asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number and total tonnage of ships displacing 1,000 tons and above maintained on various foreign stations in May, 1904; and what are the corresponding figures at the present time?

The figures are:— Ships. Tonnage. May, 1904 96 563,860 May, 1912 48 268,940 As the hon. Member is aware, the reduction is largely due to the policy of withdrawing ships from foreign waters initiated by Lord Selborne in 1904.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is as much need now for these ships as there was in 1904?

I certainly concur in the policy of 1904. A number of these ships were costing money in personnel, stores and repairs when they were of no fighting value. I cordially concur in the policy initiated by Lord Selborne.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the policy applicable now?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman need have any apprehension as to our capacity.

asked whether the Committee of the Cabinet appointed to inquire into the causes of the existing labour unrest and to seek a remedy therefor will include in its investigations the present discontent among the petty officers and men of His Majesty's Navy?

The answer is in the negative. I must add, however, that the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question is not, in my opinion, at all justified. I fully associate myself with the remarks made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on the 21st November last, in deprecating the use of the word "discontent" in connection with the men of the Fleet, than whom the country has no more loyal and faithful servants, and in his undertaking that any legitimate aspirations which may be entertained in the various ratings should receive the prompt attention of the Board of Admiralty.

asked whether tuberculosis is more prevalent among writers than any other class in the Navy; and, if so, whether this is shown to be attributable to the badly ventilated and lighted offices in many of His Majesty's ships?

The ratio of cases of tuberculosis per 1,000 of all ranks in 1909 was 2.83; of Naval writers, 2.54. The ratio per 1,000 of all ranks in 1910 was 2.29; of Naval writers, 3.84. No inference of any particular value can be drawn from these ratios, as the total number of writers borne compared with the total of all ranks is small. In 1909 the total number of writers borne was 787 with two cases of tuberculosis. In 1910 the total number was 782 with three cases.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the small accommodation in which the writers do their work?

The writers are no worse off than other ratings—stokers, engineers, cooks, and so on.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the amount of compensation or pensionn which will be granted to the officers and men in the aviation branch of the Admiralty in the event of accidents happening to them in the course of their duty?

The subject referred to in the hon. Member's question is at present under consideration.

Will it be upon the same scale as in the case of the submarine department?

I cannot answer that at present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British subjects of Chinese descent have been excluded by the Colonial Office from the Civil and Police Services of the Straits Settlements of the Federated Malay States because they are objectionable to the rest of the population on account of their race, or because they are intellectually inferior to Europeans?

I can add nothing to the answers which I have given to my hon. Friend's previous questions.

Has the right hon. Gentleman stated that his reason for excluding Chinese from the Civil Service is that the Malays object to having alien officers appointed over them in a position of authority unless they are of pure European descent?

I am afraid that if my hon. Friend and I were to pursue this matter further we should come under the rule against repetition.

Is the reason for that answer that the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling or unable to explain his policy?

That is really a matter of Debate. I should recommend the hon. Gentleman to raise these questions when the Colonial Office Vote comes up. It will be far easier to raise it then.

Will there be an opportunity for discussing the Colonial Office Vote?

Very soon, I hope.

I am anxious, Sir, to ascertain some facts for the Debate to which you refer.

As long as the hon. Gentleman confines himself to facts, of course he is entitled to ask questions, but the supplementary questions which he asks are not facts. They are as to the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman and as to the causes of his policy and so on, and not in regard to the facts. As long as he asks for information in regard to facts, of course there will be no objection.

May I direct your attention to the question I have asked? It is on a question of fact. I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman's objection was on racial grounds or on the ground of intellectual inferiority?

The right hon. Gentleman referred the hon. Member to a former reply. If the hon. Member will refer to the former reply, he will be able to ascertain the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the Hindu population of the Settlement of Penang and also the Federated Malay States; and whether he will state the reason why, while a bank holiday has been fixed in Penang on the Hindu festival of Tai-pusum, no provision whatever in the matter of public holidays has been made in the Federated Malay States for the religious festivals of Hindus?

The number of persons at the 1911 Census who professed the Hindu religion was 30,957 in Penang, and 140,068 in the Federated Malay States. The provision of public holidays is a matter solely for the local Governments, and I have no information as to their reasons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the reports of the Director of Education in the Straits Settlements with regard to the Queen's scholarships are public documents; whether it would be contrary to the public interest to publish them; whether this House has any right of control over the administration of the Crown Colonies; whether he will state on what grounds he refuses to ascertain for the satisfaction of a Member of this House whether the Director of Education for the Straits Settlements has ever advised the abolition of the Queen's scholarships; and whether the abolition was carried against his advice?

I am not aware whether the Director of Education has made any special reports on this subject. There are occasional references to the matter in his annual reports which are published. As regards the third part of the question, the control of this House over the administration of the Crown Colonies takes the form of control over me, and my hon. Friend seems to exercise his full share of the powers of the House in that respect. The answer to the fourth and fifth parts is that, as I have already informed my hon. Friend on several occasions, I regard this matter as one for the Colonial Government, with whose discretion I am not prepared to interfere.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is not aware whether the Director of Education has made any report on the subject, and, if not, will he ascertain whether the Director of Education has made any report which can be published?

I do not think I have anything to add to what I have stated.

If any reports have been made which are public property, have I not the right as a Member of this House to ask to see them?

I have already said that any reports which have been published locally will be at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman. He will be afforded the opportunity of reading them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in constituting the Advisory Committee under the National Insurance Act, he has considered the application for representation made by the National Combined Insurance Staffs Committee; and, if not, whether he will favourably consider the application when additional members are appointed, in view of the special experience of the members of this committee?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. The Commissioners are unable to make further additions to the numbers of the Advisory Committees.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now say for what purpose he intends to apply the surplus of £6,500,000, and, if not, can he say when he will be able to tell the House how this surplus is to be spent; and will he in any case be able to tell the House before the Adjournment in August?

I will refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him on the 8th and 20th May, to which I have nothing to add.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he will be able to state, before the Adjournment in August, how the surplus is to be spent?

Oh! certainly, long before that.

May I ask how much of this sum will be absorbed by Supplementary Naval Estimates?

I cannot answer that myself.

May I ask when the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions will be taken?

I am afraid that in the absence of the Prime Minister I could not answer that question.

When will the Prime Minister be here?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider whether £3,000,000 of the surplus could not be set aside for the purpose of giving the State Insurance benefits as soon as the National Insurance Act comes into operation?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of the employers at the Fylde Waterworks, Benacre, Lancs., who supply their workmen with a tommy book for the works' stores, where the men are supplied with food, etc., the tommy book being handed in at the office on pay day and the cost of the stores deducted from the workmen's wages; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Truck Acts, he proposes to make inquiries, or what other action he intends to take, to put an end to these practices?

My attention has not been previously called to this case, but I am making inquiry with regard to it.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Wolverhampton bench of magistrates recently sentenced a boy of ten years to receive six strokes of the birch rod; whether while an adult may not be birched unless certified as fit by a medical man there is no such provision for the protection of a young person; and whether he can see his way to take the necessary steps to abolish this kind of corporal punishment?

I have inquired into the circumstances of the case referred to. I am not aware of any provision of law requiring either children or adults birched by the sentence of a court of law to be medically certified; but it is the obvious duty of any court not to order a sentence of corporal punishment unless it is satisfied that it can properly be inflicted, and the court was so satisfied in the case in question. I see no reason for any action in the direction indicated.

May I ask why, as the law cannot be enforced in the case of an adult without medical inspection, a child should not be equally protected?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of the question.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the opinion of the Home Office, a child of ten years old could be so criminal as to require this form of punishment?

I believe the parents have had considerable difficulty with the child.

May I ask whether it would not be possible to require that the members of benches of Justices who order birching should be present at the infliction of the punishment?

I have no reason to suppose that the infliction of the punishment is not carried out properly.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been able to arrange that foreign-made gun barrels shall be marked with a different and distinctive mark to that stamped on barrels of British manufacture?

I have been in communication with the Proof House on this subject, and have ascertained that about 97 per cent. of the foreign barrels submitted to definitive proof in London and fully 80 per cent. of those submitted in Birmingham have been found to be engraved with the names of the foreign manufacturers and of the country of origin. In the case of only a comparatively small number therefore could the appearance of the British Crown or Lion rampant on the barrels mislead purchasers as to the country of origin of the barrels, and I do not at present see my way to introduce legislation setting up a different system of marks for British and foreign, barrels respectively.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his reply refers to finished barrels, or to barrels still in a crude state, in which case they are still subject to some further course of manufacture?

In a very large majority of cases there could be no deception as the names of the manufacturers are marked on the barrels.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that a very much larger number of barrels arrive in a crude state, and that therefore there can be no possible question of the names of the makers appearing on the barrels at all?

If the hon. Gentleman will give notice of the question, I will inquire further.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if the public inquiry into the loss of the "Titanic" will be extended to the question of making better provision for the testing of the temperature of the sea when in the proximity of icebergs than by the old-fashioned methods at present in use?

I understand that an expert on this subject is preparing a statement showing the evidence he could give if called as a witness, and the question of taking such evidence will be considered.

asked the Postmaster-General what are the regular average hours per day of the postmistress at Weyhill, Hants; what are her average days of continuous service per week; and how such average hours and days compare with those recommended by the Hobhouse Committee?

The personal attendance of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses at scale payment sub-offices like Weyhill depends entirely upon the amount of assistance they are able to employ. Attendance for official business by the sub-postmistress or an assistant has to be given at the Weyhill sub-office from 5.40 a.m. to 6.0 a.m., and 7.45 a.m. to 8.0 p.m. on week days, and from 5.40 a.m. to 6.0 a.m., 7.40 a.m. to 10.0 a.m., and 11.45 a.m. to noon on Sundays. The hours during which the office is open to the public are not in contravention of any recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Development Commissioners have recommended that a Grant of £2,000 be made this year out of the Development Fund to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society for the promotion of agricultural co-operation in Ireland; if so, what conditions, if any, have been attached to such recommendation, and has the society consented to comply with them?

The Development Commission have recommended the Treasury to make a Grant of £2,000 to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society subject to the acceptance by the society of certain conditions, the chief of which refer to the addition of outside members to the governing body of the society and to the exclusion from affiliation with the society of any societies engaged in co-operation other than that of a purely agricultural nature. The recommendation is now under the consideration of the Treasury.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether this Grant will be with the consent of the Irish Government; and, if so, whether that Government have consented to the Grant?

The Irish Government will certainly be consulted in the matter before the Grant is made.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, in pursuance of the scheme under which it is proposed to make an annual Grant to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society out of the Development Fund, his Department, the Congested Districts Board and the Council of Agriculture, have nominated, or propose to nominate, four, three, and four representatives, respectively, to serve upon the committee of the society, or whether any and, if any, what objection to such nomination has been officially put forward?

The Development Commissioners have addressed a letter to the Department, dated 22nd May, announcing their intention to recommend a Grant to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society (for the period ending 30th June), one of the conditions being that the Department, the Congested Districts Board and the Council of Agriculture, should nominate four, three, and four representatives, respectively, to sit on the committee of the society; and stating that in the event of the three bodies named declining to nominate representatives the Commissioners would be prepared to suggest other arrangements, with the sanction of the Treasury, for the administration of the Grant. As regards the Congested Districts Board, the Department are not in a position to make any reply, as that Board is a body wholly independent of the Department. The duties of the Council of Agriculture are prescribed by Statute; and, apart from the election of a portion of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Boards, its functions are of a purely advisory character. It would be irregular, if not illegal, to ask the council to carry out executive work of the nature suggested. In addition, the distinction which the Development Commissioners attempt to make between the elected and the nominated members of the council is, in the Department's opinion, illegal. The Department, the Agricultural Board and the Council of Agriculture, having all strongly pronounced against the giving of a State subsidy to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, it would be impossible for me to comply with the Development Commissioners' request, and I have informed the Development Commissioners accordingly.

