in good condition. The forage is obtained by contract, the specification of which should ensure both oats and hay being of good quality. No report has been received of any complaint from this unit; the matter rests with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiry about it? What I have been told is very definite.

Territorial Force (Marksman's Badge)

asked the Secretary of State for War why men in the Territorial Army are prevented under present regulations from receiving a marksman's badge, however good their scores may be?

The Territorial Force has been given a new musketry course this year. In it there are no classification practices for marksmen, etc., but only a standard test. If a soldier fulfils certain conditions in the standard test he may fire in the following year the classification practices fired by the regulars, and then be classified according to the same standards as the latter.

Middlesex Yeomanry Horses

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the men of the Middlesex Yeomanry hired their horses for drill purposes from J Battery of the Royal Horse Artillery, and that each man had to pay 2s. 6d. for the hire of a horse for two hours; and will he state to whom was the 2s. 6d. paid?

Business of the House

Ordered: "That the Proceedings on the Trawling in Prohibited Areas (Prevention) Bill, if under consideration at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime Minister. ]

Labour Exchanges Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this Bill be now read a second time."—[ Mr. Churchill. ]

Can we not have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) with regard to this Bill, as hitherto we have only had statements of a very meagre character? In view of the fact that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman is certainly of a very costly character, I think we are at any rate entitled to have some financial estimate in regard to it. Such an estimate must have been prepared, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget speech that £100,000 was to be allotted for the purpose of these exchanges. That sum, so far as we could gather, was not to be for administrative purposes, but solely for the structures to be erected. But £100,000 will not touch the fringe of the matter so far as buildings for Labour Exchanges are concerned. If such buildings are erected in Newcastle, Manchester, or Liverpool, they must, of necessity, occupy central positions, otherwise they will be perfectly useless. The hon. Gentleman has told us that these labour exchange buildings are also to provide accommodation for offices for trade unions and refreshment rooms, and that there are to be separate sections for men and women. Consequently the buildings will have to be very large and costly. Personally, I do not think that a Labour Exchange building on the lines suggested could be erected in Manchester in a position where it would be of the slightest use for much under £50,000 or £60,000. I do not intend to deal with the policy of the Bill at present; but in view of the fact that it represents commitments to a very considerable amount, I think we are entitled to a full explanation from that point of view alone.

This Bill, which is of considerable interest, represents, I suppose, an instalment of the Government's policy on the question of unemployment, and I have no doubt it will form an excellent basis on which future legislation may be founded. I do not know how far hon. Members opposite expect any very great good to result from the actual proposals in the Bill; probably the right hon. Gentleman himself does not look for any immediate or extensive results from them. The proposals will not do as much good, at any rate, as I should like, from one particular point of view. I look upon all these questions more from the point of view of prevention than from the point of view of cure. However much you may do to alleviate a particular difficulty, I would far rather put my hand to something which would prevent the difficulty from occurring. For a very long time I have taken the view that the Minister or Government that makes greater efforts in regard to our young people on their leaving school will do far more to deal with this difficulty than the establishment of new machinery and new officials up and down the country will achieve. I do not want to decry new machinery or new officials; but I desire that everything done in this direction shall be in harmony with something which the Government ought to do in the way of prevention, by dealing with the children as they leave school. I am not going into a dissertation on the method of dealing with children as they leave school; that does not come under the Department of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill; but I believe that it can be closely associated with the establishment of Labour Exchanges. A friend of mine, who was a member of the Royal Commission which recently reported, was telling me recently what is done in connection with one of the Labour Exchanges in Germany—I think at Strasburg—in regard to children leaving school. A paper is filled up by the teacher, explaining for what kind of employment he thinks the boy is most suitable; a similar paper is filled up by the parents, and there is also a paper filled up by the boy himself. Then the officials of the Labour Exchange, having full particulars as to the desires and fitness of the boy for a particular employment, take the case into consideration, advise whether the boy should be sent to a particular trade school or particular evening continuation classes, and a situation of the kind suggested is probably found for him. In that way the Labour Exchanges are worked in close association with the boys leaving school. That is very important.

The time when a boy will leave school is perfectly well known; there is no uncertainty about it; and adequate preparations can be made. The officials of the new Labour Exchanges could do a great deal in the way of directing the rising generation of workmen into useful channels and of assisting them to be properly prepared. I understand that there is in connection with the exchange to which I have referred a voluntary fund, to which the officials can have recourse in cases where the parents cannot make suitable financial provision for sending their boys to trade classes or schools, or for having them apprenticed to particular trades, and that those voluntary funds have always been sufficient to meet the needs of the case. I hope that it will be possible for our Labour Exchanges to be fitted in to some scheme of this kind, and that the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister for Education will work together for this particular end. I have not the slightest doubt that the Board of Education can do more in the next few years than all the other Departments of Government put together for dealing with possible unemployment in years to come. I do not know that I ought to have raised this matter on the present occasion, but I am not at all sure that the definition in the Bill does not shut out the possibility of such an arrangement as I have suggested. At any rate, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that it is one of the duties of the new officials to make such inquiries and communications as those I have described in regard to boys leaving school, so that proper plans may be made, and the boys put to trades for which they are suitable.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that, in his opinion, the effect of this Bill will not be so beneficial as, I presume, the promoters think. And I must say that I agree with him. I believe that this Bill is a genuine attempt on the part of the Government to meet the question of unemployment. This latter question is one that must affect Members on both sides, and all will, I think, unite in an endeavour to avoid what is a serious catastrophe for any nation—that is, want of employment for its people. The only question at issue is whether this particular measure will meet the case, and will assist to find employment for the people.

The only way, so far as I know, to secure employment is to find people who are willing to employ workmen to do certain work, and I do not believe that the provision of Labour Exchanges will in any way advance this. If there is no work to give, Labour Exchanges will be of no use. If there is work to give, I do not think there is any doubt that employers and employed will find means to bring themselves together without the aid of this particular Bill. On the first reading of this Bill I was much struck by some observations made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Havelock Wilson). I have had the advantage of his acquaintance for a great many years, and I do not think that I have ever agreed with him before. I rather hold the view that on this occasion the hon. Member for Middlesbrough was right. The hon. Member told us that something of this sort had been established in merchant shipping circles, and the only result was that salaries were paid to officials. Beyond that, he said, nothing was done. One of the provisions of this Bill is to provide officials to whom salaries are to be paid.

The hon. Member says "Hear, hear," but that is one of the rocks on to which, I think, quite unconsciously, the present Government are drifting. Apparently one of their great desires is to provide berths for officials. That is the most fatal policy that can be adopted. It tends to great extravagance. And if the expenditure of a State exceeds the Revenue, and the power of the people to pay—for, of course, the money is provided by the taxpayer—the influence that the official class will exercise will be so great that it will be almost beyond the possibility of any Chancellor of the Exchequer, however sound and economical he may be, to retrench. That has been the case all the world over.

In the Spanish-American Republics one of the chief reasons of their ruin—of course, financially—was the enormous number of officials. This Bill is going to create an enormous number of officials. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade how he thinks that by opening a beautiful office, panelled in front, with mahogany doors, and well-dressed officials behind them, employment will be promoted? So far as I know at present., if you want workmen there is no difficulty whatever in getting them. That evidently arises from the fact that employment is scarce. But suppose the reverse were the case. There would be no difficulty whatever in workmen finding jobs. There would be any number, and you would have the spectacle of a large number of employers competing for the services of one man. I venture humbly to say that I have had some measure of business experience in my life, and I believe in the main that my statement is correct: that if there is work to be done you will find men to do it, provided they want to work, and if there is no work to be done, not even the President of the Board of Trade, with all his great gifts, and any number of the officials which he may create, will be able to provide that work. There is one provision in the Bill that I was rather astonished at, though on the other hand, on the whole, perhaps I should not be astonished, because again it is one of the features of Government legislation. We always understood that the great Liberal party were in favour of local self-government. We understood that they desired that the locality should elect its own representatives, and that those representatives, chosen by the people, should exercise the control over the affairs of the people in that locality. But of late years, since we have been blessed with a Labour-Socialist Government, shall I say—I do not know which appellation to put first, but there is the combination—we find that all their Bills, or the majority of them, take away from the local authority that power which we always thought the Liberal party was desirous of giving. If hon. Members will turn to sub-section (4), clause 1, they will read: "The powers of any central body or distress committeee and the powers of any council through a special committee to establish or maintain under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, a labour exchange or employment register shall, after the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act, not be exercised except with the sanction of, and subject to any conditions imposed by, the Local Government Board for England, Scotland or Ireland, as the case may require, and that sanction shall not be given except after consultation with the Board of Trade."

The effect of that clause will be to take from the local authorities, who are the people on the spot, and know, if anybody knows, what the requirements of the district are, and who are the people in the district willing to give work, and who are prepared to take it, the power which was given to them under the Act of 1905. It sets up a bureaucratic system, not even under the control of one Department. First of all, "the Local Government Board for England, Scotland, or Ireland, as the case may be," is the body for certain things. The President of the Local Government Board, after he has settled the Poor Law question without any Act of Parliament, but on his own ipse dixit, will then proceed to settle this question. But he cannot settle it until it has met with the approval of the President of the Board of Trade.

The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear." He has, I presume, great faith in both of these Departments, and I am not at all sure that he has not greater faith in the Board of Trade Department than he has in the Department of the Local Government Board.

I point out that that may be, but I should have thought that one Department at a time would be sufficient, and if you are going to give this power to one Department of the State—and I do not agree with that, as I think it is against the true liberty of the subjects to transfer the control from the ordinary local people and put it in the hands of a Department—but if you are going to put that power and the responsibility for exercising it into the hands of one Department, then do not bring in another Department also. What would be the result? I can foresee what would happen when the Bill passes, if it does pass, and if right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which Heaven forbid, should still be in power. Hon. Members below the Gangway would then get up and they would bring forward cases in which one Department had done something which they considered was quite wrong, and the President of the Board of Trade would get up and say: "It is not my fault, but rather it is the fault of the President of the Local Government Board, and I must refer the hon. Member to that right hon. Gentleman," and in that way hon. Members below the Gangway would be bandied about like shuttlecocks from one Department to another, and they would not be able to get any satisfaction. That is one very serious blot upon this Bill. I cannot see why the local authorities should be interfered with. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the reason for this proposal? Is the reason that the local authorities have not been successful in regard to their Labour Exchanges which they have set up; and perhaps he would explain how it is, if the local authorities have not been successful, that the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board, with their headquarters in London, are going to be successful where the local authorities have failed?

Then I find there is another provision, sub-section (5) of clause 1, which proposes in effect that the officers of the Labour Exchanges shall have control of the money provided by Parliament for the purposes of the Bill, "such money as shall be sanctioned by the Treasury." I believe that that form of words means that the money shall come out of the Consolidated Funds, and provided it is sanctioned by Parliament it need not appear upon the Votes. I am not at all sure that I attach the importance that some hon. Members do to the appearance of money upon the Votes, because we cannot always be certain that we shall be able to discuss the Votes, and, moreover, with the large mechanical majorities behind the Government it is not always very easy to obtain an alteration of the Votes. But still it is a safeguard. [An HON. MEMBER: "The money will appear upon the Votes."] Then I will say no more upon that point.

There is one other clause which I think is a very bad one, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider seriously whether he will not omit it. Of course, I may have misunderstood it. Sub-section 1 of clause 2 says that the Board of Trade can make general regulations, etc., and "may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, authorise advances to be made by way of loan towards meeting the expenses of workpeople travelling to the place where employment has been found for them through a Labour Exchange." Does that mean that when this agency in London finds employment, say, in Wales, for a man who lives perhaps in Scotland, that the Treasury is going to advance money to pay his expenses from Scotland to Wales by way of loan? I have always understood if you advance money to persons you are to have security, and if you advance money without security the result is not always advantageous to the person lending. I should like to know what security the right hon. Gentleman imagines he is going to get for this money? It may be said that a particular tradesman is an exceedingly honest man, and will be so grateful to the right hon. Gentleman that he is sure to save out of his weekly earnings in order to pay back the amount advanced. That is all very well if we were living in a perfect world, but, as we are not, what would very likely happen would be that in the case of a man, honest and anxious though he may be to pay back the money advanced, he may not like the work after he has taken it, and may throw it up. Where then is the money to come from to repay the loan which has been made? A man may find it impossible to repay, he does not like the work, and leaves it. He may consider the hours too long and the locality unsuitable, and many other reasons may combine to lead him to throw up the job, and where is the right hon. Gentleman then? This provision may also prove of great attraction, and people may come in hundreds to take places merely for the purpose of getting the travelling expenses.

Why should the Labour Exchanges have to pay the expenses of the workmen to these exchanges?

No, but as I understand it, the Labour Exchange is going to pay the expenses to the place of employment, and a great many people all over the world are very cute, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—I do not know whether that is an un-Parliamentary expression, but what I mean is that some people are very clever and quick to take advantage of anybody whom they think a little free—and when they hear that the Labour Exchanges are prepared to lend money to help to get employment these people may try to get many situations at first, arid much of the money lent may never be paid back. I do not see that this has anything to do with the principle of the Labour Exchanges. The Bill, on the face of it, is not likely to do much good beyond spending money on officials, but if this clause means that the Labour Exchanges are to distribute money, if they are to become charity organisation societies, then I hope that the House will see that this clause is cut out of the Bill. We often hear a great deal about corruption, and we are told about the corruption that would result under a system of Tariff Reform. I am not going into that matter now, but if Tariff Reform was part of the finances of this country, whatever would happen under it would be nothing compared with the corruption that may result from these bureaucratic offices being set up to do certain things under the control of different Departments of which the House of Commons knows very little. The regulations are to be made under this Bill by these particular offices, and these regulations of the Act will be beyond the control of Parliament, and, of course, the tendency, if people are extremely kind, is to be very generous with other people's money. I fear that the result of this Bill will be that we shall again be launched upon further expenditure under the Civil Service, which has already increased in 14 years from 20 millions per annum to 40 millions per annum, and I feel that very little result may accrue from it. I do not think the Bill will do much harm provided these two subsections are taken out. I should like to hear from the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to avail of the suggestions I have made? If he does he will certainly lessen the opposition to the Bill, which I hope is not to be a solitary opposition. Hon. Members from this side, at any rate, will agree with me that there are some objections to the Bill in the shape in which it is now, but if the right hon. Gentleman will only agree to these modifications I do not know whether I shall consider it necessary to oppose the Bill.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Baronet except to refer to one of his criticisms, and to his objection to sub-section 4 of section 1, which prohibits the establishment or maintenance of Labour Exchanges by the local authorities without the sanction of the Central Government. He condemned that, but what the hon. Baronet regards as a fault is really the essence and merit of the clause, because it is an illustration of the fact that this Bill proposes to deal with these great questions on national lines, and to establish a national system of Labour Exchanges throughout the length and breadth of the country in constant communication one with the other. One of the avowed objects of the Labour Exchanges is to decasualise casual labour; that is, to give constant employment to a smaller number of workmen instead of intermittent or casual employment to a larger number of workmen. No doubt it is very much better for the community that you should have 10,000 men regularly employed, though employed, it may be, by a succession of employers, than 15,000 men only having casual employment. But it is obvious that the inevitable result of the decasualisation is to throw a certain amount of people out of employment altogether. Now what are you going to do with the surplus which this Bill will squeeze out? Are you going to leave them to starve? Are you going to leave them to the tender mercy of the Local Government Board as presently administered? What did the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board say? He said: "I propose to establish voluntary Labour Exchanges, not compulsory Labour Exchanges; at all events, not at present." And he said: "Your objection would be perfectly just if we were going to make our Labour Exchanges compulsory, but my plan is that the Labour Exchanges should be voluntary." I want to show that that is not so, and that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is unsound. I do not think I am doing him any injustice when I say that I believe his views have been largely drawn from the admirable writings of Mr. Beveridge. Mr. Beveridge has discussed this very question, and he has considered whether it would be necessary to make this system compulsory or whether it would be better to leave it voluntary, and he is decidedly of opinion that it would be quite sufficient to leave the system voluntary, because labour will find the provision of the labour which they require at those Labour Exchanges so convenient that they will voluntarily have recourse to them. I do not say that we should pass this Bill without making provision for the surplus labour which will inevitably be thrown out of employment before Labour Exchanges are a success, whether voluntary or compulsory. There is no doubt that to the extent to which they are successful there will be a surplus of labour, and you will have the men who are at present intermittently employed replaced by a smaller number of men regularly employed, and there will be a certain number of men squeezed out.

I do not make the statement that the passing of this Bill, without making provision outside the measure for those whom it will squeeze out, will do more harm than good; but I do say that the inevitable effect of the Bill must be, by the action of the State, to worsen the condition of a considerable number of poor and wretched men, and that is a result which, for my own part, I cannot regard without grave misgivings. The right hon. Gentleman has taken one of the proposals contained in the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission, and he has left the others. The various parts of the programme which is laid down in the Report of the minority of the Poor Law Commission are very carefully co-ordinated, and they must be adopted either in the whole or not at all. I do not say that every particular item of that programme need necessarily be adopted as it stands, but I do say if you leave out any single item in that programme you must substitute something else to subserve the purpose which the omitted item was intended to subserve. The right hon. Gentleman has taken one item of that programme and omitted others, and has left only a blank in their place. I said the right hon. Gentleman, but I think I ought to say the Government, because it is only fair to state that the right hon. Gentleman has done his part. I only wish other Ministers had been equally energetic in dealing with this great problem of the unemployed. I appeal to the Prime Minister to take this matter into his own hands and to make provision outside this Bill for that surplus labour which will undoubtedly be squeezed out by the operation of this measure.

I desire on behalf of the party with which I am associated to offer a hearty welcome to the principle and the general provisions contained in this Bill. That welcome is all the more cordial because we recognise in it and running through it a principle with which we have long been associated, and which we have been emphasising on a thousand platforms for some months back. Consequently we can thoroughly and whole-heartedly associate ourselves with the principle contained in this Bill, and also with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson), when he said that he recognised in this Bill an attempt to give in penny numbers what the Labour party had asked for as a whole. I am not going to indulge in any criticism except that which is absolutely necessary, as I do not wish to hamper or hinder the progress of this Bill. I think, however, it is necessary to draw attention to the most important parts of this measure in order that we may get to a better understanding of its provisions. I believe the step taken in this Bill is in the right direction. We do not believe that the Labour Exchanges Bill is going to give us a paradise. We believe that if this Bill stood alone it would not be worth having, and it is only important in so far as it is a step leading up to other more important reforms which are in the background.