Is the effect of that that no Grant will be made by the Development Commissioners to Ireland?

No, Sir. That is not the tenour of the letter of the Department. The Development Commissioners state that if the Department refuse to nominate representatives they will find other methods of making the Grant with the sanction of the Treasury.

Do the Department propose to continue to take up a hostile attitude, assuming that the Commissioners themselves appoint these nominees of the three bodies?

The position of the Department is this: The Department itself, its two statutory advisory bodies, the great majority of the county councils, the whole of the traders of the country, and a very large majority of the Parliamentary representatives of the country, are all hostile and the Department cannot neglect that combination.

Is not the effect of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that he and his Department will do their best to prevent the Grant being made to Ireland?

If the House expresses the opinion that this thing ought to be done, will the Department of the right hon. Gentleman obey the orders of this House?

If that is done the Department will have to.

Are we to understand, from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, that he and his Department are fighting the Treasury; and, if so, which does he think will get the better of it?

No, I am not engaged in any such contest. I am fighting eight English gentlemen who seem to think that they know more about Irish needs than the Irish people themselves.

To which English gentlemen does the right hon. Gentleman refer?

Have not these eight English gentlemen been appointed by Act of Parliament and this Parliament?

No, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question: To what English gentlemen he refers, and whether the Development Commissioners were appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he has received representations from the Deptford Borough Council and other Metropolitan authorities requesting that steps may be taken to allow of a much reduced speed limit being fixed for mechanically-propelled vehicles in crowded and narrow streets, and to arrange for the Commissioner of Police, in consultation with the Metropolitan borough councils, to draw up a list of the streets to which such lower speed should apply; whether consideration has been given to such representations; and, if so, with what result?

I have received the representations referred to by the hon. Member. The Motor Car Act, 1903, contains provisions for the imposition of reduced speed limits in narrow and crowded streets with a view to the safety of the public, and any application which may be made to me under these provisions in relation to any particular street will receive careful consideration. I may refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the 21st of last month.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War what were the dates on which the local inquiry was held into the wages of navvies and labourers which resulted in a reduction of the wages to be paid to such workmen, the names of the employers or their representatives who gave evidence at the inquiry, the names of the workmen or their representatives who gave evidence at the inquiry, and the name of the person who held the same?

Local investigations were made in Edinburgh and the district by the War Office visiting inspector of labour early in October, 1910, and February, 1912. The investigations did not result in any reduction of wages paid, but showed that the decision of August, 1910, that 5½d. an hour must be regarded as the minimum rate could not be sustained in the light of the information obtained. On both occasions the Master Builders' Association and representatives of the trade unions concerned were consulted, besides from twenty to thirty firms; these firms gave information on the understanding that it should be treated as confidential, and their names cannot, therefore, be published.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the names of the societies representing the workmen?

I have not got them with me here. If my hon. Friend will call at the War Office and see the Director of Contracts, I have made arrangements for him to see the whole contract, and I shall then be glad to answer any further questions which he may put to me.

asked the Prime Minister whether any representations have reached him as to the uselessness of committees set up to assist Lords Lieutenant in making appointments to the magisterial bench, from the fact that the regulations guiding the conduct of the meetings of these committees permit the Lords Lieutenant to name their appointees without opportunity of the other members of the committee having a similar privilege?

I understand that no representations on the subject in this sense have reached the Prime Minister or the Lord Chancellor.

asked the Prime Minister whether the deliberations of the Cabinet Committee on Industrial Unrest have now been brought to a conclusion; and, if so, whether they have decided in favour of an impartial inquiry into the causes and possible remedies; and, if so, whether he can indicate the personnel of the Committee or Commission and the scope of its inquiry, and the date when it will commence its labours?

The subject is a wide one, and the Committee have not found it possible to conclude their inquiries as early as had been hoped. Until the inquiry is completed I can say nothing as to its results.

How many meetings has the Committee already held?

A good many meetings, but the strike has cut in rather upon the inquiries into the general question, and we have not been enabled to pursue the general inquiry for that very reason.

Can the right Gentleman give the House any indication as to when the deliberations of the Cabinet Committee are likely to come to an end, or whether they will come to an end at all in view of the fact that the strikes which cut into the deliberations may be more frequent than the meetings of the Cabinet Committee?

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given private notice, namely, whether he is now in a position to make his promised statement on the question of the transport workers' strike in London?

I shall have to trespass on the patience of the House in making a general statement as to the position. A strike has for some time been threatened among the transport workers in the Port of London, owing to disagreements between employers and men about questions of interpretation of the agreements made last summer. Various questions were referred to arbitration, but there were still outstanding questions which caused friction in the Port. More especially trouble arose owing to the fact that a number of individual employers refused to be bound down by the agreements entered into by the Trade Associations. The Associations had no power to enforce compliance with the terms of these agreements upon dissenting employers if they were not members of the Association, or if they had left the Association. In fact, most of the trouble in the Port of London is due to the absence of security on either side for the due performance of agreements entered into. The Board of Trade having exhausted every effort to avert the coming struggle, the Government decided to act under Section 2 (1) ( a ) of the Conciliation (Trade Disputes) Act, 1896, and held an inquiry "on the facts and circumstances of the present disputes affecting transport workers in the Port of London and on the Medway." Before the inquiry was actually set up, the strike was precipitated in consequence of a dispute arising in regard to the question of the Federation ticket. Various other disputes were in progress at the time, and as the result the strike gradually spread to other classes of labour, and finally a general strike of the transport workers of London was declared.

On 21st May Sir Edward Clarke was appointed as a Court under the above section of the Conciliation Act. He held his inquiry on 24th and 25th May, and his Report was presented to the Government on Monday, 27th May. On the following day the President of the Board of Trade, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, forwarded copies of the Report to the parties interested. The Report has appeared in the Press and will shortly be circulated as a Parliamentary Paper to the Members of the House. His Majesty's Government further invited both parties to a Conference on Friday, 31st May, "in order to consider and discuss the various matters contained in the Report with a view to endeavouring to arrive at a general settlement of the labour disputes, which so seriously affect the trade of the Port and the interests of the public."

On Wednesday and Thursday, 29th and 30th May, some members of the Cabinet interviewed the employers. It then became apparent that the employers were unwilling to attend the proposed Conference at the Board of Trade on the Friday. The men accepted the invitation to the Conference. Having seen the employers, the members of the Conference decided to see the men in like manner in lieu of the proposed Conference. Since then further interviews have been held by members of the Cabinet with both parties separately with a view to ascertaining their respective attitudes on the points at issue. It was explained that there were employers in London who did not carry out, or did not consider themselves bound by, the agreements entered into last summer. The representatives of the employers stated that they had no control over those employers who were not now, or had never been, members of the Association, and that friction and difficulty thereupon often ensued. The Government therefore suggested that the employers might form a federation strong enough to control the action of all the members of their separate trades who might be found unwilling to conform to the general rates and conditions agreed to between the principal employers and the men, so that the agreements might become binding on the employers generally.

It was further contemplated that if a federation of that kind were to be formed, a Joint Committee should be constituted representative both of employers and of men in order to deal effectively with all labour questions affecting the Port of London.

In reply to the suggestions of the Government the decision of the employers was given in the following terms:— That His Majesty's Ministers be informed that their suggestion with regard to the formation of a federation of employers has been most carefully considered, and it is the unanimous opinion of those employers who have this day discussed the question that under existing conditions such a scheme is impracticable. Moreover, the employers desire that it should be distinctly understood that, whilst they are willing to discuss with His Majesty's Ministers at all times any suggestion made, by them, no such suggestion, however acceptable in other respects, will be adopted until work has been resumed throughout the Port. Further, that they will not, under any circumstances, consent to any recognition of the Union or Transport Workers' Federation ticket, or to any discussion for such recognition. The decision of the men was in the following terms:— This London Strike Committee of the National Transport Workers' Federation agrees to accept the Report of Sir Edward Clarke. The establishment of a Joint Board representing the various transport interests of the Thames and Medway. That the Transport Workers' Federation shall be recognised as the representative of the men's side. That all men shall be reinstated in the positions they occupied previous to the dispute. In answer to the decision handed in by the men the employers gave the following reply:— (l)The employers cannot accept Sir Edward Clarke's Report as an award on the points dealt with by him (2) and (3) The employers are willing to consider any suggestions which may be put before them by the Government for the formation of an organisation for dealing with labour questions in the Port. (4) With regard to the proposal that the whole of the men should be reinstated, this is impossible, as a number of the vacancies have already been filled, but as many as can be taken on will be given work as opportunity arises In the case of permanent and registered labourers of the Port of London Authority, they will likewise be taken on as work is available at the current rates of pay but with no special privileges. In these circumstances, although many questions of difficulty will remain, the prolongation of the strike now seems chiefly to rest upon certain matters contained in Sir Edward Clarke's report and upon the question of the method of the resumption of work and of the re-employment of the men. It would appear that the question of the recognition of the Federation ticket as a condition precedent to the resumption of work by the men is not pressed; and a spirit of moderation on both sides ought to meet with little difficulty in finding a way to an amicable settlement.

Regard must be had, however, to the permanent peace of the Port, and it is of the utmost importance to devise a method by which disputes may be settled in future. Agreements now made between representatives of the employers and the men have, for the reasons I have already referred to, no sufficient binding force. They are made on the one side by associations' representative of each trade acting separately, and not including by any means the whole of the trade; and on the other, by trade unions forming part of a federation of all the trade unions concerned. There is, moreover, no denned sanction for any breach of agreement by either of the parties. The ultimate object to be aimed at should be the formation of a general Joint Board fully representative of the whole body of employers and men, with power to determine and settle all questions of dispute that may arise. As a preliminary, however, to the formation of such a Board, there would have to be constituted a federation of employers, which, by its influence over the trade as a whole, could give a wider effect and more positive sanction to agreements made between the employers and the men than are now possible. Such a federation would be formed as an addition to existing labour committees in each section of trade for the discussion and arrangement of minor differences. It is with a view to the ultimate creation of a Joint Board of the kind now indicated that the Government have made the suggestion to the employers and the men to which reference has already been made, and they trust that means may be found to give effect to it.

Arising out of the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it is a mere statement which does not go beyond the present moment, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely: "The immediate necessity of the Government, in pursuance of the terms of the Conciliation Act, compelling the employers to accept a Joint Board for the settlement of the dispute which is now in progress in the Metropolis."

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter past Eight o'clock this evening.

I beg to move to reduce Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) by £100 in respect of the salary of the President of the Local Government Board.