My criticism will be directed in trying to find out exactly what we are driving at, and what we may expect in order to see whether this experiment is likely to be successful or otherwise. So far as the principle is concerned, those of us who have had an opportunity during the Whitsuntide Recess of seeing a similar scheme to this in actual operation, have no doubt whatever that it is an important step in the right direction. When we saw in Berlin the Labour Exchanges at work we were convinced that there was a considerable amount of good in them. I wish to mark my appreciation of the recognition made by the President of the Board of Trade when he spoke of the demoralising effects of hawking labour about, and asking for it as if it were a favour to be employed, and something for which one ought to be eternally grateful. If Labour Exchanges do nothing else, they will at any rate put an end to those demoralising influences, and they will allow a man to seek employment in a way not fraught with the terrible amount of demoralisation which follows upon the present method. In Berlin we saw the experiment in actual working, and we saw amongst the unskilled men, 500 or 600 of them, all classified in regard to groups of trades and the time they had been out of employment. As we saw the messages coming over the telephone, the letters being opened from employers asking for men, and men and women going out in response to those indications, we were encouraged to give a cordial support to the Bill, which we contemplated having an early opportunity of discussing upon our return to this country. I think the best course for us to pursue this afternoon is not exactly to fall down and worship anybody, but rather to look into the Question to see where these proposals are leading us to. I think a word of warning here will not be out of place. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), in which he deplored what might happen if the Labour Exchanges Bill was too great a success at first. I do not share the hon. Member's opinion to the same extent, because I believe the voluntary system will prevent any of the more severe hardships which he spoke about. In any case, we are face to face with that position, and we ought to look at it fairly and squarely and consider what the actual result will be?

In the Debate upon the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green about three weeks ago, there was unanimity in all parts of the House that to decasualise casual labour would bring in its train severe hardships and terrible privation to a certain number of people who would be thrown out of work. The case of the dock labourers at Liverpool was mentioned, and it was pointed out that the casual labour found there would reduce the number from 15,000 who were employed intermittently to 10,000 employed permanently, throwing the remaining 5,000 on the streets. Another hon. Member said it would mean throwing at least 10,000 on the streets in the case of the London dock labourers. Therefore, we cannot leave these men to starve or proceed with a happy mind, thinking we are putting the universe right as we go along, doing nothing to mitigate the sufferings of the people who will be afflicted in this way. After all, the better organised skilled trades of this country are in the same position as the Labour Exchanges will put the un-organised and unskilled labourers. Trade unionists have to a very large degree opportunities of getting to know the state of the labour market in certain parts of the country, and regularly from time to time we find the men drafted from one part of the country to the other, and sent where the work is required from places where work is slack. Therefore, we have in our unions arrangements which mitigate this hardship, and in addition we have the friendly societies at work inside the trade unions as well. That means that we have in our trade union organisation a condition of things similar to that which will be promoted by the establishment of Labour Exchanges, followed by an insurance scheme, such as we have been told will follow this Bill very shortly. But with all these advantages the conditions of trade unionists is anything but satisfactory, and none of us are satisfied with the position they occupy. They are all crying out for more amelioration of their lot, and better conditions, and they are calling out, n a word, for a possibility to sell their labour in the best labour market, a privilege which is very often denied to them. As far as I understood the very admirable speech made by the President of the Board of Trade, he seemed to tell us that we should find that these Labour Exchanges would be followed by an insurance scheme. We cordially welcome both these instalments of reform, and yet they will leave very much to be desired.

I want to discuss one or two things which arise out of the present position. In putting my views forward I claim no originality for them. They have been reiterated in this House and on a thousand platforms, and I bring them forward again on the principle embodied in the words:— mise those difficulties in the least. I believe that the way to get over difficulties is fairly to understand them. I believe that overtime will interfere very seriously with the smooth and proper working of the Labour Exchanges. One of the things to be considered is the stability of the labour market, and I wish to submit to the House that overtime interferes with that stability in a way which I think will startle some of the Members of this House. Let me give something of my own experience. I have seen on more than one occasion a shop where a number of men have been kept working overtime week after week, and then suddenly the work has ceased. A number of men have been as suddenly suspended, and the men have been scattered through the length and breadth of the land. Within a month that shop has been working overtime again. Had not overtime been indulged in there would have been constant employment. That is only one of the things where overtime will militate against these Labour Exchanges. I object to overtime very strangly, as I think every Member on these Benches also objects equally strongly to the principle of overtime, because it deprives men of work.

I worked in a shop in which 120 men were employed, and I have known the men working 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months overtime, and that was in an eight hours' shop. That meant that the overtime deprived 50 men from working, that is to say, but for overtime 50 other men would have been working, and, therefore, the problem of unemployment would have been less severe than it was. In a shop in the east end of Sheffield I have known 300 men working overtime continuously for 5 or 6 years, displacing all that time 75 men. I come next to the question of the eight hours labour. I am not on this point oblivious to certain things which stand in the way, but we should all be well advised to turn our attention to see that something cannot be done on the lines of eight hours a day. If you take the figures of the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the number of adult labour, and taking nine hours a day as the average of work, they mean that 7,000,000 hours might be set free for the employment of the unemployed. That would mean that something like 800,000 men might be absorbed by that simple means. Take, for instance, cab drivers, the drivers of omnibuses, the workmen on certain railways, and other occupations, and we can easily get the real facts, and it will be found that by the establishment of eight hours a day we should find employment for half a million of adult labourers in this country. We, of course, must look for the way and the means to bring other reforms forward, so that the Labour Exchange principle may be the success which we should like it to be. Labour Exchanges may do a good many things, but while this great amount of labour is displaced by the decasualisation of labour, and while we are neglecting to take advantage of the opportunities which present themselves, we know that Labour Exchanges or anything else in the world cannot save us from the position to which we are coming. I think there is something in the criticism of clause 1 which may call for some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade. In regard to clause 1, sub-section 1, where it is stated that "the Board of Trade may establish and maintain in such places as they think fit Labour Exchanges, and may assist any Labour Exchanges maintained by any other authorities or persons, and in the exercise of those powers may, if they think fit, co-operate with any other authorities or persons having powers for the purpose," we should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain what is meant by the word "persons." We have had experience of schemes which have done little to enlist our confidence in them. Sub-section 2 of the same clause says that "the Board of Trade may also by such other means as they think fit collect and furnish information as to employers requiring workpeople and workpeople seeking engagement or employment." We should like to be assured that the interests of trade unionists will be safeguarded. Does that sub-section mean that the Board of Trade may collect information for employers during a lock-out?

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I thank him for that answer, because I want it to be clearly understood the trade unions are following this Bill very closely indeed. I was speaking the other day to the secretary of a federation which represents by far a majority—at least over 100—of the largest trades unions in this country—a majority in regard to membership and wealth and their power to render relief, and so on, and I found he was very apprehensive upon this point. I think it will depend very largely on the view the average trades union leaders take in regard to this Bill whether they co-operate or otherwise with this scheme. But it is necessary that they should co-operate if it is to be the full success that is desired. Then in regard to sub-section 3 it says that the Board of Trade may take over any Labour Exchanges, whether established before or after the passing of this Act. It is strange that any establishment of exchanges should be allowed after the passing of the Act. I am only raising this question in order that the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity of explaining just exactly how far we are correct in our views upon this point. We believe it may be possible to read also into this clause a prospect of a payment of compensation to those who have charge of these exchanges. Our reason for believing that is the introduction of the words: "By agreement with the authority or person." Does agreement include compensation, and, if so, upon what principle and upon what basis is the compensation to be charged? With regard to sub-section 4, which has already been touched upon, we should like some further explanation of the position created therein, because it appears almost as if there were to be two authorities—as if where the Local Governmen Board make Labour Exchanges they may, after consultation with the Board of Trade, be allowed to remain. In the other areas the Board of Trade will take full charge. I do not say that is exactly what the sub-section means, but that appears, to my mind, to be the interpretation, and, if it should be so, then surely there is a weakness in the Bill in so far that by far the better way would be to have the whole of the Labour Exchanges in this country co-ordinated under the authority of the Board of Trade, without any consultation with the Local Government Board.

With regard to clause 2 (sub-section 1), the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) spoke a little while ago on the question of loans. He seemed to think it was an enormous crime on the part of the Board of Trade and its President to suggest that an out-of-work man should be afforded help in the shape of a loan. He views this from one standpoint—I look at it from an exactly opposite standpoint. It appears to me that to give a man a loan when he is hard-up and down-at-heel is of doubtful advantage, but I am going to throw out the suggestion that the employers should be expected to make some contribution towards this loan. I will tell why I do it. At least six or eight times in the course of the five years I have been working in one particular shop I have seen this thing enacted over and over again. I have seen thirty or forty men drawn from all parts of the country within the space of six days; some have come from Aberdeen, some from Glasgow, some from Edinburgh, some from Belfast, some from the South of England, and some from London. I have seen these men's fares paid by the association to which I belong, and all of them, the whole forty of them, have been thrown on the streets again within a month, the cost of their conveyance from these distant parts having had to be borne solely by my association. I say that it is not fair that the employers, when these men have, for their convenience, been brought from all quarters of the country, should reap the advantage. I suggest that they should be called upon for some contribution from the gain they have made by men travelling about the country in this way. I can quite conceive that, under the scheme we are discussing this afternoon, a recurrence of this may be possible, and men may be brought from one part of the country to another during times of slackness in one part and times of good trade in another. If that is so I should like to suggest that when this Bill goes into Committee some provision may be inserted whereby employers shall be expected to make some contribution towards the travelling expenses, where it is found to be necessary. When full explanations are given I shall be very much surprised if what the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has given as a case in point will ever happen. He suggested that a man registered in London, and living in Scotland, might be sent to Wales. By what magical process of argument the hon. Gentleman arrives at the position that a man registered in London will ever live in Scotland, passes my comprehension.

May I explain what I said was that a man might go up to Scotland in the hope of getting employment, and might be sent thence to Wales.

I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon if I have misrepresented him, and, of course, I accept his disclaimer, so my argument necessarily falls to the ground. But what I do want the House to realise is that, after all, travelling from one place to another may be fraught with danger in another sense. Let me take a case in point. Take Manchester, with its wages, which are 6s., 8s. or 10s. in advance of those which obtain in some North of England towns. Let us assume that men are wanted at Manchester, where the wage is high, and that men are out of work at Keighley, where wages are low. This appears to me to be a point that wants watching very closely to prevent any abuse of this position, because there may be a strong temptation—for, after all, a man out of work, who may perhaps have been tramping the streets for many months seeking for the employment which is denied to him—to such a man, who may not be exactly as scrupulous as he might be under more auspicious circumstances and in better surroundings, to go down from Keighley, where the wage is 6s. or 8s. less, and undersell his fellow men in Manchester, where the higher rate of wage prevails. I hope due provision will be inserted in the Bill to prevent any such contingency.

I would like to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the sub-sections of clause 2 and ask him for explanations in regard to them. Do they bear out the statement he made in his speech three weeks ago as to the Joint Advisory Board, and will there be full opportunity for the inclusion on that Board of trade unionists as the representatives of the men? That may seem a large claim to make, but, after all, it appears to me to be a just claim, because everywhere it will be admitted that trade unionists have, by their industry and by their sacrifice, infinitely improved and bettered the conditions of labour in those trades over which they preside. If that be admitted, then surely it ought also to be admitted that the trade unions themselves, by reason of the responsible position they enjoy, should be allowed to continue their good work in connection with the Labour Exchanges. With regard to sub-section (4), it contains certain words which appear to be rather peculiar—"that the Board of Trade may, in such cases as they think fit, establish Advisory Committees." Is it provided, in some cases, that the officials in charge of the Labour Exchanges may work with the assistance of the Advisory Board? It appears almost as if that were so, and "in such case as they think fit" it is possible that without the assistance of an Advisory Board, Labour Exchanges may be accepted as working satisfactorily. I think we should have some statement with regard to that matter as soon as possible, because, if we are to have the full benefit, we ought to take the working men into our confidence, and allow them to have some say in the matter—we should allow them to help and guide the policy of this new experiment. I think that sufficient has been said in order to show that our criticism is designed to draw out what is in the Bill so as to arrive at a proper understanding of it, and I think that healthy criticism must help the further progress of the Bill. Let me thank hon. Members for the patient hearing they have given me on this, the occasion of my maiden speech in this House. May I at the same time express a hope that at least something has been said by me which will prove a real contribution to the Debate, and will help forward the discussion.

I do not wish to go into this matter at any great length, but with regard to the railways I think something might be done in the direction of securing the co-operation of the various companies with regard to the movement of the unemployed from one part of the country to another. We have not in Great Britain the advantage of nationalised railways, such as Germany possesses. In that country the unemployed workmen may move about from one part to another without becoming any particular burden upon anyone, and I think that the railway companies in this country might be asked to contribute to the solution of the unemployment problem by carrying unemployed workmen at special rates. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to that matter. With regard to the management of Labour Bureaux, it has been found in Germany that the greatest confidence has been placed in them by both masters and men by the system of what is called "on a parity" management. Both the masters and men are equally represented on the managing board. I understand it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to establish a similar system here. I hope, in spite of what fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, that the principle of this Bill will meet with universal approval in this House. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that whether trade was good or bad the Labour Bureaux would do very little—the highest he put it at was that they would do little harm. I may put it a little higher than that. If the hon. Baronet will reflect he will see that labour is the only commodity which has not a definite market place. Surely the concentration of available labour in an exchange—surely the fact that it would no longer be necessary for the man whose labour is discontinuous to walk about from one town to another seeking work, surely that is a very great contribution towards the preservation of the self-respect of the working man, and is a very great contribution towards the organisation of labour. I am not representing that it is a very great contribution towards the organisation of industry. That is another matter. A Labour Bureau does not organise industry because it leaves controlling units of industry entirely out of account. What a Labour Bureau really does is to organise labour to meet the vicissitudes of unorganised industry. That is the real meaning of the Labour Bureau, and if it is put no higher than that I think the hon. Baronet will see it serves a very useful purpose. Surely when the commodity is labour, it cannot be hawked about without, as in the cases of other goods, being spoiled. That is a great consideration which I would venture to press upon the hon. Baronet.

I want to speak in a very few sentences indeed on the broad question of unemployment in order that we may be able to get this question into perspective. I think we have to recognise—I think, indeed, it is generally recognised—that whatever may be said of individualism against Socialism, or of Socialism against individualism, this is true, that the system of individualism—the individual control of labour for the production of commodities for profit, must be accompanied by unemployment. I think if we have recognised that we have gone a very long way. We may maintain that industry cannot be organised without inflicting other injuries upon the social body—without inflicting injuries upon civilisation which would more than compensate for the abolition of unemployment; but at any rate we have got so far as this, that it is admitted in this House—in the Councils of the nation—that individualism is necessarily accompanied by unemployment. The extent of production obviously depends, under present circumstances, on the power to consume. The power to consume is deliberately limited by the producers. This is obviously the case. They produce an article for a profit, and as they produce it for a profit, it is obvious they must limit the power of consumption of their own employés, so that we find that employer A deliberately limits the consumption of commodities of employer B, and employer B deliberately limits the consumption of commodities produced by employer A. So it goes on all round the circle, and we find each employer, by the system under which he is working, limits the consumption of goods. What happens is, in good times the stream of goods produced by the wonderful machines, which have been invented by man's genius, is really a very small stream indeed—a very shallow stream. As soon as the machines commence to work, as soon as they really get to work, at anything like decent speed, the power of consumption is overtaken. Then, of course, we get bad trade, and the consequent slump and break up of prices. We have got to recognise that the Labour Bureau does nothing for that. Now to pass to what may be called normal unemployment. We have got facilities afforded by progress, invention, and science, always making it possible to dispense with the labour of some units, who have grown accustomed to a certain calling, and who find that that calling is wanted no longer. That is a continuous process, which is always going on in large and small industries. It is illustrated before our eyes in the case of the motor cabs, which have now become an important feature in London traffic. It is illustrated for those who have eyes and who see a little further—in the building trade, where we see the ferro-concrete process driving out of employment thousands of men who are no longer wanted, who are displaced by a new set of men who undertake operations entirely dissimilar from the old. These are two instances of what is continuously going on in industry, and of that which is continually creating a number of loose ends of units, who find that their trade is no longer wanted, and thus we have bad seasons of trade, and trade is bad at one season and good at another. There are also various other causes producing a mass of partly employed and discontinuous labour, which is ever present with us. Then we cannot escape from the fact that the nature of a very large number of industries, in particular the building industry, is based upon the supposition that there is a considerable margin of labour to draw upon. If any one of us wanted to build a house, what should we do? We should invite tenders, or rather our architects would invite tenders from four, five, or six builders, each of these builders knowing that if he wins the contract he will be able to call upon sufficient labour to carry it out. Each of them is normally surrounded by a certain amount of labour, upon which he knows he can draw if he obtains business. While industry is thus carded on by unorganised competitive units we have got this problem in every year, good or bad—usually worse in winter than in summer—following a cyclical progress of good years and bad years succeeding each other in such regular succession that we can foretell that if we have bad years good years will follow, and if we have good years bad years will follow. Where do we stand? Public opinion is not ready for the organisation of industry. It may be a bad thing or a good thing to organise industry, but public opinion is not ready, and there is no prospect of its being ready for it for some time to come. I think we might easily show that it is not a good thing for the building trade of a particular town that it should be carried on by a number of unorganised masters, large and small, drawing haphazzard from a too large labour market. We may think that that is not a good thing for the masters or the men, but at all events public opinion is not ready to take these masters and organise them; and, unfortunately, in that trade there is no prospect of combination as there is in some businesses. In that particular business, indeed, there are few signs of combination at all, whereas in other businesses there are signs of combination on a voluntary plan, in the shape of combinations, trusts, ports, syndicates, and so forth, clumsily organising industries to the accompaniment of much individual suffering. It is unfortunate that all we can do is to organise the labour market to meet the vicissitudes of unorganised industry. That is the highest at which we can hope from these Labour Exchanges. We must not overlook as unimportant the point raised by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) that obviously the Labour Exchanges can be used, though they need not certainly be used, to concentrate labour in such a way as to squeeze out a number of labourers altogether. That is to say, they may in a particular trade, in a particular district, so regularise labour as to change the inconstant, irregular work of 100 men into the regular work of 60, 70, 80, or 90 men, and so squeeze out some of the whole number. It would be a terrible state of things if it happened, as we have got no means of dealing with such a state of circumstances. But what is the commonsense answer? It is this: that the Management Committees and the practical managers of Labour Bureaux are not likely to do anything so heartless. If the manager knew that last week he had had an opportunity of giving a job to someone and he gave it to John Smith, if he had the opportunity of giving a job now, knowing that John Smith had had work last week, would he not give it to John Brown, who was out of work last week? A Labour Bureau does not necessarily concentrate work that is done by 10 men to 6 or 7, and it does continue to spread the labour among the men of that district. I think it is rather a good thing for it to do so, as I have rather indicated, because we have no preparations made to deal with the squeezed out labourer, and it would be heartless to throw him upon public resources, that are not ready to deal with him. It must be agreed that if we had means, if we could devise such means at present, then it would be a good thing if we had the means of dealing with the surplus, that seven men should be constantly employed instead of 10 being intermittently employed. ["Why?"] Why? Because, unless a man is working full time, and earning full wages, he has not the means to supply the full means of livelihood to his wife and family. I think that is the common-sense answer to that. An hon. Member, I hear, mentions "leisure," but unpaid leisure is no good to any man. It must be admitted, however, that Labour Exchanges can be used as a means of complete concentration, but they may also be used under directions as a means of forcing out of employment altogether a certain proportion of the labourers, and that undoubtedly brings my right hon. Friend face to face with the question—What is to be done for the surplus that is caused? If to any extent labour is thrown out by the system it must be considered what is to be done for the surplus labourer. There, of course, one is brought up against the question of the prosecution of public works upon a well-thought-out plan. These Exchanges have been in active work now in Germany for ten years. German Labour Exchanges find situations in a year now for about 2,000,000 persons, not necessarily different persons, but about 2,000,000 jobs during the year. That has not abolished unemployment in Germany, nor has it abolished the necessity for the prosecution of public works in exceptional times of distress. Every winter, in the great German cities, public works have to be undertaken to deal with surplus labour, and we must not imagine that because we are passing this Bill in 1909 we shall not have exactly the same question for years to come of dealing with the problem of the surplus labourer. We must not be dismayed by the idea that it is not easy to deal on economic lines with that surplus. Of course, one cannot deal on economic lines with it. There is no Government clever enough to take the leavings, of the labour market and carry on a successful economic business with it. It cannot be done, but that does not absolve the Legislature from applying its mind to the best and cheapest and wisest means of saving these men from degradation and distress.