I move this reduction with the object of calling attention to the administration of the Housing Act. I think there is nothing of greater importance in the view of the nation than the character of the homes in which the working classes dwell. At the same time there is a very general feeling abroad that very little is being done, that a great deal more might be done, and that a great deal more ought to be done. The present state of the law is not satisfactory, and its administration is not satisfactory either. I wish particularly to ascertain from the Government, if I possibly can, what is their real intention and policy with regard to housing. We have had the most conflicting views expressed by different Members of the Government. We know that the President of the Local Government Board thinks everything is all right. He has told us that no more legislation is wanted, and he is quite convinced the present administration of the Acts is perfect. Only the other day, at the dinner of the Association of Municipal Corporations he used these words:— Not another Act of Parliament was needed. They had sufficient powers to carry out such a housing reform within the next two or three years as would remove the disgrace that was in some cases upon the ratepayers, and in some cases upon the local authorities. The President of the Local Government Board evidently does not think that anything needs to be done. When we turn to the Chancellor of the Exchequer we find an entirely different state of affairs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is constantly holding up to the country the great and urgent need of housing reform. He is constantly telling us or hinting of some great housing measure which is to figure in the programme of the Government in the immediate future. On 13th May he said:— We must clear out the slums, whether in city or in village, or mining urban district. We cannot tolerate the slums any longer. Again, only last week, speaking on Welsh Disestablishment, which does not appear to have very much to do with the question, at Swansea, he told his audience that a great part of the industrial population was condemned to live in miserable dens, the crevices of which are seething with disease and death. I must say that when I read those words I was rather reminded of "hands dripping with the fat of sacrilege," as it seems they are very much the same kind of turgid eloquence. What I want to know is this: If a great part of the population are living in "miserable dens, the crevices of which are seething with disease and death," what a frightful condemnation that is on the present administration of the Local Government Board. What are they trying to do to get rid of those miserable dens. Are the Housing Acts sufficient? If they are sufficient and yet this state of affairs prevails, the administration of them must be very bad indeed. Therefore I want to ask the President of the Local Government Board to what extent he agrees with his most important colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, how is it that he has so administered the Housing Acts, and he himself says no more Acts are necessary, or failed to administer them, that this state of affairs prevails to which I have drawn attention. We all know there are various phases of the housing problem. There is the rural difficulty, and there is the urban difficulty. I desire to say one or two words about the rural housing problem, though I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not confine my observations solely to rural housing. We all know the facts, and the Local Government Board is cognisant of them. The facts are these. That in a great part of England it is quite impossible to obtain decent sanitary cottages. It is absolutely true that young couples cannot marry and settle in their own village because the houses are not there for them to settle in. It is absolutely true that in many villages there are large numbers of insanitary dwellings which might be cleared away, and might be closed and demolished under the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman, but that cannot be done for the reason that if those houses are demolished there are no others for the people to live in. The result is that we keep people living under those insanitary conditions because it is impossible to get other houses for them to live in. I was staying only a little while ago in a small town in Herefordshire, the centre of a large agricultural district, and I happened to be dining with the local doctor, and. as is my wont, I asked about the housing conditions. He said, "They are very bad, as bad as bad can be. We have got a very large number of insanitary dwellings." I said, "Why do you not close them. Why do you not make use of the powers given by the Housing and Town Planning Act." He said, "We cannot, for if we did we should drive the people into the streets and the fields." There is the rural housing difficulty.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the Local Government Board doing. Are they taking steps to meet this difficulty? If so, those steps are not very-apparent up to the present. The difficulty is there, and I want to know if there is any intelligent guidance of housing policy as regards country districts to deal with the difficulty? I must say the facts we have found up to the present are not very satisfactory. There are those figures published in the White Paper, to which reference has been made before in the House, as to the number of closing orders issued under the Housing and Town Planning Act, and the number of new cottages that have been erected by the local authorities also. Since that Act was passed the figures are, in rural districts, 1,344 closing orders have been issued and 116 cottages built. If you are going to issue closing orders at that rate and only build 116 cottages to 1,344 houses closed the result can only be to accentuate the rural housing scandal in the future. I know the right hon. Gentleman has contested the point. He has said that those closing orders were not made effective. What I want to know is what really did happen. Were the houses closed? He says a large number were patched up, but were they closed pro tern, and the people turned out, because if the people were turned out and there was no other accommodation for them the only result could have been a great accentuation of that overcrowding which is doing so much harm, both in the towns and in the villages. Then take the figures that have been quoted before of the amount advanced in the way of loans for building purposes under Part III. of the Act of 1890, as subsequently amended by the Act of 1909, and what do we find? We find incontestable evidence of this, that whereas far too little was always done, a great deal more was done under the administration of the last Unionist Government than has been done under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. The figures are perfectly clear. In the five years after the year 1900 about £240,000 per year was being advanced under Part III. for building purposes. For the first five years after 1906, when the present Government came into power, only £100,000 per year on the average was being advanced for the same purposes, and in the year 1910–11 the total amount of loans sanctioned for rural districts, amounted to the paltry sum of £250. It seems to me that there is a complete policy of drift as regards rural housing on the part of the Local Government Board. There is no direction, and there is no attempt really to deal with the problem, and yet that is not in accordance with the views, not only of Members on this side, but also of Members on the other side. I fully recognise that they are quite as anxious to press on the housing problem in many cases as we are. I will give one quotation, not from a Tory organ, but from the "Daily News" of 14th March of this year, as follows:— The improvement in rural housing can not wait. The cost we pay in discomfort, debility, disease and depopulation, is incalculable. Nor is the question one that concerns particular parishes or districts alone. It concerns the Nation, and the Nation must take it in hand. It is because I want the Nation to take it in hand a little more vigorously and because I want a little more intelligent direction on the part of the central authority that I am asking leave to draw the attention of the House to this question at the present time. There is another aspect of the question. A great deal has been said in the papers about the town-planning portion of the Act of 1909. I do not suppose there was ever am Act better advertised in the Press or more boomed than the Housing and Town Planning Act, and yet the amount which has been done in the way of town planning under he provisions of that Act—I do not know whether it is the fault of the Local Government Board or whose fault it is—is extraordinarily small. Up to the present time, although the Act has been in operation nearly two and a-half years, not a single town-planning scheme has been sanctioned. On the Easter adjournment the President of the Local Government Board contested that statement; he said that I was perfectly wrong, and that he had sanctioned fourteen. Having looked up the facts, I find that I was right and the right hon. Gentleman wrong. He has not sanctioned fourteen schemes; he has only sanctioned the preparation of fourteen, which is quite another matter. Even if he had actually confirmed fourteen schemes, what a ridiculously small result that would be of the Act of 1909, when you consider the very large number of local authorities there are all over the country under this Act, which was to give us a new heaven and a new earth and new town-planning schemes for the whole country. The whole fact seems to be that the Local Government Board have taken no trouble whatever to push this Act. Let me give an example. Under Section 55 the Local Government Board are to issue general provisions as to the nature of town-planning schemes, which provisions are to be inserted in the plans brought forward by local authorities. As far as I can ascertain, up to the present moment the Local Government Board have not issued any general provisions at all. Why have they not done so? Why have they been so negligent of their duty? The only explanation I can give is that here again, as in the case of rural housing, there is no intelligent policy at the Local Government Board. It is the same policy of drift, and nothing is done to carry out even the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Let me turn to the urban problem. After all, it is in the big towns, especially London, that we have these terrible slums of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken, and which I agree we must stamp out. It is quite true that a good deal has been done by slum clearance schemes by the London County Council, Liverpool, and other enlightened authorities in the past. But a tremendous lot still remains to be done. What is the Local Government Board doing in the way even of stimulating the local authorities to carry out their duties under the Act of 1890? I am fully aware that a big slum clearance scheme is a very expensive operation, and for my part I would never advocate a big clearance scheme unless it was absolutely necessary. I would very much sooner proceed by such methods as are employed in Birmingham, of making use of Part II. of the Act of 1890, abolishing a house here and a house there, letting in fresh air, and thereby clearing the smaller slums which abound in so many towns. But I cannot see that the Local Government Board have been really assisting or directing the local authorities in any way to deal with the slums. My own experience in connection with a big clearance scheme in London is that they inter-posed every possible delay, and the clearance of the slum would have begun very much sooner had it not been for the action of the Local Government Board.

I wish to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to one specific problem. Nothing does more harm, especially in the towns, than overcrowding. It is computed that about 200,000 deaths in this country are every year attributable solely to overcrowding. Overcrowding in the villages may be due to the fact that there are no other houses for the people to live in; but that is not the cause of overcrowding in the towns. The right hon. Gentleman, who knows London better perhaps than any other Member of the House, knows that this happens in London. You constantly get terrible overcrowding in places where there is any amount of vacant accommodation close by. I could point to streets in Bermondsey and Southwark where there is horrible overcrowding, and where at the same time there is a large amount of vacant accommodation close by. All that is necessary to put an end to one of the greatest of our national evils is to enforce the law against overcrowding. It may be asked how it is that this extraordinary state of affairs prevails, that you have overcrowding and also vacant accommodation. The answer is quite simple. Overcrowding, although it does a great amount of harm to the nation, presents an immediate advantage both to the owner of the property and to the occupier. The owner gets more in the way of rent, and the occupier pays less for his accommodation, because so many other people live in the same house. One of the greatest difficulties in London is that the authority that ought to deal with overcrowding is not the London County Council, but the borough council. There are twenty-eight borough councils in London, with varying views on overcrowding, some with no views at all, and the result is that nothing or very little is done. The laws against overcrowding are not carried out.

There is a point where the Local Government Board, if intelligently directed on the housing side, could do a vast amount of good. The first thing they ought to do is to set up a standard as to what constitutes overcrowding. There is no standard at present. We talk about overcrowding, but nobody knows exactly what overcrowding means. It is not difficult to arrive at a standard. We have a standard on the London County Council. In the council's dwellings no overcrowding is allowed. We allow two adult persons to each room. Children between five and ten years of age are counted as half-persons, and children under five are not counted at all. It is a very low standard. It simply means that in the case of adults, not more than six persons are allowed to live in a three-roomed house. If only the Local Government Board would set up a standard of that sort and compel the various local authorities to live up to it, they would take a long step towards removing one of the greatest national evils of the present day. In matters of this sort it seems to me, notwithstanding the optimism of the right hon. Gentleman, there is practically no intelligent direction, but merely a policy of drift, on the part of the Local Government Board. Let me give another example of a very serious matter. Look at the development of outer London. It is a most terrific problem. You have got growing up all around the county of London an immense population, and the county of London before long will be left in the centre, just as the county of London railed round the City originally. You have these vast areas, stretching from Croydon in the South to Tottenham in the North, stretching out in every direction, all being rapidly peopled with an immense population, chiefly industrial. Surely there ought to be some attempt to co-ordinate the local authorities, and to get a regular system of town planning whereby these outer districts can be filled up properly! They are filling up very rapidly.

By the last Census we are shown one of the most remarkable examples that I know of this tendency of population. For the first time, I believe, since censuses were instituted in this country there has been an actual diminution in the population in the county of London. In the outside part of London there has been an enormous increase. How are these districts being built upon and filled up? There is no central authority. There are endless local authorities. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in what may be called the county of London and outer London there are no less than 158 separate local authorities which are housing authorities. There is, of course, the City of London; there is the London County Council. There are twenty-eight Metropolitan borough councils, sixty-eight urban district councils, or urban districts, including big corporations like Croydon, and there are sixty rural districts. This makes 158 authorities altogether, all with different by-laws, all with different building regulations, none of them having any real idea of co-operation with the others in order to see that main roads are made, houses properly distributed, and districts planned upon scientific bases! Go into some of these districts now, and you can see that immense mistakes have been made. If these are allowed to continue, they will perpetuate and reproduce many of the worst housing evils of central London. I ventured some time ago to put to the right hon. Gentleman a question as to whether he was prepared to recommend the formation of some central board, or similar authority, representing all these different districts with a view to getting some system in the way of building in this outer London. The right hon. Gentleman practically said "No."

It is the same with this as it is with overcrowding, as it is with rural housing, and with everything else. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. I have great respect, personally, for the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to be unduly severe upon him in my criticism, but I tell him that not only on this side of the House, but on the other side, there is the greatest dissatisfaction at the absolute want of housing policy on the part of the Local Government Board. We all feel that something more is needed than what we have got. We all feel that some special expert department is needed. It is quite true that in a Bill which I brought in I proposed the formation of a special expert department. I do not care whether such special expert department is to be called a Housing Committee or a Housing Board, or what; but I do emphatically say that we want a real expert department with an intelligent policy, a policy which does not merely wait to see what local authorities are going to do, but that goes about the country seeing what ought to be done and making suggestions to the local authorities. Because the right hon. Gentleman has persistently refused even to consider the formation of such a department, and because I feel there is very general dissatisfaction with the present administration, or want of it, in connection with the Housing Acts, I move the reduction of which I have given notice.

I rise to support the Amendment for the reduction of the Vote. Though I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said, I wish to support the reduction for somewhat different reasons. I want to say a few words on the administration of the Poor Law. I feel a great deal of diffidence in approaching this subject again. I have spoken rather often in the House on it, but we who want a reform in the Poor Law feel that nothing is being done, and therefore year after year we feel obliged to criticise the right hon. Gentleman with the view of trying to get what we consider a more enlightened administration of the Poor Law. A discussion took place in March last, and we had then what I may call the usual speech from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He assured us that in all departments of the Poor Law he was extremely active, and he gave the impression—certainly to my mind—that all was well, and that no changes were needed. I want to ask him certain plain and specific questions. One point came up for discussion in March, and that was the question of vagrants. In answer to a question put on 15th April by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh Boroughs, the right hon. Gentleman stated that an Order had been made transferring the casual wards in the Metropolis to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, that it had come into force on 1st April, that before that a register was kept of homeless persons, and that he did not propose to issue a further Order on the subject of vagrants and casual wards. I want to know what the policy of the right hon. Gentleman is in regard to the able-bodied poor. He has transferred the casual wards to the control of the Metropolitan Asylums Boards. That may be all right, but all that that means is that a certain administrative change has taken place, though it must be the prelude to some new policy in regard to the able-bodied poor, for, after all, the starting of a register is not the "be-all" and the "end all" of reform.

4.0 P.M.

The right hon. Gentleman must require the register for some purpose. I hope he will tell us when he replies with what object he has started this register, and what is the idea he has in his mind as to dealing with this large class of persons. He has told us often in this House that he himself is opposed to the institution of labour colonies. He said last March that he felt a doubt as to the advisability of asking for further money for labour colonies. I do not deny that there are evils in labour colonies—still, we must do something, and if labour colonies are ruled out, what is the alternative? Last March the right hon. Gentleman spoke somewhat vaguely as to curative and preventive methods. We feel that the time has come when we should like to know what those methods are. The scheme in the Minority Report proposed to deal with the unemployed question under three main headings. Of these three headings, two are now in force. The first division was the establishment of the Exchanges. That has been done. The second was the establishment of insurance against unemployment, and that will soon be in operation, and the third division is the establishment of training colonies, day training centres, and in the last resort detention colonies. It is difficult to see how you can deal with the unemployment problem without establishments of this sort. Surely, after you have worked and classified your unemployed, you find a certain residuum and all you can do in the future is to prevent the manufacture of the same class. You also find a large number of people who have fallen out of industry, and whom you can reinstate in industry. They cannot get back themselves, and for them you must establish some form of training centres or training college. I think on all these points we are entitled to some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.

The next point dealt with was the question of the feeble-minded, and in answer to a question of my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh Burghs, on the 15th April, the right hon. Gentleman said that the number of feeble-minded in workhouses on the 1st January, 1906, was 8,000 odd people and he did not propose to issue a fresh Return. My question is where are these 8,000 feeble-minded? Are they in the general wards of the workhouses; and how many of them? It is common knowledge that in a large number of the smaller workhouses in the country the feeble minded are mixed with the sane paupers. Here, again, we have no figures. The Report of the Local Government Board does not show the allocation of these 8,000 people, and in fact we have no figures later than those which are six years old showing the total number. Again, in this respect I ask for information. I am afraid we shall find when we get these figures that there has been a very large increase in the number of the feeble-minded. I see the number of pauper lunatics in five years has increased from 111,000 to nearly 121,000, showing an enormous increase of 10,000 people in five years, a far larger proportion of increase when compared with the increase in population. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision and will cause a Return to be made, for I believe we shall find the number is now much greater than in 1906, and, therefore, I would point out now that the Home Secretary has introduced his Bill it is very important we should know the number of paupers that will come under the purview of that Bill.

I am told that in the case of certain unions, and especially in the case of the nine unions in the county of Wiltshire, a scheme for the amalgamation of all these unions for the purposes of segregation of the feeble-minded has been provided, and that the Local Government Board have issued their Order. I believe they do that under certain statutory powers, but I wish to call attention to the difficulty of these matters. I quite approve of the step, and I think it is a step in the right direction, but the Committee must bear in mind the Local Government Board cannot move until the unions themselves combine and, moreover, it cannot compel a minority of unions in the same district to come in and form part of the scheme, and, further, it cannot compel the scheme to be permanent. Supposing that after a few years one Union or more wants to break away from the amalgamation, the Local Government Board have no power to compel them to remain. While I welcome the scheme I think it shows the inherent difficulty of the system under which we work. First you have to wait until the local authorities move, then you have to get a large number of unions into line, and if all are not very progressive bodies, yet until they move, the Local Government Board cannot make an Order, and even after the Order is made it is not permanent. You will find great reluctance on the part of unions to move and incur expenditure when they know they cannot compel several unions to remain in the amalgamation. Therefore it is no answer to say that the Government Bill will meet all these difficulties. In the first place, the Government Bill is not yet law; and, in the second place, many good judges think its money provisions are inadequate, and when you say that 7s. a week is the Government allowance for the support of a feeble-minded person, you are specifying a sum which is totally insufficient and that will make it almost insuperably difficult for the local authorities to work the Bill.

I come now to the last point to which I want to call attention, and that is the presence of children in mixed workhouses. We are very glad to have the White Paper circulated this morning by the right hon. Gentlemen, though some of us would rather it had been circulated sooner. Still we do not complain of that. Looking at this White Paper, we find that in the last six years, that is from 1906 to 1st January last, the number of healthy children of school age in mixed wards of workhouses and not in infirmaries has been reduced from 11,072 to 8,779. That is a reduction of 2,300 children in six years. I do not want to minimise it. Still, the fact remains that nearly 9,000 healthy children of school age between three and sixteen, are still in mixed workhouses. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman. He has used all his powers of persuasion which we know he possesses. I believe he has used them to the full, but the fact remains that he cannot get the children out of the workhouses until he can compel the unions that will not board them out to fall in with his views. What is happening is that all the progressive unions are doing it and the unprogressive unions are not.

I see from the report of his inspector (Mr. Duff), for the counties of Chester, Shropshire, Stafford, and Worcester, that there are nearly 1,000 healthy children over the age of three, and in workhouses, and so in a large number of cases there are children still in the mixed workhouses. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman, if he had the power and could compel the local authorities, he would place these children in scattered homes or cottage homes or would board them out. I want him to recognise that, although he is moving, he is moving much too slowly. Two thousand children in six years is not such a very large amount, especially when you leave behind 9,000 children. I should like to point out also that, from the figures that appear in the same White Paper, it will be seen that while the number of healthy children in the workhouses has been reduced by more than 2,000, the number of children in the workhouse infirmaries has increased in the same period by exactly the same figure. I do not know why that is so. I know very well the total number of pauper children is higher this year, and when compared with six years ago is higher by some 10,000 or 11,000. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain this very large increase in the number of children in the workhouse infirmaries. I do not in the least want to go on criticising the right hon. Gentleman year after year. We all respect his energy, but I want to make some suggestions to him of a very practical kind. I know he does not like the mention of the Minority Report, and he has said very hard things about it; but surely he must admit that the Minority Report at any rate gave us three great principles. It gave us first of all the principle of different treatment of different cases; secondly, it gave us the principle of larger areas for the administration of the Poor Law, and lastly, it gave us the principle of attempting to take people out of the Poor Law and deal with them as part of our normal population and remove what is known as the pauper taint. For these three principles, if there was nothing else in the Minority Report, it will go down to posterity. It puts in clear form, which anyone can understand, these three main principles. The Local Government Board have tried to carry out the first two—they are trying to carry out the principle of differentiation of treatment, and they are trying to enlarge the areas. I quite agree that in certain questions, like the amalgamation of unions for treating the feeble-minded, they are enlarging the areas, because they recognise the union area is too small for differentiation of treatment, but all the same they are moving much too slowly. They have taken out of the workhouses 2,300 children in six years, which is at the rate of about 400 a year. There are still 9,000 children left, and a very simple sum in division will show that in twenty or twenty-five years they will have the last child out.

I do not think the process will be so quick because the right hon. Gentleman is starting upon the most favourable ground, and he, will find when he comes to the smaller unions he will meet a different question, and, although he is moving on the lines of reform, he is moving much too slowly. He twitted me for having in my speech last March charged him in one breath for not accepting the reform I advocated and in the next breath for saying that all his efforts were in the direction of that reform. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman both statements are true, because, although he does not reject reforms, yet he carries them out in a slow and halting way. What we want is to move on quicker, and get these reforms carried out with greater speed. When we come to the third principle, the removal of the pauper taint, the right hon. Gentleman does not move at all, because even if you take children from the workhouse and put them in scattered homes they are still inside the Poor Law, and though this may not seem to be a very practical question to certain people, it has got a very important bearing upon their future life. I want to see the children taken right out and given a fair start as part of the normal population. May I make a suggestion to the President? Why should he not try and go further by seeking powers to give the charge of all these children of school age to the education authority? Why should they not be the supervising authority for all children of school age? Why not give them the workhouse schools and let them say whether a child is sufficiently fed or sufficiently clothed or not, and allow the actual relief to be carried out by the smaller authorities?

The great line of attack upon the Minority Report has been that by its recommendations you break up a family. May I point out that in all reforms there must be a Poor Law authority, which must necessarily remain. In the case of the children, why should not the Poor Law authority act under the supervision and the direction of the larger authority? Give to the education authority the general control of the child's life, and let them say on what principle they wish the children to be taught and brought up, and when it comes to the actual relief in the homes of the pauper child then let the smaller local authorities who know the circumstances do the actual relieving. Until we adopt some move of that sort I do not think we shall settle the problem of the pauper children. As a last suggestion I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the three years that have gone by since the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission a large amount of assent has obtained among the different schools of Poor Law reformers. When the Report was first published we had nothing but controversies and quarrels between the different bodies of reformers, but now the ground has been largely cleared, and if the right hon. Gentleman looks below the surface he will see that nearly all reformers are practically agreed upon this question. It has now been shown that all the quarrels which raged very fiercely around this question did not mean very much, and that behind all those differences there is a large amount of assent. I believe the time is now ripe for some move, in fact, I believe that if the President of the Local Government Board would summon to a conference Lord George Hamilton, Mrs. Sidney Webb, and himself, they would find a common measure of agreement. I think the time has come when some real reform may be carried through, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the question is urgent. I can also assure him that there is a large consensus of opinion in favour of a solution of this question, and when it is solved the party or the Minister entrusted with the solution will find that the ground is clear in a way in which he did not suspect, and that the solution is really easier to carry through than appears at first sight.

I wish to express my sympathy with the last speaker in regard to his desire to get the children out of the workhouse at the earliest possible moment. I agree that the President of the Local Government Board has done a great deal in the last two years in this direction, but the fact that so many thousands of children still remain in the workhouse shows that a great deal still remains to be done. I think something ought to be done to deal with those boards of guardians which have adopted a recalcitrant attitude in regard to this question. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many workhouses at the present time are being used as places of detention under the Children Act, and whether he can give any idea as to the number of children received in workhouses as places of detention. I think it is nothing short of a scandal that a great city like Sunderland should be still using the workhouse as a place of detention under the Children Act. That can only be done with the sanction of the President of the Local Government Board.

A further point I wish to raise is the administration of Part I. of the Children Act which has to do with what is known as baby farming. The inspection under that Act, almost universal throughout the country, is done by the male relieving officers, and I cannot help thinking that that is not the right way in which such inspection should be carried out. It is essentially a woman's work to go round to these different homes to inquire into the general conditions of living bedding, food, and all the rest of it, and a woman can do that far better than a man is able to do it. The Local Government Board themselves have recognised that principle because by the Order of October, 1911, they have ordained that as regards boarded-out children the inspection shall be carried out by women. If it is necessary to carry out that inspection by women in the case of children up to fourteen years of age, how much more necessary is it to carry out such inspection by women for babies under seven years of age, who are often boarded out for a lump sum and subjected to every possible kind of mischance to which childhood is liable. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the same principle which governs the Order of October, 1911, and institute women superintendents and press upon boards of guardians that they should appoint women visitors to these children who are farmed out.