My right hon. Friend, I think, intends, and I rejoice to think that he intends, to make this Labour Bureau subject the means of prosecuting a system of State insurance against unemployment. It is not a little strange that in this country we should find ourselves starting upon the question of State insurance in its most difficult phase. I think it was in 1881 that the late Emperor William sent his famous message to the Reichstag on the question of compulsory insurance, and so began that wonderful system of insurance which has had so much to do with the building up of modern Germany. Here we are in 1909. What do we think of doing? We think, it appears, of starting State insurance at the very point where the Germans have refused to deal with it, because they considered that phase too difficult. It is rather a remarkable thing. In 1906 this subject was considered by the Imperial Statistical Office of Berlin, and they reported on the whole rather against the idea of compulsory State insurance against unemployment. The difficulties have to be faced, and the difficulties are these. I do not name them as insuperable difficulties. I hope it may not be thought that I wish to discourage any idea of insurance against unemployment. Far from it, but I think my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary should give consideration to these points. What is to be the status of the man when he has paid his contribution to the insurance fund, when the employer has paid his contribution, and when the State has contributed its share? In what position is he to stand? We will suppose him in a situation that he desires to leave. There may be a dozen reasons why a man may desire to leave his work. It may be distasteful to him for some personal reason which is sufficient for him. Is he to be allowed to leave his job for such a reason as that and to come upon the insurance fund? If not, is not a very great restriction placed upon his liberty?

Then, if he is out of work and receiving unemployment benefit, must he take the first job that offers or forfeit his insurance benefit? It is a very important and a very difficult point, and I should like to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about it. I only name these points because they decided the German Imperial Office not to go on with the question of insurance on these lines. Perhaps my right hon. Friend is aware that Mr. Schloss, in his excellent book just published on the subject, sums up against the conclusions of my right hon. Friend and favours the Belgian system, which is the subsidisation of the trade unions. They abandon any idea of compulsory contribution, and they work through the trade unions. That system has spread from Belgium to other countries, and it seems to be favoured a great deal on the Continent, and it seems to have stood to a very large extent the test of experience. My right hon. Friend, with a courage which I most sincerely admire, is tackling the question from a very difficult side. I hope he will be successful, but I should very much like to hear what he has to say with regard to these one or two points. I wish him very sincerely Godspeed in his efforts. I think this Bill will do a great deal to make the position of the workman more self-respecting. I think it will do a great deal to prevent degradation being the lot of many of those whose lot it is to bear the heat and burden of the day.

When the right hon. Gentleman asked leave to introduce this Bill he told the House it was a Bill of a non-controversial character. I think he is beginning to find out now that it is of a very controversial character, and the more it is criticised and looked into the more that will be discovered to be the case. The very fact mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green when he said the result would be, in regard to casual labour, that probably 10,000 would be employed permanently and 5,000 permanently thrown out, shows that it is not a Bill which ought to receive the support of the House in its present condition. At present we have quite enough unemployed, without adding 5,000 more to their already swollen ranks. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Pointer) in a very excellent maiden speech, took the very same view. That shows, as in the case of many other Bills of this Go- vernment, that they are introduced without giving sufficient consideration to their effect, and I think the House was entitled to have a speech from the right hon. Gentleman in moving the second reading.

I gave a very full explanation. I think I spoke for an hour in introducing the Bill, and made the sort of speech one would make on the second reading, and now I am waiting in order to have the advantage of the criticisms of the hon. Member and other hon. Members.

I hear the explanation, but I maintain that even if the right hon. Gentleman had spoken two hours on the previous occasion we are entitled on the second reading to have an explanation of the Bill. We are always pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman, and it is hardly treating Members fairly not to give us the explanation that we are entitled to. I look upon this Bill as one that the Labour Members ought specially to very carefully criticise and consider what is going to be its effect. Let me tell them what, in my opinion, will be its effect. It will be a Bill to find work for the very salt of labour—the very best men. When an employer in any part of the country wishes to have labour sent from another part of the country he will send instructions that he only wants the very best men who can possibly be sent, and when they are sent there is no guarantee whatever that the employer will accept them. The right hon. Gentleman told us it was a non-controversial measure. I remember when he asked leave to introduce it he was immediately followed by one of the leading Members of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Havelock Wilson), who at once condemned the Bill, and said:— one of these Labour Exchanges. Nine men presented themselves, and were examined medically by a doctor. Five of the nine were rejected, and only four were engaged. Exactly the same will be the case in regard to the 5,000 who will be thrown out of employment.

Then I want to call the attention, particularly of the Labour party, to another phase of the question. Do the leaders of the men themselves want this Bill? I think not. When I was contesting Newcastle at the recent by-election we had a visit from the Lord Advocate. He very persistently went round the constituency and addressed meetings, and this is what he told the men at the factory gates. He said, in his opinion, the immediate palliative for unemployment amongst unskilled workmen was to give the Distress Committees power to assess for payment of wages as they had power to assess for land purchase, and then he added, "and by migrating workmen from districts where there was no employment to where there was work to be had." I followed the right hon. Gentleman, and I asked the workmen, "Do you want these men here? You have the greatest difficulty to find work yourselves. Do you want a train-load of men dumped down at the factory gates? What will you call them when they come?" The answer was, "Blacklegs." Very properly the workmen do not want them. The right hon. Gentleman laughs. Is it a question to be laughed at? The shipyards at present are empty, and men are standing round the gates out of employment, and the right hon. Gentleman laughs at them. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] He was laughing at the remarks which I made. Round the gates of the shipyards there are hundreds of men who have been probably employed there for years, and they are waiting for work. Do these men expect that a Labour Exchange in any part of the country is to send men to the factory gates to compete for the work these men have been waiting for patiently for years? [An HON MEMBER: "Why should they?"] Because the object of the Bill is to enable Labour Exchanges to send labour from where it is not wanted to places where it is wanted. There is a difference of opinion as to whether labour is wanted or not. You hear that an order has been given for a "Dreadnought" in Jarrow. I suppose a notice will be put on all your Labour Exchanges, and you will find exactly the state of affairs I have called attention to—starving men in Jarrow who are entitled to the work and have waited for it, and they will be flooded by men from the Labour Exchanges. It seems to me that hon. Members cannot have truly considered what the effect of this measure will be. It is another illustration of the effects which have followed the visit of a body of Members of the Labour party to Germany. Another visit to Germany was made by Members of the Labour party after the Bill was introduced, and that may explain why the hon. Member below the Gangway was very anxious to have the Bill altered in accordance with the views he gathered in that enlightened country. I would point out to those hon. Members who visited Germany that the conditions in regard to these matters are entirely different in this country from those in Germany. This is an old manufacturing country, where we have had manufactures for hundreds of years, and where certain manufactures are carried on in certain well-known districts. For example, there is cotton manufacture in Lancashire, shipbuilding on the Clyde and the Tyne, pottery in the Pottery districts, and hardware in Birmingham. Every working man knows where to go to find work in his own particular trade. It is different in Germany. There are great distances between one part of the country and another. Suppose that a man lands in Germany from Denmark, he has to travel some hundreds of miles to get to Berlin, some hundreds of miles to get from Berlin to Saxony, and some hundreds of miles to get from Saxony into South Germany. All these are huge manufacturing districts, and there is no wonder that in that country they require Labour Exchanges in connection with their new industries. May I remind hon. Members that so new are these industries that it was not until about 1872 that Germany commenced its career as a manufacturing country. It has made enormous progress in these few years, and Labour Exchanges may be useful there, but you cannot expect them to be as useful here.

I contend that there is another point which should be considered. The difficulty of finding work in Germany is much greater than in this country. We have in this country a population of over 43,000,000. In Germany the population is 63,000,000. There is, therefore, not an equal necessity in this country for Labour Exchanges. While I do not for a moment say anything against the provisions in the Bill to allow a certain amount of travelling expenses to an unfortunate man in search of work or the giving of facilities to get the work through Labour Exchanges, I do hold that it is misleading the people to say that this is going to be a palliative for unemployment, or that this is going to find work for one more than can find work at the present moment. The President of the Board of Trade told us that this proposal was in no way whatever one for increasing the amount of employment. The Labour Members are satisfied with this Bill. [Cries of "No."] I am glad to hear that some of them say "No." The Report of the Poor Law Commission specially mentions a Bill of this description, but the Commissioners say that the Bill is simply one step towards the realisation of the solution of the unemployment problem. [An HON. MEMBER "That is what the Labour Members say."] I would further remind the House that in September last the Prime Minister told the people of this country that there was no question more urgent than that of unemployment, and that the Government would take an early opportunity of introducing legislation. But that is what was said at the General Election. We are now in June, and unemployment is as great and pauperism is as rampant as it was when the Prime Minister spoke, and yet the Labour Members are satisfied with this small step. The right hon. Gentleman is going to bring in another scheme to attempt to deal with the question of unemployment. But if it was urgent in September last, it is equally urgent now. We are going to get the next measure some time next year. We have already heard from the Prime Minister that the first measure next year will be a Bill for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. Is the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church going to give employment to one man who is out of employment? There is a difference in the demeanour of hon. Members in this House and outside. When outside, they clamorously call out on the question of unemployment; they roar like lions, but inside the House they bleat like lambs. Then the President of the Board of Trade, in introducing this Bill, said it would do away with the exploitation of boy labour. It was not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman talked of the exploitation of boy labour.

If the right hon. Gentleman says that he did not, I am quite willing to take his statement, but he has often referred to the exploitation of boy labour as having in some measure brought about the evils of unemployment at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the shipowners?"] May I remind the hon. Member that only last Session we dealt with the Miners Eight Hours Bill. The leaders of the miners for Northumberland and Durham pointed out to the House that the result of that Bill would be—[An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] I am dealing with the question of exploitation, and I just wanted to say that the miners' leaders told us that as the result of that Bill boys at the age of 18 or 19 will be thrown adrift because there is no room for them in the collieries. In a speech delivered on 19th May the right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped the system of Labour Exchanges would have the effect of enabling us to prevent the exploitation of boy labour. I thought my memory was correct in that matter, and I say that the last man who ought to talk about the exploitation of boy labour is the right hon. Gentleman who supported the Miners Eight Hours Bill. In the part of the country to which I belong that measure will have the result of throwing many boys out of employment in the unskilled labour market. If the Labour Members will give the attention to this Bill which they ought to give it, they will discover that the employers are not hostile to the measure. They welcome the Bill because, for one reason, as regards seamen, it will give them a greater choice of hands. What happens when manufacturers are engaging men? Three men are at the door wanting work. There are only two men wanted. Who is the master then? It is the employer. [Cheers.] I would ask hon. Members who cheer to listen to the rest of the argument. If an employer wants three men and there are only two at the factory gate then the master will not have the whip hand. The masters are cute enough to see that this Bill is going to put them permanently in the position of being able to dictate which they will refuse and which they will employ. That is a most important matter, and I do sincerely trust that the Labour Members below the Gangway will give attention to it. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said they were going to strike at the root of unemployment with measures of this kind. It is absolutely playing with the question to say so, and if hon. Members below the Gangway believe that the question of unemployment is a serious one—and we know from actual experience that it is—and if they believe, as they must believe, that pauperism is rampant at the present time, then they ought to demand from the Government, not a measure of this pettifogging description, but a measure of a broad and comprehensive character, such as was outlined in the letter of the Prime Minister. If they fail to do that we can, I think, very properly come to the conclusion that hon Members below the Gangway are more carefully considering the safety of their seats than the welfare of the country. We are told that this is a small Bill, harmless in its nature, and of a non-contentious character; and yet we are told by an hon. Member that it is a Bill containing a very serious principle; and that instead of elevating labour it is going to degrade labour; and that instead of adding to employment it will add to unemployment. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can prove conclusively that the results foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) and the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Pointer)—who, I think, told us the effect of the Bill would be to throw 5,000 out of employment—unless he can prove that these results will not happen, I hold that we are not justified in supporting the Bill.

I believe the House as a whole is entirely in favour of the principle of this Bill. The attack which has been made upon the measure this afternoon has been of an unusually violent character. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London expressed his conviction that the Bill was not likely to do much harm, and that, coming from such a quarter, I regard as very considerable praise of any effort of the Government. The hon. Baronet said, with a good deal of truth, that the effort to establish Labour Exchanges in the past had not been attended with very great success, and I think he said rather more than that. He said the effort had been a failure. Even if he could establish that contention, I do not think that would be in any way relevant to the discussion of the present Bill, because I should like to remind him that the system of Labour Exchanges, properly understood, has never been tried in this country at all. Powers were given under the Unemployed Act of 1905, and orders were made to local authorities to set up Labour Exchanges, but for some unaccountable reason the local authorities have done nothing of that sort. The only local authority which has really attempted to carry out that injunction in a thorough-going manner is that of London, and we all know that London is the place where Labour Exchanges are working with tolerable success. That is precisely owing to the fact that there is a number of them, and they are all in touch with one another. Therefore, the mere fact of Labour Exchanges not being a proved success in past years is not to he taken as indicating that when we have a national system they will not be a success. In the past they have been sporadic, and always unconnected with one another, and no real heart was put into the work, either by the local authorities or by the Central Government, and I do not think that we have any reason whatever to be cast down when the relative failure of the system, as we know it to-day, is cast in the teeth of the supporters of the Bill. I would like to give the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) one or two reasons why I have formed the opinion that this Bill is not only useful, but that it is absolutely necessary. The first reason, which ought to appeal strongly to him, was that the majority and the minority Reports, differing profoundly in their general views, both put in the very forefront of their proposals the establishment of a system very similar indeed to that proposed in this Bill. The second is that only in this way can we diminish the heartrending misery very commonly connected with the search for work. There is a vast amount of utterly unnecessary suffering undergone by tens of thousands of our workmen in their search for work, yet in the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) there is not a word of this. There is a great deal of suffering inevitable, but the suffering that is quite unnecessary will be largely reduced by this Bill. In the third place, such a system of Labour Exchanges is exceedingly useful to employers. Doubt has been thrown on that by the hon. Baronet and the Member for Newcastle. The idea seems to be that employers always get all the labour they want and they find they want. I totally deny that. I believe that is perfectly true as regards common unskilled labour, and that there is no difficculty whatever in the vast majority of cases in getting all they want, and a great deal more than they want; but there is a great deal of labour of a very specialised character, and I think the experience of the last few years, even in connection with the London Exchanges, shows that it is a great convenience to the employer, without any trouble to himself, to be able to lay his hands on the particular kind of specialised labour he requires.

That has been found to be the case in Germany. There the Labour Exchanges have been found to be just as useful to the employer as to the work seeker. Another reason why I strongly support this Bill is that it establishes machinery for transporting men from the places where they are to the places where work is waiting for them. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money), in regretting from this point of view that transport on the railways in England is the dearest in the world, whereas in Germany there is always a fourth class, and in many cases half the fourth class fare only is charged for the man who has a certificate from a Labour Bureau that he is on his way to work. The suggestion that the railways should carry this man at something less than cost price is a very ingenious suggestion, but I am afraid that it has not much chance of being adopted, at least while the railways are paying such low dividends, as at present. Another reason why I support this Bill is that it is a very substantial step in the direction of coping with vagrancy. Unless we have some system of Labour Exchanges and transport all the loafer or the vagrant has got to say to the charitably disposed public is that he is on his way to work, and that he is seeking for work. When we have a system of Labour Exchanges it would be much easier for the charitable public to differentiate between the real work seeker and the sham. The question of boy labour has been referred to by several speakers this afternoon. I know as a result of a deputation which went from the Skilled Employment Committee, of which I am a member, to the President of the Board of Trade some weeks ago, that that is an element of the subject which has already attracted his attention, and I look forward myself with very great satisfaction and confidence to the establishment of very close relations between boys on leaving school and the local Labour Bureau. A certain amount of work in that direction has already been done in Scotland, and a little on a purely voluntary basis in England; but in parts of Germany, particularly in Munich, they have special examples of this interrelation of which the very excellent results have already been recognised. Finally, I give what I think the most important reason of all why I desire to see this Bill go through, and that is the fact which was completely left out in the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, that it is not a new-fangled system nor even a pettifogging system, as another hon. Member said, but it has been tried by experience, and not in one country only but in four or five foreign countries. It has been my good fortune to study the question on the spot in Germany. Anybody, I believe, who has gone over the great Berlin Labour Exchange—the largest and most perfectly organised in the world—must feel its potentialities; and I wish very much to make a suggestion to the right hon. Baronet that he should use his next holiday running over to Berlin, and seeing for himself what Labour Exchanges really are when they are properly organised, and when they are supported not only by public opinion but by the Government.