The Debate has, I fear, rather strayed away from the question of housing, and I want to allude to that subject again in order to ask one question of the President of the Local Government Board, and that is why so little action has been taken by his Department under Part I. of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909. I have just looked up in "Hansard" what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the provisions of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, during the Second Reading Debate of the Housing and Town Planning Bill. The right hon. Gentleman laid very great stress on the amount of benefit which would be brought about by making Part III. of the principal Act no longer adoptive but compulsory on the authority. He stated that— The main and essential feature of the Bill was that Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, which enabled local authorities to build new houses for the working classes (which was then only adoptive) should be put in force throughout the country. That was an important, serious, and necessary provision, and he believed the practical step that housing reformers had been asking for for some years. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify in face of those words his persistent negligence to take any step to compel local authorities to carry out their duties under Part III.? We were told then, and we have been told continually since, that there is a great deal of slackness on the part of local authorities in taking this action, and in putting upon the rates the risk of housing schemes not proving remunerative. But if this change was an essential feature of the right hon. Gentleman's housing proposals three years ago, how is it that three years have elapsed without anything being done? The White Paper which I hold in my hand deals briefly with the question of Clause 10, and it shows absolutely that no action has yet been taken in the way of coercing local authorities in this matter. It is agreed that in rural areas there is a very great shortage in accommodation, and after the very interesting speech which we have listened to from the hon. Member who moved a reduction of this Vote, I do not think it is necessary for me to labour that point. Undoubtedly vindictive taxation and threats of further attacks on the landed interest have brought about a stagnation in building in a great many districts and on a large number of estates. Naturally, if a man feels that the burden of the land is too great and he has to put his estate in the market, he is not going to sink any more money in the erection of working-class dwellings. All this means that you have knocked out the individualist solution of this problem. The Local Government Board, however, have in their hands the means of securing proper accommodation, where it is proved to be wanting, by Clause 10 of the Housing and Town Planning Act. Why have they not taken any action? It is quite easy for them to do so. Under that Clause it is only necessary for four inhabitant householders or for any authority not responsible to make out a case to the Local Government Board that the authority responsible for housing has failed to carry out its duties. The Local Government Board then hold a public local inquiry and they are empowered to have the work carried out, if necessary, by the county council. We have been told that there have been no default Orders. Is that due to the fact that none of these complaints have yet reached the right hon. Gentleman, or is it due to a definite line of policy on his part? If a case is shown that in a certain rural district there is such a shortage of accommodation as that which has been described by the Mover this afternoon, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put into action these default powers where it is necessary to coerce the authorities to do the work?

With a great deal off what the hon. Member opposite has said. I am in hearty accord, but when he proceeds to lay the whole of the blame on the Local Government Board I can hardly find myself in agreement with him. My opinion is that the local authorities, and more especially the county councils, are extremely slow to move in this matter, and many of them do not desire to provide suitable accommodation, because they have an idea that some of the dwellers in the large cities near might come into the villages and so rob those villages of their rural aspect. I should like to thank the President of the Local Government Board for what he has done in the town of Gainsborough. We are extremely badly off there for houses I dare say Gainsborough is unique in one respect. Trade is always good there. I will not go into the reasons, because it would not be strictly in order on this Vote; but there are some large employers; of labour who repeatedly employ men from other places. When they have been there for a few days these men find they cannot possibly get houses, and they have to go away, although employment has been found for them. The local authority made application for a housing scheme, and, I am glad to say, the Local Government Board, with commendable celerity, sanctioned the application. It is a very small scheme and should be very much larger—indeed, the Local Government Board said they only regarded it as a tentative scheme—and I hope the local authority will go in for a still more ambitious scheme. There are one or two points; I do not understand, and which I hope the right hon. Gentleman when he replies will endeavour to explain. I represent a large agricultural constituency with nearly 100 villages, and I think I may say without fear of contradiction that in not one of those villages are the housing requirements anything like adequate, and in many of them they are a perfect disgrace to civilisation.

I want to give a little of my own personal experience, because I think it is the sort of thing which perhaps weighs not only with this Assembly, but also with others, A few months ago I took a residence in a village in the East Riding of Yorkshire and acquired a lease. I desired to have two gardeners and a chauffeur. I found it almost impossible to get houses for them. The landlord in one case was good enough to put a house into something like repair—in fact, he did very well—and I was enabled to have the chauffeur. I engaged a gardener, a married man, and fortunately for me, or for him, he has no children, because, if he had any children, he could not possibly have lived in the only house that could be got in the village for him. It only had one bedroom. A door or two off an agricultural labourer and his wife have brought up a family of ten in a similar house, and then we wonder sometimes why some of the poor workers in our large agricultural constituencies are not quite so moral as we should like them to be. So far as the second gardener is concerned, it is impossible to get a house for him, and I have had to do with one. Many of the houses in the village are a perfect disgrace to civilisation and would be condemned by the medical authorities, but there are no other places to which they can go. I have in my mind a long row of houses with scarcely any sanitary convenience at all. Nobody would want to live in them, but they are always full, and, if one tenant goes out there are twenty ready to come in. The fact of the matter is the people dare not complain, because, if they did, they would be turned out, and their last state would be worse than their first.

I want to know where is the link between this village where I live and the right hon. Gentleman himself. This village is typical of hundreds and thousands up and down the country, and I want to know why it is this state of affairs does not get to the right hon. Gentleman's ears. I wish he would come down and spend a week-end with me. I would open his eyes in this village, and, if he came with me into my Constituency I could show him a hundred more villages which are neither better nor worse, and in which the housing conditions are really abominable. Why is it this state of things is not altered? It is no use the medical officers condemning the houses—not a bit. It would be inhuman if they did, because the people have nowhere else to go. Who are these people? They are the flower of our land, and they are going out in their thousands to Canada and other places every year. Next week one of the finest families you could find in the agricultural districts is migrating to Canada from that very village. This is going on all over the country, and we are losing the best life-blood, because the agricultural labourer is the backbone of the country. Nobody works harder, and nobody gets less for his toil. These people get low wages, and they have to live in houses which are a perfect disgrace, not only to the Local Government Board, but to every one of us, and we want to know where is the link between these pigstyes, and the Local Government Board. I do sincerely hope brighter days are going to dawn for us. If we could only get proper and suitable houses for the people in the country the congestion in the cities would be greatly relieved, and there would be less people clamouring for work at the dock gates in our large cities.

I wish to be perfectly fair and just to the right hon. Gentleman, and to admit there is a certain amount of activity in certain parts of the country under the Housing and Town Planning Act, but there are also a great many parts of the country where the Act is simply a dead letter. There is no other part of the country where the housing conditions are worse than in the county of Norfolk. I hold in my hand an extract from the report of the County Medical Officer of Health for Norfolk, and he says:— Not every local authority had taken action during 1910 to put their powers under the new Act into force, and a few of the District Medical Officers' reports made no reference to the Act. That is an admission that in a great many parts of Norfolk they have probably never heard of the Act. There are, however, other reasons than mere negligence why this Act is a dead letter. Here is an extract from the Swaffham Rural District Medical Officer's report:— One finds that many of the houses are really unfit for habitation, and feel inclined to apply forthwith for closing Orders, but immediately the question arises. Where are the displaced tenants to find fresh houses? Again, the Thetford Rural District Medical Officer of Health reports his hesitancy to condemn houses— until better houses can be provided at rents within the means of the former inhabitants. There are no building by-laws. There are other reasons beyond this incapacity to face an almost impossible situation. I see from the "Manchester Guardian" that— A White Paper which has just been issued is a collection of Local Government Board Reports on sanitary administration in certain districts. Here is an extract from one of them. The place is Tredegar: 'Unhealthy slum areas containing houses unfit for human habitation: considerable number of cellar dwellings and back-to-back houses; some slum property owned by members of the district council.' 'This is an instance of bad conditions; other reports offer explanations as to why bad conditions are allowed to continue. Here are some of them: "'( a ) Tendency on the part of the district council to place upon the county council the onus of taking action.' "'( b ) Failure of the council to take the advice of and support their officers ' "'( c ) Systematic inspection of districts neglected by-Medical Officer of Health, who is allowed nothing for travelling expenses. Inspector of Nuisances holds a plurality of appointments which prevents him giving adequate attention to his sanitary duties. "'( d ) "In the performance of my duties," says an Inspector of Nuisances, "I have unfortunately come into contact with the private interests of several members of the council. I have been interfered with by individual members of the council when carrying out the details of my duties."'" So long as you have that state of things the Act is bound to be a dead letter in the country districts. The right hon. Gentleman says he has given a great deal of advice and encouragement of all kinds to rural district councils in facing this problem, but his advice and encouragement have not influenced those districts to which I have referred. I read in the report of the Essex County Medical Officer of Health that the Billericay Rural District Council are of the opinion that they have received no assistance from the right hon. Gentleman, because they passed a resolution to say the requirements of the Local Government Board in matters of house building are such that houses erected in accordance with them could not possibly be let at a, rent within the reach of the agricultural labourer. It is only fair to admit the Billericay Rural District Council are building some houses. The medical officer says there is not a village in which cottages are not wanted. I would like to quote from the report of the County Medical Officer of Health for Essex. He says that during recent investigations statements have been made to him, which he has been able to verify, of gross immorality due to insufficient bedroom accommodation. He would not like to print them. The details would shock the most callous opponent of improvements in rural housing. Cottages should be built to let at 3s. 6d. a week. This might be done, and not until it is done can any real improvement be effected by closing the wretched old places that are at present allowed to be occupied. The right hon. Gentleman said he has got an army of experts at his beck and call, and also a special department organised to deal with housing. How is it the Local Government Board during the last twenty years, with all its army of experts, has only been able to get 200 cottages built, while the Board of Agriculture in the last three years has got over 1,000 built? What use was the great army of experts at the Local Government Board in the Chertsey case? There were gross insanitary conditions at Chertsey, and an application was sent to the Local Government Board for an inquiry. I believe it cost £100 to get that inquiry. The Local Government Board, however, held an inquiry, and a great number of houses were ordered to be closed, and the rural district council, much against its will, was ordered to build twelve cottages. The people were turned out, but the rural district council have done nothing at all. They did offer a site for houses between two sewage farms, but from that day to this no cottages have been built. What is the good of this large army and this special department at the Local Government Board? What good have they been to Chertsey? I should like to say a few words now about the administration of the Poor Law. I should also like to say a word or two about the inadequate relief which is granted, as well as upon the question of children in workhouses. I am sorry to have to refer to these subjects again, but, to my mind, they represent some of the worst phases of our system. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded with pride to the reduction of the number of children in workhouses. But why should there be any children n workhouses at all? A reduction of 2,000 is not sufficient. There are, I believe, sixty or seventy children in the workhouse at Don-caster. Why should such a state of things be permitted to continue there? Then what happened in Pembroke? The Local Government Board asked why the Pembroke Guardians had taken no notice of a letter sent to them; and in reply they passed a resolution that it was not to the advantage either of the guardians or of the children that the latter should be boarded out in cottage homes. They not only merely took no notice of requirements of the Local Government Board, but they refused to appoint a committee to deal with the subject. It is not surprising to learn that the Pembroke Board of Guardians have the greatest difficulty in dealing with their children. When they place them out they run away. I believe, as a matter of fact, there is a very serious outbreak of scab disease among the children in the workhouse, and some of them have actually to be lodged in the chapel attached to the workhouse.

Next, I come to the question of the inadequacy of out-relief. I am very pleased to see in this morning's paper a speech by the right hon. Gentleman, in which he said the country was sick of charity, and the time had come when we must concentrate on the children. What I want to know is when is the right hon. Gentleman going to do that with his huge army of 180,000 children on out-relief. It is no exaggeration to say that, in the majority of unions, the children on out-relief are not properly fed, clothed, or housed; and the consequence is that they are growing up to be potential paupers. Where you are spending a shilling on a child to-day, you will have to spend a pound on the pauper of the future. There is a vast pool of unemployables and inefficients in this country, and if your children are inadequately fed and clothed under your out-relief system you will be contributing to that pool. It is of no use concentrating on the children if this system is to be allowed to continue. In Norwich a committee of investigation was appointed by the Liberal Christian League to inquire into the question of out-relief in that city, and they found, after careful investigation, that the out-relief given was totally inadequate to keep body and soul together. They took many budgets of working-class women who had out-relief for their families, and they discovered that when rent and coal had been paid for the amount of 2d. per week per head only was available for food. They, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was not the slightest chance of these children growing up to be effective citizens. I do not want to discuss the point—I should not be in order if I did so—whether it is in accordance with social justice that a woman suddenly deprived of her husband should be classed as a pauper at all. What I do want to point out is that if any of these unfortunate women of Norwich were to desert their children they would have at least 5s. per week spent upon them by the guardians, and if they happened to live in Poplar then 19s. per week would be expended on maintaining the youngsters in barrack homes.

When we raise this question of the adequacy of out-relief, the right hon. Gentleman is very fond of telling us what they are doing in Poplar. I do not want to know how much money is being spent there; but I do ask what justification there is for a system under which from 1s. 6d. to 2s. per head is allowed as out-relief, while under another system the cost is 19s. per head. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman put his foot down and insist on the adoption of a system similar to that enforced by the guardians of the West Derby Union at Liverpool, where they have appointed two district visitors to go round and see, not only that the relief is adequate, but that it is properly administered? The result of that system has been an enormous improvement in the condition of the children.

I also should like to say a few words on the question of the care of State children—of those under Poor Law administration. There is no disagreement on this subject between the two sides of the House, and one cannot help seeing that, in addition to bringing all the pressure we can to bear on the Local Government Board as regards this branch of the subject, both sides of the House are agreed that we can do a good deal more towards influencing various boards of guardians throughout the country and inducing the backward boards to deal with this question in an adequate manner. In the first place, I desire to say a word of congratulation to the President of the Local Government Board on his new boarding-out Order. I am sure that that Order was welcomed by all who have any experience of the boarding-out system, because it brings into line with those boarded out beyond the union those who are boarded out within it. Boarding out beyond the union was always a well-administered method, because it recognised women inspectors and provided for having women on the various administrative committees; whereas, on the other hand, boarding out within the union had in many cases become merely a bad form of out-relief. Boarded-out children are-brought under the care of women inspectors. Women form at least one-third of the boarding-out committees, and boys and girls, receiving out-relief, apart from their parents, are in future to be considered as boarded-out children, and are to be afforded the same protection. I desire, therefore, to heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new boarding-out Order.

I next desire to refer to that large group of children, numbering, according to the White Paper issued this morning, no fewer than 181,000, who are in receipt of out-relief. It is clear that there are two weaknesses with regard to the treatment of these children. In many cases the relief is not adequate, and in many cases, also, the supervision is inadequate. Attention has already been called to this question, but I do urge the President to give it his further consideration. I gather from the Paper issued this morning he is taking up the question of supervision. I think it will be admitted that not only should the relief be adequate, but that means should be taken to ensure a right outlay of the relief given. There is no doubt at the present time the out-relief given in many unions is cruelly inadequate, rendering it absolutely impossible for a woman to maintain her children and to bring them up properly. There was a reference in the Press the other day of the action of the Pewsey Board of Guardians, in Wiltshire. Their practice had been to allow 4d. per child per week, and two loaves of bread. That generous 4d. has now been raised to 6d.; but the chairman of the board stated that the average amount given throughout the county was 1s. 6d. per head, and no bread. We know by experience on boards of guardians which have scattered homes that their administration under the most economical methods has proved that a sufficiency of food cannot be provided for less than 3½d. per head per child where there are ten or twelve children in the home. Sufficient food cannot be given in those scattered homes under 3½d. per head except where there are ten or twelve children. We can therefore easily realise that where a widowed mother is provided with 6d. and two loaves of bread per week per child, it means that the children must suffer from semi-starvation, bad housing, and lack of firing. If we allow that sort of thing to continue we are simply creating a new generation of the unfit and unemployable.

5.0 P.M.

We have also to bear in mind that out of these 181,000 children, more than one-half are the children of widows. It is an immense advantage that these widows have been allowed to keep their homes together. Too often kind and charitable people, without thinking, when the husband is taken away, at once turn to orphan asylums and other homes, and thus scatter the children and break up the home; whereas, if these kind friends would only contribute half what it costs them to get the children into the asylums and would stand by the widow, and enable her to keep her home together, it would be infinitely better, both for her and for the children in regard to their citizenship in the future. If employers would only stand by the widows of employés, who have served them faithfully perhaps for many years, it is surprising at how comparatively small a cost the widow can be enabled to keep her home and bring her children up as useful citizens. It is going a little far, perhaps, but if the President has any influence with those who will have to administer the fund for the "Titanic" widows, I trust he will use his influence in the direction of not sending these children to orphanages, but that he will try to keep the widow's home about her, so that she may train her own children.

The other point I wish to deal with is with regard to the children in the workhouses. One does not desire to complain of the reduction of 2,343, or 21 per cent., in six years, but what I confess I do not quite like about the White Paper is that it is too complacent. It says that we may hope in a decade to get the children out of the workhouses altogether. I do not know how long the President expects to remain in his present position. I expect that hon. Gentlemen on the other side do not wish him to remain there long, but I should like to see him accomplish this task during his presidency, and I am sure that if sufficient pressure were brought to bear that might be done. These figures are not quite so good as they appear on the surface. It is true that the number is down to 8,729, but we must remember there are also 9,525 children, between the ages of three and sixteen, in the infirmaries and infirmary wards. Not all workhouses have children's infirmary wards, and I say that if the workhouses have no infirmary wards the children are in the wrong place, because it is not suitable or fit for them to be in infirmary wards where there are no children's apartments. We know there are a number of infirmaries with special children's apartments. While we are thankful for small mercies we want much greater and more rapid progress. Some hon. Members have already mentioned some of the backward boards. A year ago I mentioned several of them, and those backward boards I mentioned last year are now in exactly the same position to-day. They have practically flouted the Orders of the Local Government Board. For instance, there is Hartlepool, which still retains about 160 children in the workhouse, and which recently again declined to put forward any proposal for their removal. I understand that their defence is that the Poor Law is in such a chaotic state that it is not worth their while at the present time to expend the ratepayers' money. There is Kidderminster, which has some seventy-two children in the workhouse; Bury, in Lancashire, with eighty, and Ashton-under-Lyne with over 100. They were practically the figures of a year ago, so that the whole influence of the Local Government Board during the year has been practically nil. There is this point also to be considered, that for another year these children have been subject to the workhouse environment and influences. It was only to-day I heard why it was that scattered homes were first started. They were first started in Sheffield. The reason was that the sister of the chairman of the guardians, who had been a visitor, came to him one day and said, "I have heard such foul language from the children between three and five, that unless you get rid of the children from the workhouse I will not remain a visitor any longer." One is thankful to know that the great majority of the inspectors are now unanimously desirous of carrying out our wishes and the president's wishes with regard to getting rid of the children from the workhouses. I do therefore ask the President in addition to what he has done to consider these matters, first, in connection with the 181,000 out-relief children, to see that they have adequate maintenance and women's supervision, and secondly, to see that some steps shall be taken by which all the children shall be removed from the workhouses within a comparatively short time.

I am glad to have this opportunity of being able to criticise the right hon. Gentleman for not having done more to improve the administration of the Poor Law and the system of Poor Law which we have in this country at the present day. The system has been condemned by numerous authorities in the past, and much that has been condemned still remains as bad as it was a few years ago. The right hon. Gentleman has two replies. The one is, "Leave it to me and give me more power." I propose to show later that when it has been left to him, as in the case of the feeble-minded, he has not done the best. His other reply is, "Wait and see. Various Acts have been passed—the Old Age Pensions Act, the Labour Exchanges Act, and the Insurance Act, and each one of these will diminish: the problem I have to deal with." He claims, and rightly, that each of these measures carries out certain recommendations of the Poor Law Commission, and that therefore the proportion of the evils and of the problems he has to deal with himself will diminish. But are we to wait until every Government Department and every Cabinet Minister except himself has brought forward a measure before he himself goes ahead? I can quite understand any other Cabinet Minister bringing forward with justice the plea that as regards the Poor Law we must wait and see what the effect of the Insurance Act is before we can deal with it on a large scale. After all, the Insurance Act deals with health. We know that bad health causes pauperism. The public health of this country belongs, and has belonged in the past, practically entirely to the Local Government Board, which is the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman obviously must have been concerned in the framing of the Insurance Act. Any other right hon. Gentleman in this House might take the line that the effect of the Insurance Act is unknown, and that we must see exactly how it deals with the various problems before us, but the right hon. Gentleman has had to deal with the public health, and he obviously must have collaborated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in framing the Insurance Act. During those hours and days and weeks, when they worked hand in hand and with their heads together, framing the Insurance Act, all that time the right hon. Gentleman ought to have had before him the effect which the Insurance Act would have upon public health and the Poor Law system. Therefore he has no right to say that we must wait and see what the effect of this Act is before, he proposes to deal with these problems on a bigger scale.

I want this afternoon to deal with a, large section of the people who come within the jurisdiction of the Poor Law authorities. I want to deal more especially with the feeble-minded. I think it is the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission which says that one-sixth of the pauperism is due to feeble-mindedness. The Committee is probably aware of the fact that all destitute, feeble-minded persons, except special classes, such as lunatics or prisoners, come within the jurisdiction of some Poor Law authority. I was very much struck, when reading again the other day the Report of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded, by the fact, stated in the Report sent in by one investigating inspector, that, taking four typical urban areas, 12 per cent. of the people in Poor Law institutions were feeble-minded, and that, taking four typical rural areas, 18 per cent. of the people in Poor Law institutions were also feeble-minded, that is to say, that the problem of the feebleminded in the past has been essentially a problem with which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have dealt. He will probably reply by saying, "There is a Bill now before the House to deal with the feeble-minded." But does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that that Bill is going to pass? It may, or it may not. Taking into consideration the already over-crowded programme of the Government, I think it is exceedingly unlikely that this House will have time for the adequate discussion of that measure, but whether it passes this year, next year, or the year after, I want to deal with the administration of the feeble-minded this year, and for the past few years, by the right hon. Gentleman. We have now a system which has been condemned by all the experts who have looked into it, both by the Poor Law Commission and by the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded. It is a system by which the feeble-minded are mixed up in Poor Law institutions with those of sane mind. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will probably have made a study of this question in a general way. They know that the system which has been condemned is a system which causes the sick, of sound and unsound mind, to be placed in adjoining beds in an infirmary; it causes unfortunate women who, owing to mental deficiency, have sunk into the lowest ranks of the immoral, to go into the same maternity wards as other women; it causes young persons of feeble mind especially to be mixed up with those of sane mind, without that adequate instruction and specialised supervision which they are entitled to, and which they ought to have. It is a system which more especially causes adults of all ages, males and females, of sound mind and unsound mind, to be housed in the same building, in the same institutions, which are unsuitable and improper and where they are insufficiently cared for.