Before I sit down I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, representing the President of the Board of Trade, one or two questions. The Bill as it is before us is a mere skeleton. The flesh and blood will be put on it by means of the Regulations which will be issued by the Board of Trade. I make no sort of complaint that these details, on which the whole success of the system will depend, do not appear in the Bill as we have it, but I would like the President of the Board of Trade, if he has made up his mind, and if there is no reason for not saying so, to give an answer to one or two of the following questions. Does he propose in any degree to follow what, I think, is the universal practice abroad of adding some local subsidy or contribution to the amount which is to be given by the State? Does he propose that fees should be charged for the men and women who register themselves at the Unemployed Bureau? Fees are charged in Berlin and fees are charged in Switzerland, but the general tendency, trend and practice of foreign labour exchanges is to have no fees at all. From my point of view I desire that there should be no fee, because I should greatly wish that it should be made easy, and not difficult, for labour to use this system. I would like some idea as to what he proposes, if he is able to answer, in connection with the tremendously important question of what the Labour Bureau would do in the event of a strike. This has been one of the most difficult and one of the most widely discussed problems abroad which have arisen out of the organisation of these Labour Bureaux. If the Labour Bureau refuses men it is a very great help to the men on strike; if it gives men it is a very great help to the master. What the Germans do—and I believe it is the best way in dealing with what is clearly a very difficult situation—is in the majority of German bureaux to notify applicants for places left vacant by the strike of the fact that those places have been rendered vacant by the strike, and then allow men, influenced, if you like, one way or another by their own organisation or by public opinion, to take those places or not to take them, as they should.

As a matter of fact, in the vast majority of cases when a strike occurs in a German city, even if the Labour Bureau notifies the fact of a vacancy, the men do not take advantage of the strike, and therefore I think perhaps labour need have no special fear of the Labour Exchange intervening against the striker. Then I should like to ask whether the President of the Board of Trade has any views on the very important subject of preference, by which I mean when you have more men on the books of the trade union than there are vacancies, whether he proposes to issue any regulations as to the particular men who ought to be chosen? That is one of the most difficult questions of the whole problem of the administration of Labour Exchanges. In certain German Labour Exchanges they have a principle by which a married man has a preference over an unmarried man. In certain others they go strictly and solely by the length of time during which the man's name has been on the book. I merely ask the question because I consider it to be a very important one. The last question I would add—because I want to get some idea of the scope of the operations of the Labour Exchanges—would be whether he proposes to include such a very important class as domestic servants? They are included in the majority of foreign exchanges. I do not think that there is any absolute necessity for them to be included in our system, but I should certainly be personally interested to know whether my right hon. Friend proposes to extend the operations of these Labour Exchanges widely enough to include such an important class as domestic servants? I regard this Bill not only as thoroughly useful in itself, but still more useful as the foundation of further reform to come.

I desire to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in expressing the hope that no fee will be charged for applicants, especially for employment under the proposed Labour Bureau. I think we ought to hold out every inducement to unemployed workmen to make full use of these new exchanges, and, unless they are able to attract men to this particular scheme, I am afraid the great advantages of the scheme will have largely been lost. I approached the question first of all with a great deal of the apprehension entertained by the hon. Gentleman as to what would be the position of Labour Exchanges during a time of trade disputes. Whilst I was in company with my colleagues on a recent visit to Germany I made it a special point of observation, and I found that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in his statement that in Germany a neutral attitude is now adopted generally in this case. I believe that by general assent intimations of dispute are posted on the various Labour Exchanges, and the employers are not allowed to use influence in order to induce men to accept situations vacated by others. On the other hand, the men are left free, if they choose, to accept those positions—at the same time, a full knowledge of the dispute is placed before them. With regard to selection, I do not think we can ever deprive the employers of the right of selecting particular labour. We have it now in practice, even in our trades unions. When employers make application for labour at our various centres, we know they exercise the full right of selecting the particular men that they would desire, and I contemplate, even under this system of Labour Exchanges, that the employers would still have and exercise the right. On the other hand, we did observe that in Berlin in particular that recommendations were made to the employers that they should accept men who have been the longest unemployed, and I anticipate, other things being equal, that this would be the system adopted when the Labour Exchanges come into operation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, who certainly interested us so much in his observations, has seemed to me to warrant one or two words in reply to a few of the arguments which he adduced. It seemed to me that the greatest evils of the existing order of things were what he contemplated would prevail under Labour Exchanges. He seemed to think that a Labour Exchange would have the power to send labour to any part of the country. But if I have interpreted aright the prin- ciple and purpose of the Labour Exchange it is to prevent the futile wandering of labour from one part of the country to the other. If the Labour Exchange were to be allowed to send men here and there without regard to the possibility of their securing employment, that would simply be to perpetuate the worst features of the present state of unorganised labour. I presume the argument really behind the hon. Gentleman's mind was that the condition or standard of life of employed workmen might be depreciated thereby, and he suggests that we ought not to be satisfied with the Labour Exchanges, but that we ought to ask for a more comprehensive basis on which to deal with this subject.

I do not think the Labour party have been backward in asking for what they want in this House. Indeed, I believe the main objection to us is that we ask for too much, or at any rate for more than other parties in the House are prepared to concede to us for the time being. The Labour party are never behindhand in asking, and we will persist in asking for further measures, and if he is prepared to support us we should be very glad to accept his support on those lines. With regard to the particular Bill we have under consideration, I hope, I confess, that it is not it alone which is to be considered. I am glad to recognise that when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade introduced this measure he foreshadowed that it was simply a part of a comprehensive scheme of unemployment legislation. It has been stated in the course of the Debate this afternoon that Labour Exchanges will not add at all to the amount of available employment, but, though that may be the case, at any rate it will do something to organise the labour of this country. It will, in my opinion, prevent the men from wandering here and there in search of work, and from undergoing the degradations and humiliations that we know are brought into the lives of those who go about in search of employment. In my own particular industry I have seen men who have wandered about on the chance of securing employment, and who in the course of a few months have become so degraded that it is almost impossible for them to induce an employer to give them work. Under Labour Exchanges the telegraph and the telephone will apprise the men where work is to be obtained and—equally important—where work is not to be got in any par- ticular district. Therefore to that extent I think the Labour Exchanges are desirable, and the Labour party are prepared to give their support to this measure. We recognise that this Bill, standing by itself, is not going to do anything to solve the great problem of unemployment. I need hardly say that I associate myself with the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money) in his statement that under the system of private production for wealth we must inevitably have a permanent unemployed problem in our midst. Unless the Government is prepared to follow on with other legislation whereby the evils of the private ownership of the larger means of wealth production can be superseded by collective ownership, I fear that little will be done towards an abiding solution of this problem. Nevertheless, as the Government have started by adopting this particular recommendation, which, as has been stated, was made both in the majority and minority Reports of the Poor Law Commission, I venture to hope, with previous speakers, that the Government will follow on with the adoption of the further recommendations. The prohibition of mothers in our factories, the extension of the school age, and the reduction of the hours of labour, the elimination of overtime, are all essential steps in the solution of this problem of unemployment.

I think we are all agreed that the establishment of Labour Exchanges is an essential and first step towards any solution of this gravest of problems. At any rate, we to-day are very much wandering in the dark. We talk about the unemployed problem; we know it exists in our midst; we understand that it is of very large dimensions. On the one hand, some attempt to minimise it, while others, on the contrary, in their enthusiasm, unfortunately indulge in too great exaggeration. With the organisation of labour under Labour Exchanges we will be able to fairly and accurately judge the dimensions of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) feared that by the decasualisation of casual labour men might find it difficult to obtain employment. For my own part, I have long contemplated this as an inevitable corollary of the organisation of labour. In fact, I desire to see men brought as far as possible under permanent employment, and then the State will be confronted with the number of people for whom work is to be found. For, after all, we are simply tinkering around the problem of unemployment unless we are able to increase the consuming power of the whole population of the country; that is to say, unless we aim at increasing the amount of material that each inhabitant in the country consumes, we are doing nothing to solve this great problem of unemployment. By the decasualising of labour, and by reducing the number of unemployed, we shall be doing something to increase consuming power, and shall be laying down certain foundations for the solution of this problem. We have to open up new avenues of employment, and I am glad to observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I am certain, will have the co-operation of the President of the Board of Trade, has already foreshadowed certain schemes for increasing the avenues of lasting wealth and employment in this country. The afforestation proposals that have been already foreshadowed as opening up—

I suppose throughout the whole of the discussion we have been wandering rather widely from the Bill, and I asked myself whether we were right in traversing so wide a range. Of course, Sir, I bow to your ruling, and I will not proceed any further in that direction. We recognise that Labour Exchanges do not offer in themselves an abiding solution of the unemployed problem. In fact, they do very little to provide work for the workers in the community, and it is only when they are coupled with other proposals foreshadowed in the speeches of Ministers that we are likely to get any advantage from them. I feel that the provision for removing men from one part of the country to the other is a very wise one, and I do not share the apprehensions of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who fears that if loans are granted to unemployed workmen they will not be repaid. For my own part, I think it would be a very good investment if these men were removed from one part of the country to another in order to secure for them employment without any charge to the individual. If we are able to place men in work we are preventing them from becoming degraded, and I would sooner see expenditure on enabling men to find situathan I would see them coming under the Poor Law and receiving public money in a most demoralising fashion. I believe the right hon. Gentleman will find in the course of a little experience that Labour Exchanges will prove such a success as will warrant the Government in making them universal and compulsory. Unless that does eventuate, I fear that we will not have the reliable data desired, nor the advantage that is contemplated from these Labour Exchanges. I must confess that when I first approached the consideration of this Question I entertained a great deal of apprehension as to what might be the relationship of trade unions towards Labour Exchanges, and what might be the effect on trade union work. But subsequent inquiry, and what we have been able to see on the spot in Germany, very largely remove whatever objection I have entertained, because I am assured that when the Committees can be appointed we shall find the unorganised workman would prefer that trade union men should represent them on these Committees. My previous fear has been that these Labour Exchanges, as experience has proved during past years, might be used for the purpose of blacklegging the trade unions, but from what we can judge of German experience, and from the experience of labour representatives in the country, those apprehensions do not loom very much in my mind, and I believe they may very well be left out of account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pointer) has stated, we have ventured to offer criticisms on certain points of detail; nevertheless, generally speaking, we hail this Bill with a certain amount of satisfaction, not alone for what it does, but because in our opinion it may be accepted as foreshadowing larger proposals. Whilst the Labour Exchanges do not provide work, they will help us to see how many unemployed work should be provided for, and certainly they will guide the Government in any subsequent legislation that they may contemplate. Therefore, although our endeavours will be concentrated on improving the Bill, the Government may rely upon it that no action of ours will be designed to embarrass them in their endeavour; rather, we hope to make the measure as comprehensive and effective as possible. Whilst we accept it as an instalment, we hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give us a further assurance in the course of his reply that this is simply regarded by the Government as one step in providing an abiding and lasting solution of the great problem of unemployment.

When I previously spoke on a private Member's Motion, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), I had the opportunity of making a considerable statement on the subject of this Bill, and upon the larger subject of unemployment insurance which is connected with it. I have waited to-day, instead of speaking at the outset of the Debate, not with any intention of discourtesy, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) seemed to suggest, but in order to hear any criticisms that might be made upon the Bill, and that I might be ready to answer any questions asked of me.

I have listened, and I do not feel very disheartened or discouraged by any remarks that have been made in the course of the Debate. There really has been only one whole-hearted attack upon the principle and character of this Bill, and that is the attack of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Havelock Wilson), and which has been referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick).

It is a great mistake to suppose that the Mercantile Marine Offices of the Board of Trade are labour exchanges. They are the local offices of the Board of Trade, and have to discharge all the various duties placed upon that Department by the Merchants Shipping Act. The principal work of those exchanges is the supervision of contracts between sailors and masters of vessels, inquiries into the deaths of seamen, questions of disputes and discipline on board ship, the estates of deceased seamen, the charges of deserters, the registration of the Royal Naval Marine—such are the subjects with which the Mercantile Marine Office deals. The extent of their work is upwards of 350,000 transactions, involving £1,500,000. Although it is quite true that the superintendents of those offices are charged with the duty of keeping a register and of the engagement of seamen, because private registration of seamen has been found productive of such evils that such offices have been abolished, such work, which is in the nature and part of the Labour Exchange work, is, I think, only a very small part of the work of the Mercantile Marine Offices, and it would be very ridiculous to attribute the expense and cost of those offices simply and solely to this small part of their work. It is small to that which will be undertaken by the Labour Exchanges, but so far as that work is confined to the Labour Exchange aspect, it is not in the least true to say that it has been unsuccessful. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that no seamen had been engaged in those offices. Four hundred and ninety-one thousand seamen were engaged at those offices or through those offices on board ships last year. So far from those offices—I must refer to this subject, as it has been made a direct attack on this Bill—so far from those offices being places where Chinese are engaged in larger numbers than British seamen—the hon. Member said three Chinamen were engaged for one European—I have had the figures of the office looked into and I find that there are eight Europeans for one Chinese. If that is the most formidable attack that can be made on the policy of this Bill, I think I am justified in indulging in some small measure of satisfaction.

I have been asked a number of questions by various speakers who have taken part in the Debate. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. G. P. Gooch) asked: Would there be a local subsidy for the purposes of these exchanges? We should be very glad to receive contributions from any quarter or from any source, but we are strongly of opinion that the management of those exchanges must be national. The essence is that it should be a national system. The wider the system the more ground there is for hoping and believing that it will be efficacious. Therefore, though we shall be glad to accept local contributions, we could not accept them at the price that we were to part with any measure of that national control which we regard as essential. We were then asked would fees be charged by the exchange? We do not contemplate that fees should be charged. The hon. Member also asked what should be the policy as regards preference and rotation in supplying labour? The principle which the management of the Labour Exchange will bear in mind always will be the desire to find men for jobs and jobs for men. That is the main object. Great latitude must be allowed in the management of the exchange under regulations so as to enable the management to do what they are there to do—namely, to fit the men in their places as quickly and as conveniently as possible. Subject to that no doubt in the working of the system the object necessarily will be, and I think will be, to deal with men who have been waiting longest, as far as possible, and relieve their needs with some regard to the general principle of rotation. Domestic servants will not be included at present in the scope of the exchanges which we have in contemplation. They are in their present condition confined to the great field of industrial employment.

There are one or two difficult questions to be settled. First of all, as to the question of character. What questions would you ask about character? I think the House will see that the course is clearly indicated in the Bill. We do not propose to compel anybody to give us any information at all. It is open to a man simply to come to the exchange, give his name, or any name, and to apply for work as a general unskilled labourer. The exchange will endeavour to place him and find the work. Of course, he will have a much greater chance of obtaining the work, and the ex: change will be much more likely to place him if he can give testimonials about himself and references. From that point of view, the exchange, no doubt, will encourage him in giving such information, but, of course, if information is given, it must be truthful information, and power is taken under the Bill to secure that it shall be truthful information. There will be no compulsion on any man who does not wish to make a statement about himself. We shall take him simply at his face value, and do our best for him.

We come to the most difficult of the questions, and that is: What is the Labour Exchange to do in the case of a trade dispute? The whole principle of the Labour Exchanges is to be absolutely neutral between capital and labour. It depends for its success upon the co-operation of employers and workmen. We must have both, or else the scheme cannot be a success. And we cannot get both unless we give confidence to both parties, that neither will be aided in any struggle with the other by any action or operation of the Labour Exchange.

When the exchanges were first started in Germany, the rule was established that in the event of there being a trade dispute the exchange would be put oat of gear altogether with regard to the arae of that dispute. That was thought very essential by both parties; but, in the course of practice, which I think the hon. Gentleman who spoke opposite has realised, it was found that, as a matter of fact, that the best way is to notify very clearly to all the workmen that there is a dispute in progress. Let it be clearly notified, and leave them to take their own course. That is the course which I hope we shall adopt here, because I am satisfied that whatever course is taken in the first instance that in practice is the result we shall arrive at.

After all the great guarantee for the impartiality of the Labour Exchanges will be the advisory committee. As at present conceived, there are to be between 30 and 40 first-class Labour Exchanges, and in association with most of them one advisory committee. In some cases one advisory committee will serve two or more, but in association with most of those in every principal district where there are Labour Exchanges there will be an advisory committee, which will consist, as I shall suppose, of, we will say, six workmen and six employers, and from four to six municipal or other representatives of influence and importance in the locality, and who will, I trust, being persons both distinguished and benevolent, give strength and popularity to the exchange, guide its work, and also aid it in its work and operations. But when there is a labour dispute, or when any question has to be settled in regard to a labour dispute, then we propose a sub-committee shall be formed of the advisory committee, which shall consist only of workmen and employers in equal numbers, and with an impartial chairman. To this sub-committee, or rather, to this jury, those awkward and difficult questions, each of which must be decided on its merits when the general principle has been settled, will be referred as the cases may arise. That is the general method which we propose to follow.

Of course, under the Bill, a great deal is left to be done by regulation. I am quite sure the House will see it is much the better way to follow this course, for which there are numerous precedents in many Acts of Parliament that have lately passed, of letting Parliament sanction the general principle and then leaving the regulations to be prepared as experience and further information may suggest. We shall lay the regulations on the Table of the House at the earliest possible moment after they are completed. Those advisory committees, I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Paddington, will also incidentally serve the purpose of dealing with the cases that arise in connection with unemployment insurance, which will work in connection with the exchanges. He asks what is to be done if a man entitled to insurance benefit is offered a job? Is he to take the job or lose his benefit? If a man rejects a job and says it is not a proper job for him to take, that is one of the matters which we would refer to the advisory committee, and the advisory committee, taking into consideration the general state of the labour market, and all the considerations in each case, would say whether it was a proper job or not. If he then refuses, when they thought it was a proper job, then he would become disqualified from his benefits. That is the only way in which this system can be satisfactorily worked. I may say that we do not anticipate the slightest difficulty in working that.