I could quote at length extracts from Local Government Board inspectors or from guardians who are conversant with all the facts, and who have studied the problem, and with their knowledge they absolutely condemn the system which has existed in the past under which those of sound and unsound mind have been housed together. It is hard on the deserving paupers, and it is bad for those of feeble mind. What has the right hon. Gentleman done to deal with this question? Has he given a lead to the local authorities? Local authorities have not fully recognised the fact that the feeble-minded require special treatment, and require to be dealt with in special institutions. Has the right hon. Gentleman given them that lead which he ought to have done? Has he made them recognise the importance and the magnitude of the problem, and that it was for them to deal with it in the right way? The right hon. Gentleman has merely waited for some other right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to bring forward a Bill to deal with this question. He has not done anything yet to improve the classification of the feeble-minded and those of unsound mind who are now in the infirmaries and other institutions throughout the country. At the present moment he has no up-to-date information as to the number of the feeble-minded persons in Poor Law institutions. The only figures he can produce as to the number of persons of unsound mind now in Poor Law institutions are the figures which were obtained by the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded some six years ago. He himself and his Department have not done anything that I know of to get figures up to date. They cannot tell us at present the number of feeble-minded persons in these institutions. If he had had this classification, and if he had had these figures, at all events it would have been of the greatest assistance at the present moment when we are proposing to deal with this question. Not only that, he is apparently so satisfied with our present system, which has been condemned by everyone else, that I notice in the Bill recently introduced there was a special provision saying that any feeble-minded persons in Poor Law institutions were to remain in those institutions unless permission was given by the right hon. Gentleman for their removal; that is to say, apparently he wishes to perpetuate the system which has been condemned in the past. I noticed some few weeks ago when some of my hon. Friends brought forward a measure to deal with housing, that the right hon. Gentleman jeered at them for being blue-blooded fledglings.

No.

That was the general tenour of his criticism. In any case I would rather, in dealing with questions of Poor Law reform, social reform, or any other reform, have to deal with fledglings anxious to get on, than with anyone who is hopelessly mixed up with red tape. I wish to bring before the House a case of red tape which I dare say can be repeated by many other Members on both sides. Last autumn there was an old man in Plymouth who was recommended for an old age pension of 4s. There was some doubt as to whether it should be given him, and it was referred, on 2nd December, to the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members opposite have, no doubt on numerous occasions and on numerous platforms throughout the country, explained the mental anguish of the aged and deserving poor in the past. They have probably taken great credit, and very rightly too, to themselves for having relieved that anxiety and therefore they, at all events, will be able fully to appreciate the anxiety and the mental anguish of this old man, aged 72, while he was waiting to know whether he was to be given his old age pension or not. The matter was referred to the right hon. Gentleman. December passed, January passed, February passed, and the old man was still waiting to know whether he was going to receive the pension or not. In March it was brought to my notice, and during March and April and May a certain amount of correspondence passed between the right hon. Gentleman and myself and between himself and his local inspectors, and the result was that at the end of May the right hon. Gentleman decided that this old man was to receive a pension of 3s. I want to put before hon. Members not the fact of the gift of a pension lower than was originally recommended, but the fact that it took him six months to make up his mind whether this unfortunate person was to receive a pension or not. No wonder that when it takes the Local Government Board six months' deliberation, as well as external pressure, to make up their minds as to whether they are going to give one person a pension, when it comes to a question of national importance they are not able to come to any decision whatsoever.

I wish to make some remarks with regard to the continued reception of children in workhouses, but I do not wish to be quite so severe upon the right hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member (Mr. Astor). I do not think really this House would accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being tied up in red tape. So far as our experience has gone of him he has been either cutting or untying the red tape, which has been tied in knots in a thousand different places during some generations past. I daresay the House generally would desire that he should do it more rapidly, but, on the whole, during his six years' term of office he has made many notable achievements. All the same, I should like it to be speeded up. I have not heard anyone in this House defend the retention of children in the workhouses. It is not defended anywhere except amongst some unenlightened boards of guardians. Then why does it take so long to get all the children out? I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman would find that public opinion would support him in fixing a time limit within which guardians ought to be compelled to make arrangements for all children being outside workhouses. There is, however, a certain class of boards of guardians who decline to move until they are compelled to do so, and on whom inspectors' criticism and recommendations and Local Government Board circulars have no effect whatever. Two years ago the President issued a circular to boards of guardians on the treatment of Poor Law children. He said:— In every union in which children of school age are still maintained in the workhouse the guardians should take prompt measures to remove them from the work-house and provide for them in some more suitable manner. I do not know what some of these guardians consider to be promptness, but many of them are in exactly the same position as they were when, they received that circular. The York Board of Guardians repeatedly refused to remove their children. The President, who was not tied up with red tape, threatened a dissolution of the union, and to-day the York children are provided for in scattered homes, which is an example of what can be done by persistent pressure. I should like very warmly to acknowledge the valuable work of the Local Government Board inspectors. They are carrying out what is in the main an enlightened policy, and they have to do it by tact and persuasion against prejudice, ignorance, and frequently miserly parsimony. We have now arrived at the point of showing up the backward boards, many of them in the less populous districts. I am not quite sure that the President is going to prove to be of sufficient weight for the apathy in some of these rural districts. He must beware how he trenches on the prejudices of Little Pedlington. If not, Little Pedlington will continue to defy him. I should like to know whether his attention has been called to the state of the children in the Huntingdon Workhouse. One of his inspectors there has spoken pretty strongly. From his statement and from that of a lady guardian, we find that there are ten infants under three years in one small room, which is very hot and stuffy, and in the evening the mothers of those children, seven of them, sleep in that room as well. They are not taken out except for an airing. There is overcrowding in the girls' night-room, and in three cases two girls sleep in beds which are only three feet wide, and there is no room for a single additional bed in the room. The inspector spoke very strongly there. He drew attention also to the fact that there were not cots for the children, and that five of them sleep with their mothers, and he said he could take no responsibility for that; it was extremely unsatisfactory, and he must report it to the Local Government Board, and if there was any catastrophe—that is, if the child were killed by being overlain, I suppose—it would be a responsibility on the board of guardians, and it would be a very serious one. There is no oversight there of these infants except by a very busy matron with a pauper inmate under her. However, the chairman feels that he is able to be really contemptuous of this criticism, and endeavoured to laugh the right hon. Gentleman out of his reforming zeal. He says:— With regard to various Local Government Board circulars, all he could say was that they were drawn up by clever men in silk hats who knew no more about rural unions than the desk before him. Another member says:— I hope we shall not hear any more about this until more pressure is put on…. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not fail to reward the gentleman with the more pressure. The Local Government Board had got their back against them, and they must put their back up against the Local Government Board. There will be a trial of strength to see which has the stronger back. Amongst other unions which decline to move unless they are compelled, there is apparently Weymouth, where another inspector finds his requests flouted. At Totnes another inspector finds his suggestions met with adjournment after adjournment. There are forty children there, and they are overcrowded. At Dover there are 139 children, and they say, "Wait and see what the Government are going to do in regard to moving the children out of the workhouse." At Gainsborough there are seventy-two children more than there have been in the workhouse for twenty years. A committee is appointed, but still the matter is hung up. At Swaffham a resolution to remove the children was defeated. A member said he was willing to wait until the Local Government Board compelled them to remove the children. At Colchester another indignant member considers the action of the Local Government Board iniquitous, and practically asks the President to apply the policy which he outlined in regard to York. This shows the state of mind of some boards of guardians, but such words and such conduct find no defender in this House, and I think, on behalf of both sides, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would do well if he would continue to apply the pressure which he has applied in many cases. Another small point to which I should like to draw his attention is a proposal for a children's camp between Lytham and Blackpool by the Swinton guardians. I hope the Local Government Board will not put any obstacles in the way of that being set up. There is one point which I notice. Among the reasons given for establishing that camp is one that a considerable number of the children are suffering from ophthalmia. Surely it should not be left until 550 of the children have gone to the seaside camp before dealing with that state of affairs, and if it is true that a large number of the children are suffering from ophthalmia surely that ought to be seen to at once, and special measures ought to be taken. In regard to this matter of ophthalmia I will draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the case of the children from the Strand school at Edmonton. Six of these were transferred to another school, but were sent back from the other school because of ophthalmia. It will be worth his while to examine what appears to me to be a rather white-washing Report which the Board got which suggests that the children are in far from a satisfactory condition.

With regard to feeble-minded children in workhouses, so far as I can ascertain, the Government's Mental Defect Bill does not in the least degree remove from the care of the guardians defective children, and there appears to be a danger of their being immured with all classes and ages of mentally defective persons in district workhouses set apart for this purpose. There are proposals that in an area where there are several workhouses one house should be set apart for receiving all classes of mental cases. I am rather fearful that children should be sent there, and that might prove to be a very sad thing for some of them. Children who are feeble-minded and not imbeciles should be dealt with in separate homes, and very largely be under the care of some skilled person. Their development is frequently merely very backward. It is very difficult to decide when the child is young whether it is really feeble-minded or is simply an extremely backward child which has suffered very much from bad feeding and ill treatment. It would be a terrible disaster, something which no one could contemplate unmoved, if one recoverable child were sent to be permanently immured all its life amongst those who are really of the idiot or imbecile class. I hope that with regard to this matter great care will be taken to secure separate individual treatment for every feeble-minded child, and that they will not be gathered together in one great mass where recovery which might be possible becomes almost an impossibility.

The subject to which I want to call the attention of the Committee is somewhat removed from those which have been already referred to. This is now the third or fourth time that the case of the vaccination officers has been brought to the notice of the President of the Local Board. Last year I raised the question, and this year I want to concentrate the attention of the Committee on what is the real case of the vaccination officers. I wish also to call attention to what has been done, not only during this year, but in the years preceding, to meet the acknowledged grievances which I believe are known to every Member of the Committee, and of which, in a large measure, the President of the Local Government Board has knowledge. In answer to nearly all the questions I have put to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject he has stated that gratuities have been sanctioned in certain cases. The vaccination officers' case is that what they are asking for, and what I say they have a right to demand, is not a gratuity, more or less adequate—it is generally very much less than adequate to meet the loss of actual income they have sustained—but the deferred pay which they are entitled to, the pay which they thought they would receive when appointed to their various offices, and which has been taken from them by the act of this House. They want a readjustment of their fees by General Order, and to be paid the amount of the diminution of their fees, less any gratuities they may have received up to the present time. The President of the Local Government Board told the Committee last year that in 321 cases some gratuities had been paid. In a great many other cases—the vast majority of cases—no gratuity at all has been paid. Speaking on 3rd August last year, the President of the Local Government Board, in answer to my contention, which was then the same as it is now, said:— Any general principle altering forms of compensation, would hare to apply to those who have not had their remuneration reduced, as well as to those who have, and to those between where the amount is small either way. The matter could not be dealt with as the hon. Gentleman suggests. What I ask on behalf of the vaccination officers is, why it is impossible that one general principle should be laid down of paying an officer the same fee for recording certificates of exemption as for recording certificates of successful vaccination? That appears to me a simple proposition. It is also in accordance with precedent. When the Act of 1898 was passed making exemption possible for the first time, it was recognised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), who was then President of the Local Government Board, that this required an Order on behalf of the Board, and required also the introduction of the new principle that the payment of fees for successful vaccination alone would not meet the case. It was then laid down that a smaller fee—a fee of one-third of the amount payable in respect of the registration of a successful vaccination—should be paid on the registration of each birth, whether the child was to be vaccinated or not. There you have a principle. Then there was a General Order. But the principle underlying the Act of 1898 was to make exemption as difficult as possible. It was then no duty of the vaccination officer to call the attention of the parents to the fact that they could claim exemption. Now, I say, the position of the vaccination officer is entirely changed. He is not asked or expected to be in any sense an advocate of vaccination or of exemption He ought to keep an entirely impartial position, and he does so. He is obliged to occupy an impartial position and to have nothing to do with the question whether the parents desire the child to be vaccinated or not. I have it on the best possible authority from a large number of vaccination officers that exemptions occupy more of their time, and give them more trouble than cases of successful vaccination.