The hon. Member for the Morley Division (Mr. Hutton) referred to the question of education. Here let me reply to the remark of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick), when he quoted from my other speech on this subject as having said that Labour Exchanges would prevent the exploitation of boy labour. I think that is too much to hope. I think it will require a great deal more than Labour Exchanges to prevent the exploitation of boy labour. But it is undoubtedly true that if the Labour Exchange system were very largely adopted by the industrial classes throughout the country we should get information about which trades were expanding, and which were contracting, and which trades offered suitable and permanent employment, and which offered very uncertain and fluctuating employment, which we do not now possess, and if we co-ordinate those exchanges with the education machinery, and pass that information on to education committees interested in finding work for young persons leaving school, we should be able to guide those young persons with a greater degree of certainty and assurance to permanent employment than we can in the present haphazard and unorganised state of our industrial life. I certainly should propose to co-operate with the educational authorities. I would like to say it is very necessary, in dealing with young people, that educational interests should predominate over any commercial interests. We have no intention whatever of placing upon the Labour Exchanges the prime work of placing young people in employment. That must be regarded much more from the educational point of view than from the purely industrial point of view. In some cases we may set up in connection with the Labour Exchanges special advisory committees for juveniles; in other cases members of the advisory committee may be co-opted on the local educational bureaux which are being started in some parts of the country, especially in Scotland. In that way there will be an increase in co-ordination between the educational system of the country and the larger world of labour.

There is another work of co-ordination which we must clearly keep in mind, and that is co-ordination between the national Labour Exchanges in this country and the Colonies. I propose to consult with the Agents-General of the various self-governing Colonies to see in what way information can be exchanged between the migration offices at present in existence and any Labour Exchanges in those Colonies, and the Labour Exchanges to be set up here. There is no reason why there should not be ultimately a complete imperial system of Labour Exchanges, which would enable people to come from the Colonies to this country, or to go from this country to the Colonies, with very much fuller information as to their chances of employment than they can possibly obtain at the present time.

I am not speaking about travelling expenses in connection with this point. When the hon. Baronet expresses his grave concern upon this question of travelling expenses, I should like to remind him that under the Unemployed Workmen Act travelling expenses can be advanced, not merely in this country but to the Colonies, and in many cases they are advanced, not merely by way of loan, but by way of gift. So that when the hon. Baronet, who is such a stern individualist, is so greatly shocked at the modest proposal we are making in this Bill, he is speaking rather late in the day, because the full force of his criticisms should have descended on the Members of the late Government.

It did. I was closured, otherwise the Bill would never have got a second reading.

It is the fate of a certain class of reformer to suffer under all Administrations. At any rate, the hon. Baronet will see that I am to be pardoned if I have followed the example of those whom he so often delighted to support. But I think the question of travelling expenses is a very small thing to concede. One of the main objects of Labour Exchanges is to find a man for a job or to find a job for a man. When an exchange has a job, the fact that it would be impossible for the man to reach the job because he is destitute ought not to be allowed to stand in the way and to keep that man idle.

The management of the Labour Exchange would have regard to the character of the man, the distance he has to travel, and so forth, and if they thought fit they would, if necessary, help him to reach his destination. The hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pointer), in a maiden speech to which we all listened with pleasure, suggested that the employer should pay the travelling expenses. I do not think that would be a good plan, because it would have the effect of making it very difficult for men to get work at long distances. Employers would naturally give the preference to people close by, and it would interfere with the smooth and general working all over the country which we desire to see.

Let me say a word as to expenses. This is a very uncontroversial Bill, for the reason that it consists in spending money. There is never any controversy about that. As long as you are engaged in spending money, whether in laying down Labour Exchanges or in laying down battleships, there is always a considerable measure of sympathetic agreement. But money is a serious element in the case. There is no doubt that this system will be expensive. As a great national system it will cost us in round figures something like £160,000 a year to administer, and with buildings the expense will, after the first year, rise to about £200,000 for the first 10 years. That is not so great an allowance for buildings as some might have been led to expect. I have thought it very important indeed that we should not plunge into a great expenditure on bricks and mortar at the beginning. If the Labour Exchanges justify their initiation they will come to stay, and they will get fine enough premises in time as their work increases. But at the outset I think we ought to content ourselves in the main with hired buildings, and endeavour to conduct that part of our expenditure upon the most economical lines. Before the Financial Resolution is reached I shall be able to lay before the House a very considerable account of the expenditure which we contemplate as necessary at present. Broadly speaking, the idea which we have as to accommodation is that we should come into action along the whole front in hired premises to begin with. We must come into action simultaneously. The first essential of the system is that it should be in simultaneous operation over the largest possible area. The second is that we should have a building programme which in a reasonable period of time will enable the main exchanges to get into more suitable permanent premises. We also desire to build a few Labour Exchanges as models in the first instance, and as illustrations of the proper system which ought to be adopted. When the financial aspect of the Bill comes to be examined I shall be able to show that all the details have been considered from the point of view of the maximum thrift and the minimum ostentation possible.

I have dealt with these points of detail because, as a matter of fact, there is a consensus of agreement among all parties upon the Question of Labour Exchanges which scarcely exists upon any other similar question. The majority and the minority of the Royal Commission, economists of rival and hostile camps, representatives of the Front Bench opposite, Members above and below the Gangway, all have at different times expressed themselves strongly in favour of this system. Whether one is an individualist or a collectivist, whatever views one may hold upon the current questions of the day, one cannot doubt that this system is a necessary part of any well-considered organisation of industry. The fact that labour alone of all the commodities in the world has been devoid of a market is in itself sufficient to serve as a scientific basis for the proposal. Everything else is marketed in markets which have increasing radius and scope. All the great commodities are classified and sub-divided, and they vary in most minute fractions from day to day. All over the world exchanges are connected by telegraph, quotations are made every hour, and thus there is an approximation to a true standard of price. But labour, which is the most important factor of all, is still forced to content itself with the old-fashioned system of peddling and hawking about from door to door, with all the suffering and inconvenience of restricted markets and local accidental scarcities and depressions. We are convinced that the more generally used the Labour Exchange system is the more true will be the standard reached in regard to wages and the more regular continuity and distribution of employment will be obtained. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) seems to think that the Labour Exchanges will send men in crowds to Newcastle to join the throngs standing outside the dock gates looking for work. That is exactly what they will not do. If they do anything, they will send some of the men at present standing outside the dock gates to other places where perhaps there is a demand for their labour. It is a very peculiar thing how the navvies of this country get to learn that some big public work is likely to be taken in hand at some future time. They get to know it perhaps before anybody has made any announcement in the public Press, and a sort of migration takes place to that particular spot. But how often many more go than are needed for the work, and the surplus have to return disappointed once more. What we propose to do for human labour, for the service which one man has to render to another, which is the only thing the majority of human beings have to sell, is to give it the same facilities and advantages which every other trader and merchant in the world has secured for his less important and less sensitive commodity.

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), who raised the question of voluntary and compulsory labour exchanges, said that in proportion as the Labour Exchange system was successful it would have the effect of throwing out at the other end a net surplus of unemployed labour. I would point out to my hon. Friend that we have in mind two evils with which we hope to deal. The first is, the loss of time by workers going from job to job, and by employers waiting for workmen. That is an evil which the Labour Exchange system will redress, and in so far as that is redressed it is a pure economic gain. Nobody can be the worse for that. The second evil is that of casual labour. Casual labour has been referred to at such length in the Report of the recent Royal Commission that everybody who has studied the subject is familiar with the results of the system in special trades and special localities, and, so far as our proposals are concerned, we hope to deal with dock labour on a more elastic scale than we are dealing with the labour of the country generally. We propose to establish special Labour Exchanges in connection with the docks. We hope we may be able, even under a voluntary system, to make a considerable impression upon casual labour; but I am quite willing to admit that improvement in decasualisation under a voluntary system will only be partial and gradual. I think it is perhaps as well that it should be gradual, because if we were to adopt a compulsory system at this stage we should be confronted with an administrative breakdown. We should have a proportion of labour thrown completely out of employment, and no curative. No relief process of a satisfactory character provided to deal with that portion from whom their chance of employment, unsatisfactory though it be, had already been taken away. It would be quite impossible to adopt a complete compulsory system for the decasualisation of labour until or unless the classification and reform of the Poor Law had reached a point when you could adequately deal with any surplus. Meanwhile the process of decasualisation will only be gradual. If you want it to become more rapid, I should say that the more and the more rapidly persons resort to these exchanges the more rapid that process will be. I see no reason why that should be attended by any violent upheaval or by any great number of individuals being immediately thrown out of employment. But, of course, others have to consider that question, and the day may come when Labour Exchanges have won more support throughout the country, and it may be possible that some Parliament will concede some greater measure of compulsion in regard to casual labour than it is prepared to give us at the present time.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by compulsion? I do not follow.

The hon. Gentleman has no doubt studied the Report of the Poor Law Commission, which suggests that certain short terms of engagement should always be made necessarily through the Labour Exchange. These proposals which we are putting forward are purely voluntary. I think that is all I have to say on the subject this afternoon except this: that I hope the House will realise that we propose to work this system of Labour Exchanges in conjunction with a system which will be brought in and explained later—that of unemployment insurance. We do not wish to organise only the mobility of labour, but also the stability of labour. A system of insurance worked in conjunction with Labour Exchanges will provide for the organisation of that very important aspect of the position. I hope the House will come to a quick decision upon this Bill, because there is another Bill to be taken. I refer to the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Bill.

I certainly have no intention to stand for any length of time between the House and a Division on this Question. The right hon. Gentleman stated that there had been no severe criticism on the Bill. He is certainly not going to get such from me. The principle of the Bill, or, at all events, the objects of the Bill—that is to say, the establishment of Labour Exchanges—is, I think, one on which certainly everybody is pretty well agreed. I think their utility has been proved by more than theory, as, for instance, in the case of Germany. I do not think there is any difference of opinion upon that. If I indulge in one or two remarks by way of criticism, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will not be hostile criticism. These remarks are intended merely to touch upon one or two aspects of this Bill presented as it is to the House to-day. The first observation that I would make is that this Bill appears to be rather too much in the nature of a blank cheque. I have the greatest confidence that the officials connected with these Exchanges will carry out the work entrusted to them by this Bill; but I think that the Bill, put in a single sentence, could be summed up this way: "That the Board of Trade be empowered to establish Labour Exchanges, and that the Treasury be empowered to pay for them." That is the whole of the Bill in a sentence. The right hon. Gentleman stated, and quite truly, that there was never much difficulty in his Department when it was a question of spending money. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was pretty near the point last night when he said that it was no use giving time for the discussion of the financial aspects of the Irish Bill, because all that was to be done was for the Treasury to make up its mind as to how much it could afford to spend, and that practically settled the matter. That is carrying us a great way. It used to be considered a great function of this House to have control of the spending, but we have been reduced to the position that the House should not waste time discussing it. It is to be decided by the Treasury. I think there is an objection to the Bill on the blank cheque ground—for another reason. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech the other night gave us some kind of outline as to what the Bill was going to be. There is nothing in the Bill itself to show what it is. He told us that a Departmental Committee had been sitting on this subject, and that they were very near the conclusion of their labours. Apparently the principle upon which the Government are acting—and this is not entirely a new principle for them—is to introduce their Bill first, and prepare their plan afterwards.

I am afraid that is what is to be done here, because the right hon. Gentleman himself told us that the Committee had not concluded their labours. Without being unduly critical, I think it would have been only right to have placed upon the Table of the House the Report of the Departmental Committee, so that we might judge as to the nature of the machinery which will be used in carrying the Bill out. There is another criticism which I would like to make. I was very glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to commence by spending a great deal of money on buildings. I think that is very wise, for I am sure that no greater mistake could be made than to imagine that you are going to establish a thing in full swing at the beginning. If I say anything further on this point, it is merely to suggest that it might be wise not to establish these centres all at the same time, because after all they mean a great deal of expense in officials and salaries. The more gradual process would be better, and that is to establish them in the big centres of industry, and follow to the smaller centres. Another criticism which I am inclined to make, and to which I attach more weight, is that it seems to me that the scheme is rather too central. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman and by everybody who has studied this subject that Germany is the place where these schemes have been most successful. That is obviously true. In Germany they are municipal schemes, and yet that does not prevent communication in the most complete manner between the Central Authority of the Labour Department and Berlin. I think there is a little too much desire on the part of the present Government to establish what they call a national system. That, to my mind, simply means that they have everything round a central department in London, with a great number of officials in it. The right hon. Gentleman, it is true, does mean to establish what is called an Advisory Board. It seems to me that the main details of the machinery of this Bill are based upon the local marine boards. It is the same kind of machinery as regards the officials. There is a representative of the Board of Trade on each marine board, and an advisory committee of some kind connected with it. What has happened with regard to the marine boards is this, that it is the Government official who has the power, and as a consequence the local bodies do not take the smallest interest in the business. They are run purely from the Board of Trade. If that happens here the scheme cannot possibly succeed. You must have some local interest if it is going to be a success, and the keener the interest the greater the success. I am afraid that if the system outlined by the right hon. Gentleman is carried out, and if the real power is going to lay with the paid officials of the Board of Trade, that the local interest will be lacking, and the thing will not be a success; and then it may be thought that some other system could have been adopted whereby local feeling and interest could have been brought more closely into association with the scheme. I do not think there is really very much to say on the Bill. So long as we agree on the general principle there is nothing in the Bill to quarrel about.

But we have had a great many interesting speeches this afternoon, and very few of them have had anything to do with the Bill. That is not surprising, because the President of the Board of Trade, in a speech which he made in connection with the Bill, dwelt in a most interesting manner with the whole field of social reform. He spoke as if it was to be embraced in this Bill. The principle of his speech was to point to every evil that flesh is heir to—evils which we all realise—boy labour, decasualisation of labour, and so forth, and say: "Look how evil that is; now we are going to establish Labour Exchanges," as though that was a complete cure for them all! For instance, both he and another hon. Member on the other side of the House spoke about the splendid system which exists in Germany of taking boys from school and putting them to skilled trades, and so avoiding that enormous and terrible waste which exists in this country, where boys are put to work that does not fit them for anything. He pointed to this scheme as though it would remedy the evil. It is going to do nothing of the kind. I would venture to say to hon. Members below the Gangway—I certainly do not wish to say anything offen- sive—that one of the difficulties which exists in this country now with regard to boy labour is the jealousy of trade unions about the apprentices.

Well, if hon. Gentlemen ask employers of labour in another of the great cities they will tell them that that is undoubtedly one of the great reasons against getting these boys into the skilled trades. There is another reason why the system does not apply. I am certainly not going to bring in the question of Tariff Reform now. I have no desire to bring it in on every occasion. But everyone will admit, apart altogether from the question of Tariff Reform, that the industrial position in Germany is absolutely different to the position here. It is different for this reason. Industry in Germany is steadily expanding all the time. Everyone who knows anything about the conditions of labour there knows that there is a constant rising from the unskilled ranks to the skilled ranks in Germany. There is employment for grown-up men in these trades in Germany, and it is no good to say that the conditions which work well in Germany will also work well in this country, where there is obviously not the same demand for that kind of labour. Then the same hon. Gentleman dwelt on the subject of overtime. How in the world Labour Exchanges are going to benefit the system of overtime in the interests of the whole community he did not make clear. Some of his figures appeared to be very extraordinary. He told us we must equip ourselves for competing with foreigners in all our trades. The reason that overtime exists is because in a great many industries the materials which are used in the manufacture cannot be stocked, and the order when given to a firm is on condition that it is executed within a particular time; if that condition is not accepted by the firm the order is withdrawn. Therefore, undoubtedly, it is a fact that a large portion of overtime is due to causes that cannot be avoided, at all events, under the industrial system in this and other countries. It is easy to see to what all these speeches lead. Socialists think that the organisation of labour is going to do away with all its fluctuations. Socialists, unlike other controversialists, have this one merit. They confess to having a system that will remedy all the evils of unemployment and of fluctuation. They have the advantage of making that profession. But how in the world it is going to be carried out no one has ever given us any idea. All that I would say now in connection with these speeches is that the right hon. Gentleman himself has raised, in introducing this Bill, hopes which are not justified by anything in the Bill itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) spoke of the strong language used by the Prime Minister of a Bill to relieve the heart of unemployment, and my hon. Friend asked: Is this the answer? I am afraid it is not. As far as one can judge, if eloquent speeches could cure unemployment, this Government would do it; if anything else is necessary, we must wait for some other Government.

Although the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade dealt with some details, and dealt with them in a systematic way, there are still a number of points still undealt with, with some of which I propose to deal now. First, let me express the great pleasure I felt at the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the fact that the greatest commodity of all commodities in any country, namely, labour, is at last to be provided with a proper system of exchange. We have cotton exchanges, corn exchanges, and other exchanges in order that there may be something like method and system in connection with trade and industry; and now we welcome the fact that in a sense the Government recognise that the time has come when Labour should also have its exchange, and that there is to be something like order in the supply of labour as a commodity. We have been chastised in the course of a few speeches delivered by hon. Members on the Opposition side above the Gangway for very strange offences. The hon. Member for Newcastle told us that this Bill was being supported by the employers because it was just what they wanted, and because it would enable them to get the labour just as they required it. Why we should be denounced for supporting such a measure simply because it is welcomed by some employers is beyond my comprehension. If we give our support to a Bill of that kind we should, I think, rather be praised than blamed.

Those who oppose this measure on the ground that it proposes to register unemployment are forgetful of the fact that that was the main principle of the Unemployment Act of the late Government. That measure contained the principle of registration, coupled with all the evils of registering men under a very bad system. Under that Act men are registered under police-like auspices, and under conditions and circumstances which are repellent to workmen. That is very largely the reason why only a minority of unemployed workers of the country, skilled and unskilled, have in any degree used the registers of the various Labour Bureaux throughout the country. Those who would decide to leave these matters entirely alone, as would appear to be the position of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Frederick Banbury) may be properly described as the industrial anarchists of our time. They say, "Let these matters alone, the employers will find labourers and the labourers will find employment." That is not the view or the experience which has driven the Government and public opinion to the conclusion that order, method, and machinery in the registration and direction of labour is now required. The objection of the hon. Baronet to the advancing of a little money on loan to assist people to get to work where work has been found for them is surely a strange one. What is the good of telling a man that there is work to be had in a place if that man is unable to reach it; and when you could give him assistance to get there?

Reference has been made to the experience which some of us have been able to have recently in Germany. There we saw, for instance, women being called up through the telephone and directed to go to certain places where they would find work. A woman was told that she must proceed to work two or three miles distant, and that she was required immediately; and she was provided with the necessary copper or two under a system of small loan to enable her to take her to the destination to which she had to go. Judging by the speeches delivered above the Gangway, it is clear that those hon. Gentlemen who deliver them think there is only one remedy for unemployment, and that that one remedy was Tariff Reform. In the centre of a great Protectionist country, Germany, we saw hundreds of men, skilled and unskilled, assembled together on municipal premises, under Government regulation, waiting for work; and we saw that Tariff Reform does not mean work for all, or anything like it. The hon. Member for Dulwich has advanced a reason why he thinks it inadvisable to set up these Exchanges as National or State institutions. I do not think there would be any objection to associating municipal activity or life with these Exchanges, but it would surely be a bad thing to leave them entirely to municipal control or municipal initiative.

What has been the action with regard to municipal inactivity in reference to the carrying out of the present Unemployment Act? Hundreds of questions have been put in this House inquiring whether, in certain towns or districts, these bureaux have been opened up. There is a great difference between municipal and civic spirit in this country and in Germany. Our municipalities in this country are largely run on party lines. In other countries that is not so, and if you leave the working of these Exchanges to the municipal bodies in this country you will undoubtedly repeat the unfortunate experience we have had in connection with the Unemployment Act now in existence. An argument was hurled at the trade unions. We were told that they are largely responsible for the grievances in respect of boy labour. That can be met by a very easy and conclusive answer. The boy labour difficulty arises from trade organisations in no way dealt with by the trade unions of this country. Boys are employed in all manner of unskilled labour. They go as messengers and as errand boys, as helpers in certain trades, but they go without any supervision or regulation whatever so far as the trade unions are concerned, and I am assured by those who know the opinion of the skilled trade unions that it is not the trade unions, but the opinions and the wishes of the employers, that gives rise to any difficulty that there may be in connection with boy labour in those skilled trades.

The Bill is one asking more for powers or Departmental regulations than it is a Bill of so many clauses, or than that it would constitute a statute which would fully express our purpose in connection with this question. I am not enamoured of government by regulation. I have not a long experience, but in the few years I have been in this House of Commons I have seen cases of complaint of the manner in which regulations are first framed and then put to the House as unalterable proposals, which it is almost disrespectful to question. Regulations in connection with the Unemployment Act were put into operation, and they entirely defeated the spirit of the Act, and were not framed in accordance with the terms of the Act. I know we must make some allowance, and that we cannot legislate for one year, but that we must legislate for many years. We must not look for what is only acceptable to us for the time being; we must lock ahead, and therefore I conclude it would be far better to express more fully what is required in the clauses of a Bill than to leave so much to proposed regulations. For myself, I cannot accept as satisfactory or conclusive what I understand to be the right hon. Gentleman's statement in respect to what is to happen in the event of a trade dispute. I understood him to explain that, given such a dispute, there would be a committee jointly consisting of the employers and the employed. That committee would have power to decide, whatever the attitude of a Labour Exchange was, in respect to a claim for labour in that district.

When a dispute is in operation it is very difficult to say what area it covers.

I cannot conceive of any conditions, however hemmed in by limitations and conditions, that will be acceptable to trade unions that would, under any circumstances or on any account, permit a register of unemployed workmen being supplied to employers during a time of dispute. Whether the employers or the workmen be right in a time of dispute, during the period of the struggle there should be absolute impartiality and neutrality on the part of any Labour Exchange in regard to the dispute itself; and whether it be that the employer has locked his men out or the men have struck, there should be no such thing as an organised supply of labour while the dispute is in progress. No reference was made as to whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put this matter in the Bill. I assume he cannot, large as his power may be, speak for more than himself, and any successor of the right hon. Gentleman might frame regulations on this point in harmony with the terms of the Bill. This is a matter so important to us that we would much sooner have it definitely provided for in the Bill than leave it to the risk of any future regulations that might be framed. No reference was made to the class of man who is going to be employed as manager of a Labour Exchange. I would like to know what his qualifications are to be, and what is going to be the test of fitness? If the test is going to be an examination, I may say that even in that respect the inspectors appointed have not always, in our opinion, been exactly suited for the positions they have been called upon to fulfil. A knowledge of the arts has been considered a qualification for a factory inspector. That, no doubt, is a wholesome advantage, but I do not think it is advisable to have as managers of Labour Exchanges men who lack a varied and extensive industrial knowledge, and who could not guarantee a sympathetic administration of the affairs of the Exchange. I quite agree it is not advisable to erect any large number of new buildings for the purposes of these Exchanges. Exchanges will not only have to be placed where men can be conveniently registered, where books can be kept, and where a sort of sign-post can be put up directing people to places where they can get work, but they should be centres for rest, reading, recreation, conversation, and so on, for the men themselves. That is what we saw in Berlin, where hundreds of men were found in large and commodious rooms provided with harmless forms of recreation and enjoyment. I would like to know whether it is intended to make any discrimination between the skilled and unskilled classes in that respect.

In the first-class Labour Exchange there will be separate rooms for men and women, and separate rooms for skilled men and skilled women, as far as possible.

I conclude it is not intended to provide greater structural accommodation than is necessary for the purpose of waiting rooms. I think the rooms should be so arranged that they will not imply any kind of social inferiority on the part of the lower-paid working men who might have to assemble there with their higher-paid brethren. With regard to the decasualisation of labour, so far as I can see the effect of the operation of the exchange system, it appears to me that it will throw some men out of work, because other men will be guaranteed more continuous work than is the case at present. That is bound to be the result unless you enlarge the volume of available labour and adopt the Labour party's remedy, which is more work. We do not think, no matter what other steps you may take, that you can settle this difficulty until you reach that point. Assuming that the effect of the system of exchanges will be that some men will be deprived of work altogether, because more work is given to other men, what are you going to do with that class who will be thrown out of employment? Surely there will be an additional claim on the part of these men, assuming exchanges have that effect? At the present time a state of scramble gives them some work, and if you take away from them this chance of casual employment their claim upon the State is surely a stronger one than before. The question of wages has not been referred to, and no one has alluded to the duty of the exchanges in regard to supplying the men with a knowledge of the wages they are to receive for the work to which they might be sent. In Berlin a general knowledge of wages, conditions of work, and so on, is supplied to any man who is asked to go to any particular place, and I conclude it will be the business of the Labour Exchanges to let the men know what is the rate of wages for the particular occupation to which they are sent. Surely it would not be a good thing for our Labour Exchanges to assist men to go to work below the standard rate of wages in that particular occupation. Already the State recognises the Fair Wages Clause and conditions in its contracts, and these Exchanges ought to be worked upon a basis which will prevent men being paid below the standard wage in any particular place. I would like to know if a man refused to go to work below the standard rate, would that refusal damage him in regard to his future prospects?

No, Sir. The workman and the employer will resort to the Exchange on equal terms. The employer is looking for a workman, and the workman is looking for a job. If a workman decides that he will not take a particular job after he has heard all about it, and concluded that it will not suit him, he is entitled to refuse it. In the same way the employer might say that he did not think that particular man would suit him, and he could refuse to employ him.

My point is that this House, acting for the State, ought to decline to arrange a contract which does not conform to the Fair Wages Clause and does not secure the standard rate of wages. If that is accepted as a principle in regard to contracts it should also be accepted in regard to supplying labour. These Exchanges will be institutions conducted at the cost of the State, and they ought not to be used to supply employers with labour below the prevailing or standard rate of wages. I accept the general principle of this measure as a big step in the right direction, and I trust that during the Committee stage there will be a number of Amendments and improvements made in the direction we desire. We are often charged with submitting proposals which are impractical and visionary, but our proposals are not offered in exchange for the proposals of the Government, and we are not seeking to supplant them. The proposals of the Government we accept, and we regard them as necessary preliminaries to what we hope eventually to obtain. I cannot conceive an efficient industrial system without some provision corresponding to the changes now proposed. The protection of boy labour, better facilities for technical training, land reform, small holdings, and a dozen other things will not settle this question of unemployment, because as fast as you make men efficient machines come along to force the workers into the streets, and you will have eventually to face a man's right to labour as well as his right to live. Unemployment can be traced to the skilled trades, and if skill was a guarantee against unemployment you would not see the hundreds and thousands of skilled men recorded in your "Labour Gazette" as being unemployed. You cannot look for a final solution of these troubles to any one of these remedies, and we accept all of them in the hope that it will be easier in the days that are to come for the State to provide what a man has a right to receive, namely, the right to live by his labour as well as the right to live at all.

The speeches we have had the opportunity of listening to in this Debate possess an unusual amount of interest. This Bill has been criticised by hon. Members on this side of the House, but I will not attempt to deal with those criticisms. I presume there will be upon the other stages of this measure opportunities given to draw attention to the various points which have been raised. I think the right hon. Gentleman's Bill has rather suffered from the somewhat patronising attitude taken up towards it by hon. Members below the Gangway. But, although hon. Members belonging to the Labour party look upon this measure as a sort of instalment or step along a certain line in legislation, that does not appear to be the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman.

I propose to vote for this Bill, because I think that in dealing with the matter of unemployment such an elementary organisation as that suggested should be called into existence. It seems to me only reasonable that where we have a surplus of applicants for employment in one dis- trict, and a scarcity of applicants in another district, those who wish to be employed and those who wish to employ them should be brought together without loss or waste of time. One need hardly say a word to defend such an organisation. It surely appeals to the sympathies of everyone. I am sure that the principle of the Bill will obtain almost universal support in this House. I do not rise for the purpose of referring to the attitude of mind of hon. Members below the Gangway to this Bill, but for the purpose of making a special appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on a matter which has not been referred to in this Debate. Will this Labour Exchange Bill interfere with that great network of voluntary effort which exists in this country for dealing with the unemployed? Will it interfere with the organisations of a voluntary description which have been doing work for those who have been suffering from unemployment? The right hon. Gentleman is going to set up an official organisation. If there is one thing an official organisation suffers from more than another it is coldness and a kind of mechanical attitude towards the people with whom it deals. I do not complain of that. I believe it to be inseparable from the system. We find it everywhere where there is an official organisation. That is to say, we find coldness and mechanical attitude towards the people with whom the organisation comes into contact. We have just the opposite spirit in all the voluntary undertakings to which we are accustomed in this country. Let me refer, for instance, to our hospitals. In some countries there is no such thing as a voluntary hospital. The hospital is managed by the State. But in this country that is totally different, and when people go to a hospital they feel that they are in touch with souls, and that makes them very happy. All the surroundings are made as bright as they can be, and no one feels that there is that element of coldness and mechanical touch which is inseparable from a mechanical organisation. We have the same thing in our great orphanages and in our aslyums for idiots. The most marvellous results are produced. Why? Because the invalids are in close touch with persons who take the liveliest interest in their well-being. If the right hon gentleman can succeed in some way in keeping his official organisation in touch with these voluntary organisations, which are pulsating with sympathy in a way that his organisation cannot pos- sibly do, he will do a great thing on behalf of the people. He will accomplish in connection with this Bill a very important and valuable work.

I refer to this matter especially in connection with the retrieving of lost character. Many men lose their characters, and they are so well known that they cannot return to the scenes of their former activities. They fear to associate themselves with their former acquaintances. Unless these men can be sympathetically laid hold of and encouraged they will remain a source of danger to the community to which they belong instead of being a source of good. In connection with the Labour Exchanges there should be every opportunity given to a man who has lost his character to regain it. He may have lost his character from weakness or bad habits, and he should have every opportunity to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the community. But this cannot be done in a cold, rigid, mechanical way, such as will characterise the Labour Exchanges. If the Labour Exchanges knew how to utilise powers of sympathy they would render effectual help to many who are now influenced by voluntary associations. Reference has been made this afternoon to boy labour, but that has nothing on earth to do with the Bill. Reference has also been made to the reduction of hours of labour and to other matters which hon. Members below the Gangway attach much importance. These are questions to which no reference is made in the Bill. The question of boy labour will have to be considered later on. There is on foot a movement with reference to the time to which boys and girls should leave the schools. They are not detained so long in the schools for it to be possible to teach them skilled labour. There is just one other point to which I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is this: Will the Labour Exchanges intelligently endeavour to make the very most of the powers of each individual who may seek employment? Will they ascertain the origin of the men? Will they ascertain where they were trained and brought up, and what power they are likely to have of a specialist kind? Will an intelligent interest towards the people be shown in that way? It very often happens that a bad labourer may be a very good mechanic. One of my friends came into contact with a labourer who apparently was unskilled, but it turned out that he could write shorthand at the rate of a hundred and eighty words a minute, and it was not long before that man got £300 a year. If a woman has to deal with a bad domestic servant it does not follow that the domestic servant may not be an admirable textile worker. Unless there be not only real hard work, but intelligent hard work, in connection with the Labour Exchange, the thing will be a failure. Unless individuals are dealt with in an intelligent manner the organisation must be a failure. Very often we hear labour spoken of in the mass as if it could be produced in large quantities. It does not apparently seem to occur to people who speak of it in the mass as if the labour world was not full of varieties. It is that mechanical way of treating the unemployed that results in absolute failure. If we could ascertain what the powers of a man are or what the powers of a woman are and what are their capabilities for industrial work, and put them to the work to which they are most suited, we should do a great deal of good. It is very difficult to teach old dogs new tricks. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade takes a lively interest in this Bill, and I hope that the general regulations may be very carefully thought out.

We have our own ideas as to the general principles, and we propose to consult with employers and the representatives of workmen in order to arrive as far as possible at an agreement with regard to the general regulations.

Can I appeal with any success to the right hon. Gentleman to add one more clause to the Bill. He tells me he is going to lay regulations after consultation with the employers and with the workers. May I ask if he will also consult those who, up to the present time, have interested themselves in this work and who have specialised in it? I do not mind whether he consults the heads of the Salvation Army, or the Church Army, or any other organisation of a voluntary character which has for years been specialising in this particular kind of work, but I am sure, if the right hon. Gentleman will do that, he will get valuable assistance and advice from these people. All I ask is that the regulations may be good, sound, elastic and humane. These are qualities which, I fear, are too often absent from regulations of this character, and they are very much wanted in connection with this work. The expense will be considerable. Personally, I think it will be worth it, but surely the right hon. Gentleman need not indulge in any great outlay on buildings. There is no necessity for that. One hon. Member below the Gangway described the kind of luxurious club which was going to be set up for persons suffering from unemployment. That cannot be necessary at the initial stage of this movement. An hon. Member also spoke of reading and recreation rooms, but I cannot think that it is possible to afford an expenditure of £50,000 or £80,000 in every great centre in order to start experimental work of this nature. We have far too many of these luxurious buildings already.

Possibly not in Woolwich, but they do exist, and they involve enormous expense, while they are outside the work which this Bill proposes to do. If we, on this side of the House, thought it was proposed to go in for any large and expensive club arrangement we certainly should be obliged to take an attitude in regard to this measure different to that which it has hitherto been our privilege to adopt. While one hopes unnecessary expense may not be incurred, it is also possible to hope that the two Departments will work better together. When we have things between two stools they are very apt to come to the ground. I must say that I personally wish that this Bill was to be carried out either by the Board of Trade alone or by the Local Government Board alone. I am afraid it is likely to be disadvantageous to the efficient carrying out of the provisions of the Bill to place it partly under one Department and partly under the other. We have had illustrations of this in the past, and we know how difficult it is to fix the responsibility for carrying out special duties. I think it would have been far better if the work had been placed under one Department, say the Board of Trade. What we want is to get the Labour Exchanges established and at work, so that those who have to apply for assistance may feel that they have got friends somewhere who can hold out a hand and make it easy for them either to retrieve a lost position or to maintain a good one. I do not wish to carp at or to criticise the provisions of the Bill. I think that the general principles which underlie it are such that when the opportunity comes I shall be able to vote for them.

I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade as to the effect of this Bill on the London Labour Ex- changes. It is very vague in its general statement, and it leaves so much to the discretion of the Board of Trade. That Board may take over any Labour Exchanges, whether established or not, before the passing of this Act, and I should like to know if the President of the Board of Trade really intends at once to take over the London Exchanges, because London has been far more active than other places in setting up these Exchanges, and we have now something like 14 in the Metropolis. It is quite clear it will be hard on London, after having established so many Exchanges, if they are not to be taken over. If they are taken over, London will be put on a level with the rest of the country, and will be saved a certain contribution from the rates. I think that will be the only occasion on which this Government will have given anything in relief to the rates in London. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget has been very hard upon municipalities and upon London in particular. We are also doubtful on another point. It is suggested that these Labour Exchanges, or special Committees, may be carried on subject to rules made by the Local Government Board. That, again, I think makes it necessary for us to know whether or not the Labour Exchanges will be taken over.

May I answer that question at once? We are already in communication with the London Labour Exchanges, and several conferences have been held with a view to our taking them over on terms that are fair.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. There is one other point I would like to raise. It has been said that rooms in the exchanges are to be set apart for skilled and unskilled labour. Why maintain this invidious distinction? I think it will be very difficult to keep it up.

The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Carlile) commenced by deprecating the introduction into this discussion of questions about overtime, and he also enlarged on the virtues of people who administer imbecile asylums. I should like to know what that had to do with this particular Bill. Again he argued that we could get no proper attention except in State institutions voluntarily administered. Let me assure him he knows absolutely nothing about the administration of institutions of that character. There are 13 hospitals in London administered by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in a most admirable manner. The whole tenour of his speech seemed to go on the lines of making people the subject of somebody's charity and philanthropy. Well, we want to get rid of that. We want a man to be a man, and not to be humbly asking if he may be allowed, etc. We are sick and tired of compelling men who are men to say; "If you can, if you will be so kind, we shall be so much obliged if you will give us a bit of bread." We have started these Labour Exchanges so that men may keep their manhood. Is it proposed that the charity organisations shall be consulted, and not the views of employers or workmen in connection with Labour Exchanges?

I expressly said that in my opinion the trades unions should be consulted in connection with the Labour Exchanges.

If the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the people who are going to do the work and to the men who are going to find the work for them to do, and if he will leave out the people who wish to rescue the fallen he will do better. We want to prevent men from falling; we are going to stop the recruiting ground for that kind of thing. What has the Labour Exchange to do with a man's character? If I go and apply for a job the master wants to know if I can do the work. He is more concerned about that than anything else. I remember when we took a lot of boys down for employment in the fishing industry we said: "These are very respectable God-fearing lads." What was the reply to that? "Oh, that may be all right, but can they pull?" The people were much more concerned about how much the lads could pull than about their Christianity. I am not desirous of belittling good moral training, but what has the Exchange to do with that? The fact is, these Exchanges are going to begin where we ought to have begun 20 years ago. They are going to find out where the work is, and where are the men who want it. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be absolutely amazed that someone should have said that Labour Exchanges should include a shelter for men, where they may sit down and read while waiting for a job; where they may get a bath, and even a good meal. Is he frightened of Germany? That system is in existence there, and surely it is better, for instance, to have a place for men and women where they may sit instead of idling about the streets till they become dirty and dilapidated. Surely it is better to have a place where they can keep themselves clean? We want some better organisation of labour; we do not want men praying for work and no one to give it to them, and I suggest that these Labour Exchanges are the proper organisations for dealing with this problem.

I desire to ask one or two practical questions which have occurred to my hon. Friends and myelf. This Bill will, I understand, deal with labour in large industrial centres, but I speak from the point of view of one who is interested in a labour problem of precisely the same character in rural districts. I should like to know from the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes or whether it would be possible to give this Bill any application to rural districts?

Certainly; I hope it will be applicable in all districts, though I do not think there will be a divisional exchange in all districts, but there will be smaller agencies, and the Post Office will serve the purpose where there is no agency at all. I have had the hon. Gentleman's Irish case very much in mind. I have had a special report made on Ireland, and investigations are now proceeding. From all I am able to hear we have very great expectation that the Bill will have a very useful effect in Ireland. Certainly the exchanges in Ireland will be in urban centres, but they will be in rural districts too.

I am very glad indeed to have elicited that statement from the right hon. Gentleman, and I think it will be received with very hearty welcome by a great many people who are interested in the rural problem in Ireland. I am sure we appreciate the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman to meet us in matters of this kind, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will, in applying this Bill to Ireland, follow the excellent example of the Trade Boards Bill, and organise the Labour Exchanges in Ireland from a centre in Ireland, and not from the Board of Trade here in London? I need not repeat the case which was made in regard to the Trade Boards Bill, and it is not precisely of the same kind, but as he knows, as well as I do, the economic conditions of Ireland are not at all the same as England.

I think it would be very difficult to have more than one centre. In the case of Labour Exchanges like the Post Office there must be one system, but the advisory committees in Ireland will be exclusively composed of Irishmen cognisant with the interests of Ireland.

Arising out of that the concrete point which I wish to make is this: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to encourage migration from a part of the country where there is no work to a part where there is work? I hope it is no part of his policy to encourage the migration of unemployed Irish casual labourers, from Irish rural districts, or small county towns in Ireland, to industrial centres in England. If the system is worked as one from one centre, I am afraid that danger will arise, unless the separate parts of the United Kingdom are treated as separate units. While expressing satisfaction at the earlier reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot accord the same expression of gratification with regard to the latter part. It is possible we may be able to discuss the matter further, but my hon. Friends on these benches will have extreme satisfaction in voting with the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the principle of the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Trawling in Prohibited Areas (Prevention) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read the third time."

moved to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to insert the words "upon this day three months."

I can scarcely be expected to remain silent on the third reading of this Bill when I hold such very strong opinions that the objects, or sets of objects, with which this Bill was really introduced will not be carried out by it. Although one is only in a small minority, I think it is clearly one's duty to protest against a measure which in one's own opinion will only be fraught with disadvantage to this country and with advantage to the foreigner. I base my argument for that on a comparison between the position now and the position 13 years ago as regards the Moray Firth. Thirteen years ago the same object as is desired now, namely, to protect the Moray Firth as a breeding ground, was sought after, and to achieve that object then Scottish ports alone were closed to the landing of fish caught by foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth, with no result whatever, and now it is supposed that because you close a different area of ports—ports in a very slightly extended area—that you will achieve the object that you have not accomplished during those 13 years. Owing to the high standard of speed attained, the distance to which the fish can be carried is absolutely immaterial. I cannot give a better instance of that than an incident which took place at Billingsgate this last week. There was landed at the market there an unexpected quantity—200 tons—of plaice which had come from the White Sea, which is 2,000 miles away. The plaice was landed in excellent condition, and is of great advantage for the food of this country. It is presumed, however, by this wonderful Government, who introduced this Bill, that because you prohibit the landing at ports with a difference of distance of 200 to 300 miles to what it was formerly, you are going to prevent the Moray Firth from being trawled. The thing is ludicrous and absurd, and will not stand examination for a moment. The actual difference in distance between the foreign ports and trawlers is 50 or 100 miles at the outside further off than the ports of Grimsby and of Hull. Three or four hours' steam is nothing to these foreign trawlers, and I have myself complete assurance that a fleet of foreign trawlers have been especially built to exploit the Moray Firth.

Although I am anxious to do nothing ungracious to the Government, I cannot, under these circumstances, remain silent, and cannot allow this Bill to pass without bringing these very important facts to the notice of the House. I do not for a moment believe that this is the last we shall hear of this Bill even in this House this Session, because it has to go to another place, and I have no doubt we shall have a Debate on this subject from the Foreign Office point of view. In this House we only have the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to answer a few questions, and I think it would have been better if the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had seen his way to take a little more interest in these matters. The answer of the Government to objections is, "Oh, this is only the first step; we wish to obtain the sanction of foreign Powers, who will readily agree not to fish in the Moray Firth," but anything more ludicrous after all this lapse of time cannot be conceived. Another Government said the same thing 13 years ago, and it has been stated repeatedly, but it must not be imagined that foreign Powers are any nearer to assenting than they were then. I may be told that a representative of the greatest trawling industry in the world is in favour of the Bill, but I am not able to follow the change of opinion which now animates the hon. Member for Grimsby (Sir G. Doughty); but, of course, we in Aberdeen are on our own basis, and I represent not only trawlers but line fishermen. I have every confidence, although I am in a small minority, that I am doing what is right in calling the attention of the country to a Bill which, in my opinion, was conceived in ignorance, nursed by paid agitators, who are most harmful to any movement, and brought to maturity to a large extent by political necessity, together with a good deal of that obstinacy which very often characterises the office which is more directly interested in this Bill. Therefore, I move the rejection of this Bill.

:I second the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, on behalf of the English consumer of fish, whom I represent in this House as far as one division of England is concerned. This Bill is a highly protective Bill—not exactly the character of Bill one would have expected from the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, and one was all the more surprised to find it emanating from his hands. It is a Protective Bill with all the very worst vices of the most extended policy of Protection that anyone can conceive, because it sets up a Protective policy between portions of the United Kingdom. That certainly is a very serious proposal to come from a Free Trade Government, but when we not only find that it has all this so-called vice of Protection in the most extraordinary form, but that it deals with the food of the people, then we are still more surprised than we were at first. Here we have a population in England largely dependent upon good, cheap food supplies; but the Bill makes it impossible for this particular form of cheap, good nourishing food to be brought to English ports, and if the fish is brought to English ports it has to be destroyed within the sight perhaps of hundreds, if not thousands, of persons who may under conceivable circumstances be suffering from hunger. It seems an extraordinary suggestion to come from this present Govern- ment, and when one considers that it has this double vice, from their point of view especially, the vice of Protection and the vice of bringing about the destruction of wholesome and cheap food within sight of the shore where there are thousands who need that supply, I think one need not apologise further for seconding the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. I am quite sure that if the English consumers of fish understood what the Bill really meant, as far as they are concerned, they would not wish any of us who represent English Constituencies, at any rate, to forward this mischievous proposal to bring about a supposed benefit to Scotland and Ireland by imposing suffering and, to some extent, deprivation of a portion of necessary food supply to the people of England.

Before the Bill passes I should like to direct attention to the effect it would have upon the fisheries in the Moray Firth if passed into Law. Of course, we know that under the provisions of the Bill all trawlers of any nationality will be debarred from landing fish in any British port which has been trawled in the Moray Firth, and when taken in conjunction and connection with the action of the Government when they released the Elgin trawlers, it will have the effect of an authorisation to all foreign trawlers to trawl in the Firth at any time and in any place they choose, provided only they do not approach nearer than three miles to the shore. The Moray Firth is a sea of 2,550 square miles, situated between two headlands, and when the Bill passes into law all the fish in that area, saving only a few which may be taken by line fishermen, will be the property of foreign trawlers who choose to go there and fetch them. It is fairly easy to understand why the trawling companies of Grimsby are in favour of the Bill. When it is passed they will be in a position to register their trawling fleets under any foreign flag they choose, to man them with foreign crews and come to the Moray Firth and take the fish and dispose of them in any foreign port they like. It may be said, "That being so, why do you support the Bill?" My answer to that is that I regard the Bill as a means to an end, and to the only possible end, which is the closing of the Moray Firth. The legal and international questions have been fairly well thrashed out. The Lord Advocate, in regard to his contention in the case of the "Niobe" when he was Solicitor-General, has now, I understand, characterised his argument as patriotic, but his argument is far more. It was con- clusive. It was so conclusive that there was not a single one of the 12 Judges of Appeal in the court of Edinburgh who even cared to traverse it. When the legislation deals with an area like the Moray Firth, an area which is distinctly specified, there cannot be any presumption that it was intended to exclude the foreigner, and more so because the territory in question was undoubtedly British. I think the case of the linesmen is a very strong one. They have behind them the backing not only of the 12 learned judges in Edinburgh, and the argument of the Lord Advocate, of his predecessor Lord Shaw, and of the Secretary for Scotland, but, speaking personally, I hope I might almost say I believe that when the Foreign Secretary has a leisure moment in which he could glance at the arguments and judgment in the case of the Bay of Conception and that of the Bristol Channel, he too will come into line with the Lord Advocate and admit our right to these Scottish waters, and admit it without any infringement of what is known as international comity.

The Constituency I represent in Liverpool is largely interested in the Bill, because Liverpool is one of the principal ports to which a very considerable quantity of fish is daily brought, and it is a very considerable market for fish. I think it is not generally understood what is the real effect of this Bill. As I understand, it is not only the Moray Firth, but two or three other very important pieces of water—altogether about 7,000 square miles of sea space surrounding our coasts which are within the purview of the Bill. A considerable portion of these parts of the sea, and particularly the Moray Firth, have been noted for many years as being excellent breeding places for fish. Therefore it is very desirable that they should not be trawled, so that the great produce of the ocean shall to some extent be reasonably protected, and the fish properly propagated. It appears that there are no means except treaties with foreign countries of protecting open pieces of sea like the Moray Firth from being trawled, so far as they extend beyond the three-mile limit. All that we can do here, as a House of Parliament, is to pass a measure dealing with our citizens. We cannot prohibit foreign vessels from fishing to any extent they like outside the three-mile limit, unless the area happens to be enclosed by land and is really inside from the sea. Of course, that is not the case with the Moray Firth, which is in the shape of a large triangle with the larger side entirely open, and is, therefore, for all practical purposes, an open part of the sea from the point of view of international law. That being the case, attempts were made in the supposed interest of the fishing industry to restrict fishing in the Moray Firth and other places. An Act of Parliament was passed prohibiting our own vessels from trawling in the Moray Firth. The immediate effect of that was to prevent our vessels from trawling there, and to give a licence to every foreign vessel to come and trawl to any extent it liked. That has been going on for a number of years. I understand this Bill proposes to carry the prohibition a step further. The effect of the Bill, if passed, will be not merely that our own trawlers will be precluded from trawling in the Moray Firth outside the three-mile limit, but that any fish caught either by foreign or British trawlers will be precluded from being sold in British ports. But the Bill has this further effect by implication. It makes the Moray Firth and some of these important pieces of water practically foreign preserves. That is exactly what we object to. We object to a very important piece of fishing ground like the Moray Firth being made simply into a foreign preserve. It is perfectly ridiculous that that should be done. It is one of the most important and valuable pieces of fishing ground adjacent to the British Islands—an enormous piece of 2,500 square miles of sea in extent, and that is without reference to the area of other parts which are included in the Bill. Foreign trawlers can come, if the Bill is passed, and fish to their heart's content, and they can take away the fish and sell them in foreign ports. They can do that with impunity. The law as it stands to-day is this: These foreign trawlers can come into the fishing grounds and fish, and they can bring the fish into our ports, but if we pass this Bill they will not be able to bring the fish into our ports. At present we have some advantage from the fishing in the Moray Firth, because foreign trawlers can bring fish into English ports, but if this Bill is passed, in addition to losing the industry of fishing we go a step further and prevent the community at home from having the benefit of cheap fish. It seems to me that that is adding another stupid restriction to the stupid restrictions already existing, and, therefore, I venture to appeal even at the last moment to the common sense—The hon. Member (Mr. Pirie) shakes his head. I am afraid that if I appeal to the common sense of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I shall do so without obtaining any reasonable result, but I appeal to the common sense of the House generally. I shall put it in this way. What the opponents of this Bill say is that the members of the general community have a right to be considered in the matter. We ask that one of two things should happen in regard to the Moray Firth—either that British and foreign trawlers should both be allowed to fish, or that they should both be prohibited. The restrictions made by this Bill in favour of foreign trawlers makes the measure one of the most objectionable that has ever come to the notice of this House in my experience. I trust the House will see its way to reject the measure. It is for these reasons that I support the Amendment.

I make no apology for speaking in support of the Motion for the third reading of this Bill. As the Bill now stands, I support it as the lesser of two evils. Everyone interested in fishing matters in this House knows very well what my policy would be. It would be the removal of all these restrictions in the enclosed areas, and the throwing into the open sea for fishing purposes all the waters outside the three-mile limit, but the Government in their wisdom have not been prepared to adopt that course. They have brought in this Bill as their endeavour to cure an evil which has admittedly existed for a great many years. The Bill when presented to the House not merely included these enclosed areas to which I have referred, but was also applicable to the three-mile limit all round the coasts of Scotland and Ireland. In Committee upstairs the provision with respect to the three-mile limit, which is dealt with under International law, was excluded, and the Bill now applies only to those enclosed areas which have been enclosed by the Scotch Fishery Board and by the Irish Administration that deals with fishing areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. William Rutherford) has put the case somewhat strongly from the point of view of foreign fishing vessels being allowed to come to these areas where British fishing vessels are excluded. That sounds very well, and undoubtedly it is the great defect of this measure, but we must look at the matter in the light of past experience. It is not the first time that a Bill has been passed under which foreign fishing vessels will have the exclusive right of fishing in those enclosed areas. They have had that right for 13 years, since the Moray Firth was enclosed. Therefore, for 13 years this supposed advantage has been enjoyed by foreign fishing vessels. How far has that supposed advantage been gained by foreigners That, I think, should guide the House as to what may be expected when this Measure is applied in its new form. I submit that during eight of the last thirteen years no ship worth mentioning of any sort was to be found in the Moray Firth. It is only during the last five or six years that there have been foreign fishing vessels frequenting these enclosed areas for the purpose of getting fish. What kind of vessels have been there? Have they been bonâ-fide foreign ships? My hon. Friend knows that nearly every one of these ships has been what is known as a "British foreign trawler." They have not been foreign trawlers owned by foreign subjects, and sent to fish as their own property. These ships, so far as 95 per cent. are concerned, were transferred to the foreign flag for the purpose of evading British law and the purpose of gaining extra advantage by being able to fish in the Moray Firth, thereby making a harvest there through its being enclosed in the way it has been. Thus the remedy that is aimed at and the evil that it is hoped to be cured by this Bill is that British-owned trawlers under the foreign flags frequenting the East Coast of England will be prevented from doing so, and if that is accomplished—and I am quite certain it will be accomplished by this Bill—then I believe, so far as the frequenting of these enclosed areas by foreign ships is concerned, it will be practically a thing of the past. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Pixie) to say that foreign ships are to be specially built for fishing in the Moray Firth. I know some little about the industry generally, and I have no knowledge of anything of the kind. And if it could be made profitable for so-called foreign ships to take their cargoes to foreign markets, he can rest assured that those ships that are British owned now under the foreign flag would adopt this policy very quickly. But the fact is that you must know something about the industry before you can judge of the effect of this measure. The fishing in the Moray Firth is only a seasonal fishing so far as the trawling is concerned. It does not last much more than five months, and when these people have caught the fish they have to find a foreign market in which they can sell it profitably. I do not know that foreign market, and I cannot find anyone of my fishermen in Grimsby who do know that foreign market where any business could be established which is profitable. Therefore, on that ground, if there were no other, there is no question whatever that this business of running the so-called foreign ships to foreign markets will be undoubtedly a failure. In any case this experiment ought to have a fair trial. I am at a loss to understand the hon. Member for Aberdeen in some of the remarks he has made to-night, because his constituents have been suffering for 13 years from this particular restriction. The restriction which applied to Scotland and Scotch ports never applied to England and to English ports, and the fish that has been caught during the last 13 years in the Moray Firth has passed the door of Aberdeen, where it was not allowed to be sold, and brought to British ports, where it has been sold.

If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, my contention is that for the past 13 years the regulation has resulted in failure, and that you can only judge from the experience of the past.

Whatever advantage there may have been from the catching of fish in the Moray Firth his constituents have not enjoyed any of it, because the ports of Scotland have been closed just in the same way as you propose to close British ports under this particular Bill. I would wish to point out to the House how unfairly the law is operating upon the fishermen in my own Constituency. There are about 30 ships sailing from Grimsby that are under the foreign flag, and it has been a rather profitable business during the last three or four years. Six or seven were, in the early part of this year, put under the foreign flag. What is the effect? Under the conditions of the law as applied by Scotland no British subject can be found upon or work upon a foreign trawler. The consequence has been that the 30 ships which originally belonged to Grimsby, and which were transferred to the foreign flag for the purpose of working the Moray Firth, have had every British fisherman taken out of them and entirely foreign crews placed upon them, and these foreign crews are working these vessels. I think anyone who looks at the question from the Labour standpoint will see that if you are to continue to allow a condition of affairs to go on under which ships can be transferred from the British flag to a foreign flag for the purpose of fishing a certain area that you have enclosed, and that British fishermen are to be put out of them, then that is a question that this House ought to deal with, and try to deal with, very effectively, It is for that reason very largely that my people are in favour of this Bill, not because it is perfect, but because we believe it is the lesser of two evils. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Carlile) said a great deal about the consumer's side of this question, and predicted that the consumer was going to suffer seriously as a result of this Bill. This cannot be called a consumer's question at all, because the total amount of fish value taken last year from the Moray Firth was less than £100,000, whereas the total amount of fish sold in England was value for over £13,000,000, but the ships that caught the £100,000 worth of fish will be transferred again to the British flag—four of them have already been transferred in anticipation of the passing of this Bill—and those 30 ships, instead of fishing the Moray Firth, will be catching fish for the British market in some other waters. Therefore the consumers' question vanishes as soon as that fact is known. Then he said it was a poor man's question—it was fish for the poor. I can assure him if it is a question of the consumer it is a rich man's question, because the fish food caught in the Firth is very largely ground fish, which is bought, as everybody knows, by those who have means sufficient to buy turbot and sole. So, looking at the Bill all round, although I cannot accomplish what I desire to accomplish in this matter, I think that this experiment ought to have an opportunity of being tried. We shall not be any worse off than we are now—that is certain; and so far as the evil at which it is aimed is concerned, I believe it will be cured, and if foreign trawlers, as some people seem to fear in this House, visit the Moray Firth for the purpose of supplying their own market, that is a thing they will have a legitimate right to do. But I believe that in the natural conditions it will be impossible for that industry to be carried on by foreign ships. Under all the circumstances, I believe that this Bill is for the general advantage of all concerned.

Question put: "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Division No. 168.]

AYES.

[8.45 p.m.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Nolan, Joseph

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Fullerton, Hugh

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gibson, J. P.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Glendinning, R. G.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Glover, Thomas

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barnes, G. N.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Beck, A. Cecil

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Benn, sir J. Williams (Devonport)

Gulland, John W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pointer, J.

Boland, John

Harrington, Timothy

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bowerman, C. W.

Hart-Davies, T.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Brace, William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Brodie, H. C.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Reddy, M.

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Helme, Norval Watson

Renwick, George

Bryce, J. Annan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Eurns, Rt. Hon. John

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hodge, John

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Cameron, Robert

Hogan, Michael

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hooper, A. G.

Rowlands, J.

Clancy, John Joseph

Hudson, Walter

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Clough, William

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Clynes, J. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Seddon, J.

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Shackleton, David James

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Kilbride, Denis

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Cox, Harold

Lamont, Norman

Snowden, P.

Crean, Eugene

Levy, Sir Maurica

Steadman, W. C.

Crooks, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Crossley, William J.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cullinan, J.

Lundon, T.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Curran, Peter Francis

Lupton, Arnold

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lynch, H. B.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Delany, William

Macpherson, J. T.

Toulmin, George

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

M'Kean, John

Verney, F. W.

Dillon, John

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Donelan, Captain A.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Watt, Henry A.

Doughty, Sir George

Marnham, F. J.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Massie, J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Middlebrook, William

Wilkie, Alexander

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Morse, L. L.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Everett, R. Lacey

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Winfrey, R.

Falconer, J

Myer, Horatio

Fenwick, Charles

Nannetti, Joseph P.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr.—Mr.

Ffrench, Peter

Nicholls, George

Joseph Pease and the Master of Eli-

Flynn, James Christopher

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

bank.

NO.

Carlile, E. Hlidred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pirie and Mr. W. W. Rutherford.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[ Mr. Churchill. ]

I desire very respectfully to point out to the Go-

The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 1.

vernment that they are forcing this measure through the House. A very large number of policies of insurance are taken out in respect both of vessels and cargoes that are for various reasons "interest admitted" policies. It may be that it is not convenient on many of these transactions to explain either to the insurance companies or to Lloyds, or to anybody else what is the precise interest that the individual has for which he is taking out the policy. It is a common thing for a very large number of marine policies of insur- ance to be effected with "interest admitted," in order to prevent any possible question being raised as to the exact nature and exact extent of the interest. When you read this Bill you find that all expressions of that kind, if they appear in any policy taken out in future, are to render that policy in itself absolutely void.

The Bill goes a step further, and I believe has the effect of making everybody concerned as principals and brokers liable to penalties of a very serious description. I entirely deny on behalf of the commercial community, and I have the honour to be one of the Members for a city which has some little stake in the commercial community of the country, that there is any great practice of simply gambling in policies of marine insurance. If it had been shown to the House at any time that there was a serious scandal going on and gambling of a wholesale character, resulting either in injury either to the commercial community or the general moral sense of the people from mere gambling policies in the loss or damage to ships or their cargoes, then I should be one of the first to say let us put an end to a state of affairs that would be exceedingly reprehensible, and which no right-minded person could support for a moment. But in the attempt to do away with what has undoubtedly occurred on one or two isolated occasions, namely, that mere gambling policies have been taken out, as I read this Bill, a very serious blow will be struck at legitimate business which is now being conducted. I very strongly deprecate those attempts to set up and impose moral standards, so-to-speak, upon other people, which have the effect of interfering in any way with legitimate business. I think it is a very wrong principle and a bad principle. I am sorry some Member has not had the foresight to put down a Motion that the Bill should be read this day three months or six months. I do not propose to take that course, for this reason: that the Government, having chosen to put this Bill down for an occasion when it has an opportunity like this of being discussed and of being passed. Until they did so I do not believe any person in the community had got the smallest idea that the Government were really serious about a Bill of this sort, or had the smallest intention of insisting upon it being passed. But having taken that course, we must consider that the President of the Board of Trade is serious in bringing it forward. I suppose he must be, or he would not have wasted the time of the House in this way. It is a most objectionable measure, and if I had the opportunity of voting against it I should certainly do so. I content myself tonight by raising my protest against it, and if this were a business House, and if they were to treat this as business men I have not the smallest doubt it would be rejected by a large majority. But because it is brought forward here to-night, I believe more or less accidentally, as a Government measure, and because, in all probability the Members of the Government who have got to do with it, know very little about business of this sort, and think it is a comparatively harmless Bill; and because if I were to challenge it the bell would ring, and a whole battalion of Members who knew nothing of the Bill or its merits would come in and simply vote one down. I can do no more than enter my protest against a stupid measure of this description.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

Board of Trade Bill

As Amended (in the Standing Committee) read.

moved: "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of clause 1, sub-section (2)."

I was not placed on the Grand Committee on this Bill, and, consequently, was unable upstairs to move the Amendment standing in my name. I had no alternative except to move the re-committal of the Bill. Briefly, it is with the object of providing that the President of the Board of Trade shall not be excluded from the emolument or salary which under this Bill passes to his successor. I beg to move

Question put and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

[The Deputy-Chairman (MR. CALDWELL), in the Chair.]

(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CLAUSE 1.—(Removal of Limitation on Salary of President of Board of Trade):—

(1) The Board of Trade (President) Act, 1826, which limits the salary to be paid to the President of the Board of Trade, is hereby repealed, and there shall be paid, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the President of the Board of Trade such annual salary as Parliament may determine.

(2) This Act shall not apply in the case of the person who at the time of the passing of this Act holds the office of President of the Board of Trade, so long as he holds that office under his present appointment.

moved to leave out sub-section (2): I do not think I need add anything to what I have said, but simply move to omit this clause under which the President of the Board of Trade would suffer by this Bill. If this clause be omitted he will receive the salary which, as the measure now stands, will only be payable to his successor.

:I rise for the purpose of asking an explanation from those in charge of this Bill, especially in view of the Motion of the Noble Lord. In a discussion some time since on the question of payment of Members in this House we were informed that the only legal way by which we could decide to Vote a salary for Members of this House was to declare that in the next Parliament those who were elected should receive a salary, and that we certainly could not vote such a salary for ourselves during the existence of the present Parliament. I should think, therefore, something like the same principle should apply to a Secretary of State. I do not know whether any of my friends agree with me, but even if it were to result in a fiasco like that of a moment ago, and if there be anyone to tell with me against the Motion of the Noble Lord, I shall certainly oppose the omission of this sub-section. When this Bill was first introduced the Government pledged their word that it should not apply to the present occupant of the office. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not opposing the proposal out of any hostility to the present President of the Board of Trade. I have probably as high a regard for him as any man in the House. I admire his abilities, and I do not think the salary is one whit too much for him; but on the principle laid down in regard to the payment of private Members, and also because of the statement made by the Government when the Bill was introduced, I hope this Motion will not be agreed to. It would be a practical reversal of the decision of the Government by a fluke. There are many Members who might have opposed the Second Reading had they known or suspected that at a subsequent stage such a Motion would be moved. It is easy to see that some sort of arrangement has been made.

I can assure the hon. Member I have not consulted any Member of the Government on the matter.

Then I hope that my appeal will have some effect, and that the Government will stand by the position which they took up when they introduced the Bill, on the strength of which many Members who had some doubt on the subject have supported the measure, and were prepared to assist in carrying it. We on these benches quite agree that the head of the Department which looks after the trade and commerce of the country should hold as high a position as the chief of any Department in the State; but we hope that the Government will not retreat from the position they have taken up, in spite of the alluring suggestion of the Noble Lord.

Perhaps it would be as well that I should make it quite clear to the House that there is no kind of arrangement or understanding of the nature to which my hon. Friend has alluded. The Government have no intention of accepting, as a Government, the. Amendment moved by the Noble Lord; they will leave it entirely to the discretion of the House, either to accept or to reject that Amendment. There will be no Government pressure of any sort or kind, nor will the Government Whips tell in the Division. I might say that this Bill as introduced follows the precedent set by the Government of which the Noble Lord was a Member when they introduced a similar Bill, and there was no remonstrance then on his part to the course they followed. I have no comment of my own to make upon the proposal of the Noble Lord, lest it should in any way be construed as an indication of the mind of the Government, which is entirely open and unbiassed on the subject.

I cannot help regretting that the Government acquiesced in the Motion for the re-committal of this Bill. It is true that the Noble Lord was not a member of the Grand Committee, but it was quite open to him to have had this Amendment moved there, as any of his hon. Friends could have brought it forward. Having regard to the use which is being made of this Bill in the country by the party opposite, I cannot help thinking that the Government in accepting the Motion for re-committal have made a very grave mistake. You cannot go into a single constituency where it has not been proclaimed from Conservative platforms night after night that the Government are starving the Navy in order to save money to pay a larger salary to the President of the Board of Trade. There is probably none of us who would not gladly support the Amendment on its merits, on the ground that the present salary is inadequate, and ought to be increased; but I regret that this Motion should have been accepted out of sympathy with the President of the Board of Trade. I should very much have preferred that the Government had kept to the straight course which they adopted when the Bill was introduced, and if my hon. Friend (Mr. Ward) goes to a Division I shall be bound to vote with him.

I appeal to the Noble Lord to withdraw this Motion. It would be nothing short of a calamity if it were passed. The Prime Minister himself stated that it was the express desire of the President of the Board of Trade that this clause should be inserted, and I think that some regard should be paid to his desire. It is also undesirable that the Motion should be pressed in such a small House. If we had a full House I feel sure a majority would vote against the proposal. I therefore appeal to the Noble Lord not to put Members in the invidious position of having to vote against a Motion which, under other circumstances, they might be inclined to support.

I am not surprised that the Government has fallen so deeply into the snare set for them by the Opposition. This Amendment, including the present holder of the office in the increase of salary, was moved in Committee by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Lord Castlereagh), and was rejected by that Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Withdrawn."] The Opposition have shown extraordinary keenness to have the salary of the present President raised. It is surprising to find that keenness on their part, because of all men in this House whose salary the Opposition would not bonâ-fide raise that of the present occupant qf the office of President of the Board of Trade is one. What, then, is the object which the Opposition have in moving this Motion? Of course, it is, as pointed out by the hon. Member below, that they may go about the country and make party capital of the fact that in hard times, in trying times in the way of trade, the present Government have taken the opportunity to raise the salary of the President of the Board of Trade. There is no dubiety, I think, about the fact that that is the object that the Opposition have in view, and I am surprised that the Government has not very peremptorily knocked it on the head.

The last thing in the world I desire to see imported into this matter is the party aspect. I put this Amendment on the Paper almost the day after this Bill was read a second time. I am not trying to get the Government into a trap. Gracious me, putting the Government into a trap on a small point like this! If our party have exaggerated this proposal, as the hon. Gentleman opposite alleges, so far as I and my Friends are concerned, I am quite ready to offer my sincere apology and to repudiate the statements which are considered to be wrong which have been made, whatever they may be—for I do not know. If the hon. Gentleman opposite who has just sat down says that we are doing this in order to allure the Government into making an extravagant expenditure of money and then to go about the country and denounce them for their lack of economy—

Then I need only answer that in the Budget now before the House the Government is asking power to raise something which is under £500,000 a week of new taxation. In view of that, what is this other matter—the difference between the present and the prospective salary? I have great confidence in the House. I am a party man, and where I can get party points I am never ashamed to take them. But this is a matter on which party considerations never occurred to me for a moment, nor, I think, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, who is also a party man, and who has also a similar Amendment on the Paper. I fail to see that if a Government Department has increased its status by the ability of its President, and it is proposed to increase the emoluments of the office, that the man who has brought that Department up to its state of efficiency should be the only man to suffer! That is the sole object for which I put this Amendment on the Paper. If the House rejects it, I shall be sorry, for, although the President of the Board of Trade is no friend of mine, I think he is entitled to the emolument which it is proposed to give to his successor. I appeal to the House, with all respect to what the hon. Member opposite above the Gangway has said, not to look at this matter in a narrow spirit. I never tried to make any party capital out of it, and I certainly never shall.

May I add my views to those of my Friends, and ask the Noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment. I feel sure that the Noble Lord had no desire to make party capital; but, anyone knowing anything about public life and municipal life, knows that small matters like this stir public opinion far more often than the expenditure of millions of money on great schemes. It has been said again and again that the increase will not, must not, ought not, to apply to this Parliament. I think it is not quite fair play to Members upstairs, who, if this question had been voted on, would have voted—every Member of the Committee—for a decision that the House is now, in effect, being asked to reverse. I appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and let the Bill go through and apply to the next Parliament, when he hopes his party will be in power.

It is our desire that this matter should be discussed apart from party feeling. Any charge on that head in the future can easily be met by saying that the change was made at the instance of the Noble Lord in front of me. I think the point is whether it is wise or prudent on the part of the House of Commons, having decided that £5,000 a year is a proper salary for the President of the Board of Trade, to say that the present holder of that office shall not have £5,000 a year, but that his successor shall. Comment has been made in the course of the Debate on the expressed desire of the present holder of the office that the increase should be postponed until the advent of his successor. It is very easy to understand how any person should have delicacy of feeling in a case where his own pecuniary interest might be thought to be concerned, and I think it does great credit to the holder of the office that he should have taken such a course. I ask, Will anyone suggest any reason why in future a right hon. Gentleman should enjoy £5,000 a year for discharging duties which are discharged at present by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board, who receives only £2,000? I venture to suggest to the House that there is something invidious in restricting the salary of the present occupant, and in deciding that the increase of £5,000 a year shall only take effect in regard to the salary of the successor of the present holder of the office. We are discussing the main question whether £5,000 a year is a proper salary or not, and, as it has been decided that it is a reasonable salary, and one that the House of Commons considers desirable, the issue raised by the Amendment is one which the House of Commons will be well advised to accept.

:I oppose this Motion, not merely because it gives an opportunity for party jibe, but on the general ground that when such a change is made the person at present holding the office should not benefit, and in order that there may not seem to be any appearance of voting money on personal grounds. I may say, in answer to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it is not always sufficient to know that an answer is given to a jibe, because those who hear the jibe do not always pay attention to the answer. I quite acquit the Noble Lord (Lord Balcarres) and the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) of any attempt to make party capital out of this matter, but party capital has been made out of it. If the proposal commended itself to me I should be entitled to consider it a trumpery and a despicable thing to use it in the way it has been used, and to despise that use of it, but I think we ought to avoid, in these personal questions of men who serve in this House, all appearance or semblance of a job. I heartily approve of the desire to raise the status of the office of the Board of Trade. The status of the office has been raised, and it ought to be recognised by having given to it the average of other salaries, but whether it should be by raising the present salary is another question. There might be an average, but there might be averages down as well as averages up. But in regard to this matter of personal salary I think it is much better that the House of Commons should not now decide to alter it.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 20.

Division No. 169.]

AYES.

[9.30 p.m.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Hart-Davies, T.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Barnes, G. N.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Pointer, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Bright, J. A.

Helme, Norval Watson

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Byles, William Pollard

Hodge, John

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cameron, Robert

Hooper, A. G.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Clough, William

Hudson, Walter

Rowlands, J.

Clynes, J. R.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Seddon, J.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Shackleton, David James

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Jenkins, J.

Snowden, P.

Crooks, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Steadman, W. C.

Crosfield, A. H.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Crossley, William J.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Curran, Peter Francis

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Thompson, J. W H. (Somerset, E.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Toulmin, George

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

Macpherson, J. T

Verney, F. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Micking, Major G.

Watt, Henry A.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Marnham, F. J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Everett, R. Lacey

Middlebrook, William

Wilkie, Alexander

Falconer, James

Morse, L. L.

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Fullerton, Hugh

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glendinning. R. G

Myer, Horatio

Winfrey, R.

Glover, Thomas

Nicholls, George

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

parker, James (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr.—Mr.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

John Ward and Mr. Fenwick

NOES.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Doughty, Sir George

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Gibson, J. P.

Smith, F. E (Liverpool, Walton)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gulland John W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Brodie, H. C.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Lord—Lord

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

M'Arthur, Charles

Baicarres and Sir F. Banbury.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Clause 1 agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next.

Temperance (Scotland) Bill

:I desire to offer a strong protest against the House being prevented from discussing the next order on the Paper—the Temperance (Scotland) Bill—by this Motion for the adjournment of the House. In view of the unprecedented interest which Scotland takes in this Bill I think it is only right that I should claim that this Measure should receive some attention from the Government.

I can assure the hon. Member that it is not on account of any lack of sympathy with the Bill to which he has alluded that I moved the adjournment after the conclusion of the Government Orders of the Day. An arrangement was entered into between the two sides of the House earlier in the sitting that cer- tain Bills might be secured this evening, on the condition that I moved the adjournment after having run through the Government Orders. In that way we have secured some progress to-night which otherwise we might not have attained. With regard to the particular Bill in which the hon. Member is interested, I can only say that the matter is receiving the consideration of the Government, and I shall be very glad to convey to the Prime Minister the views which the hon. Member has expressed.

Motion agreed to.

Adjourned at Twenty minutes before Ten o'clock.