Every officer has had his remuneration reduced to a greater or lesser extent. I do not agree with the President of the Local Government Board that there is any "between" in the matter. I want to point out to the Committee that this was contemplated and all foreseen when the Act of 1907 was before this House and in another place. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) intended to move an Amendment which would have met the very thing that has happened—namely, the diminution of fees resultant upon the great increase in the number of the exemptions. That Amendment was actually proposed in another place by Lord Camperdown, and it was opposed on behalf of the Government by Lord Allendale. I want to call the attention of the Committee to some of the statements which were made in another place. I will not trouble the Committee with the exact terms of the Amendment. It showed very clearly that this diminution of income was contemplated, and if it had been incorporated in the Act all this trouble and loss of salary to vaccination officers would have been avoided. Lord Allen-dale said:— It was hardly necessary for him to say that the vaccination officer was not the person who performed the operation of vaccination. His duties were to act as a sort of registrar of vaccination for the district for which he was appointed, to see that all the children in his district were accounted for to look up defaulters, and BO on. He was required to keep a report book and register in which were entered particulars with regard to every child coming within his cognisance. As to that, I wish to point out to the Committee that the President of the Local Government Board said that where the duties of a vaccination officer were greatly diminished the best possible way to meet the difficulty was to appoint him to some other office. I maintain there is nothing in the Act of 1907 that reduces the duties of the vaccination officer at all. That shows, to my mind—I do not say to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, because I am sure he has really a clear idea as to the respective duties—a distinct confusion of thought in putting before this House that there could be any diminution of work due to an increase of exemptions and a decrease of vaccinations. Of course, the medical officer has less work to do; but the recording angel, whose duty it is to see that these vaccination exemptions are recorded, and who sends out the necessary forms, has exactly the same work to do in either case. As was pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill, it was not anticipated that the number of persons who would obtain exemptions on account of conscientious objections would be materially increased. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the first reason why the Amendment was opposed by the Government which the right hon. Gentleman represents to-day was that it was not anticipated there would be any material increase in exemptions. Lord Allendale went on to point out that after the passing of the Act of 1898 the number of applicants for exemption varied from 5 to 4.8 per cent. The numbers have gone up now to 25.7 per cent., according to an answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me. That is a big number. The exemptions increased enormously, according to the Returns for 1910 and they, are still larger for 1911, of which we have no complete record. I will show to the Committee that the exemptions cannot possibly be less than 30 per cent. I believe they must be over 30 per cent. of the number of births these officers have to deal with.

The most important statement made in the Debate in another place was that the vaccination officers were paid by fees; but Lord Allendale reminded Lord Camper-down that, if considered inadequate, the fees might be increased by the guardians with the concurrence of the President of the Local Government Board, or by the Board itself. If that promise was made in another place, on the faith of which the Amendment proposed was withdrawn, how can the President of the Local Government Board come here in answer to questions day after day, and how could he state, in the Debate in this House last year, that it is impossible for him to make the General Order we have asked for? There is no question whatever of diminution of the work of the officers on account of exemptions. The secretary of the Association of Vaccination Officers was requested by the officials of the Local Government Board to allow his books to be inspected in order to see whether there was an increase or decrease in the amount of work involved. He has since been informed by the official who made the inspection that he is of opinion the officer has no more and no less work to do than he had prior to the Act and Order of 1907. There was another suggestion made last year to the President of the Local Government Board—I think it was by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley—that, at any rate, there should be paid to the vaccination officer a fixed salary, and that he should not be dependent upon the fees from a diminishing number of registered vaccinations. The President of the Local Government Board said, in answer:— If I were to adopt that, the present district of vaccination officers, owing to the increased number of exemptions, would have to be made larger for the ratepayers to get value for their money. I think that throws a strong light on the way the right hon. Gentleman deals with this question. I think the Committee will now admit that there is no case in regard to any diminution of work; but that it is in order that the ratepayers may get value for their money. The right hon. Gentleman says if they are to be paid a regular salary, even approximating to what they were in receipt of formerly, he would have to give them a larger district to work. I wonder how trade union members would like this reason given with respect to demands on their part? The duty of the vaccination officer is simply to record vaccinations and exemptions, and therefore I say the fees paid should be exactly the same, or, if a fixed salary is to be paid, it should be determined by the average of the annual income for the years 1903 to 1907. I do not myself advocate a fixed salary, for the simple reason that it may not work with automatic fairness in the same way as the method I suggested last year. It would not allow for an increase or a decrease in the birth rate. In some cases there might be less work, and in some cases much more. Unless you have the same fee for each exemption you cannot get a salary which is exactly commensurate with the work done.

On the 25th March the President said, in answer to a question, that appointment to other offices is an excellent way of meeting this grievance. I would like to call attention to what really underlies that. The officers say that there is no saving of trouble or work to them by reason of the exemptions, yet the President says that an. excellent way of meeting the grievance of an enormously and rapidly diminishing salary is to give them some other work to do for which they may be able to get some increased remuneration to make up for the remuneration which they are not paid for work which they have to do. I wonder how the hon. Members below the Gangway would regard that proposal as a solution of the difficulty as to the pay of signalmen, and what they would say if these men worked ten hours a day for 30s. a week, and if the President of the Board of Trade were to say, "an excellent way of meeting their grievance of not receiving adequate pay would be for them to give two or three hours work in the booking office when they come out of the signal box as they will get a little additional pay for that, which will make up in some measure for their not being properly paid for the work which they do during the day?" That is exactly the method suggested for meeting the case of the vaccination officers. This is not the way for the President of the Local Government Board to treat the vaccination officers who are not a trade union, and not a large body of voters, but only a small body of conscientious public servants who are doing painstaking and accurate work for which they have a right to be paid by the community.

The question is not only the one I have dealt with so far of the method of remuneration for this work, but it is also a question of the amount of the remuneration which they actually get. The right hon. Gentleman said on the 17th June— There are 1,420 vaccination officers in England and' Wales. They are all paid by fees," but he stated, "out of the 1.420. 400 give their whole time to the work and 1.020 hold other appointments such as relieving officer, registrar of births, marriages and deaths, and other appointments. Hon. Members should bear that in mind in considering their total remuneration. Vaccination, officers speaking generally, do not depend really— I think the right hon. Gentleman meant wholly— on their work as vaccination officers for their living. That is another curious line of argument, that because a man holds several different offices the salaries of which combined makeup something which may be regarded as a living wage, if the salary of one of those offices practically ceases altogether the right hon. Gentleman says that it does not matter, because they still get paid something for being relieving officers or for the other offices which they hold. The only thing in the nature of a promise that I was able to extract last year from the right hon. Gentleman in the Debate of the 3rd August was this. He said:— I do say. however, that my peculiar relationship with the guardians indicates that perhaps there is something that must be done in the light of the remarkable increase of exemptions that has occurred in the last year or two. The question is not only as to whether what has been done is right in method and principle, but whether in amount of money it does in any way meet the grievance. On the 11th December I asked the right hon. Gentleman for particulars of the gratuities sanctioned in the 321 cases referred to by him and the loss that had been actually sustained in those cases by the officers. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would take far too much trouble and he could not do it. The Association of Vaccination Officers therefore have had, as far as they possibly could, to make up the deficiency. They have had to communicate with all their members and find out for themselves exactly what the position is. I can give the right hon. Gentleman some figures which will assist him in carrying out the duties of his office and in finding out what really the grievance is with which we are asking him to deal, and which will make him look on the subject in a somewhat different light from that in which he viewed it last year. We nave got the figures of thirty cases which are fairly representative cases, and not picked cases at all, in which some gratuity has been paid. In those thirty cases the loss to the officers between the years 1908 and 1911 amounted to £1,988 18s. 8d. The gratuities which have been sanctioned amount to £513 13s. 2d. The net loss in those thirty cases out of the 321 is therefore £1,475 5s. 6d. I have said that they were not picked cases, and, in proof of that, I have got the full figures here in every case, which can be shown the right hon. Gentleman if he cares to look at them, and in these cases the net loss varies from so small a sum as 14s. up to £322, and it is evident that if we wished to take out picked cases we should not have included people who lost such sums as 14s. or only £1. Then we have taken 110 cases out of those where no gratuity has been paid whatever in the same years. The loss in those 110 cases has been £3,768 10s. Again, they are not picked cases, because they vary from 15s. to £234. This not only affects the immediate salary of these officers, but it also affects their superannuation, and I would draw attention to the manner in which the President of the Local Government Board proposes to deal with the cases of superannuation. On 3rd August he said:— The Local Government Board are willing and have been willing to allow gratuities to be included in estimating for superannuation. But on the 22nd November he said, in answer to a question that I put to him:— The gratuities the Board have suggested amount approximately to half the difference between the average annual amount of fees received before 1908 and the amount of those received since. What concession is that? These officers are told that the gratuities may be included when the gratuities themselves are only half the amount of the fees which they have lost, so that he docks not only their present salary, but their future superannuation, by a very large percentage of what they are absolutely entitled to. The method of the President is to deal with hard cases. I do not want to deal only with hard cases, but I might take a few. The South Hackney Guardians are perfectly willing to pay the vaccination officer, because they know that he is losing a very large amount of his salary through, the operation of the Act of 1907, fees in respect of every receipt he sends parents who ask for it for statutory declarations of conscientious objections to vaccination, so that if he moves into any other district he can show that the case has already been up, and that his child is rightly not vaccinated. The President of the Local Government Board says that that is not one of the cases that he could deal with as one of the hard cases which require special treatment. I have looked into this particular case, and find that here the exemptions from vaccination have increased in the case of one officer under the Hackney Board of Guardians from 151 cases in 1906–7 to 2,300 cases of exemption in the year 1910–11. In the case of the other officer, the numbers were 94 in 1906–7 and 940 in 1910–11. If the Committee will consider that every single exemption means the loss of a fee of 9d. to the officer, it is rather surprising that the President of the Local Government Board did not consider that one of the hard cases with which he ought to deal. What we are asking for is not a continuation of this system of gratuities for a few cases, but that these officers shall be treated fairly in every case. That can only possibly be done by devising some scheme, and I think that the only simple scheme is the one I have suggested for the President of the Local Government Board himself to advise boards of guardians that in consequence of the operation of the Act of 1907, now that we know what the increases in the numbers of exemption are, the only way of dealing with the case is to pay the same fee for an exemption as for a vaccination.

The President says that he does not think he should intervene unless he is appealed to, but we must remember that, according to the President's own showing, only a small percentage of these officers are exclusively vaccination officers, and that most of them hold other offices under their direct employers, the boards of guardians. Therefore it is not fair to expect in every case where they are suffering hardships and where they cannot get any immediate relief from their own employers that they are likely to come to the President of the Local Government Board and complain of their own employers, and ask him to intervene, and have the matter dealt with over their heads. Therefore, of course, only a very small number of the cases of hardship ever reach the President of the Local Government Board at all. He said, in answer to me, he did not think that that was the case, and he added, was he expected to go about with a bell asking the vaccination officers, "What do you lack?" May I remind the President of the Local Government Board of another offender who, earlier in history, when he was called to book for a somewhat similar case, made a similar reply, and said, "Am I my brother's keeper?" I say that in the office which the President holds it is not, of course, his duty to go about with a bell, but it is his duty to deal on general principles with the whole of the cases of hardship, whether they have been expressly brought to his notice or not. I would remind the Committee of what these officers are doing. They have to prepare and keep a record which "will inevitably be wanted some day, and, as I think, if it is ever wanted in the case of an outbreak of small-pox, it will be wanted in a hurry, like a stranger's revolver in Texas. If we do not have these records properly kept now, we will not have them available when they are wanted, we will not have the right kind of people applying for these positions, and they will not have the necessary qualifications.

6.0 P.M.

It is absolutely a case of sweated work. Many of these officers have had to part with their life insurance polices, they have had to part with a portion of their personal property, and they have had to raise loans at usurious rates of interest in order to try to keep their families and their homes together, and in many cases the matter is really so urgent that it will not brook any further delay. Therefore I hope that this is the last time I may have to bring this matter before the attention of the President of the Local Government Board. It has been brought up now three or four years in succession, and it has always been met by the same non possumus attitude, the same attitude of the righteous perfection of the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman is in charge, and of everything that he does, the same determination to shut his eyes to the grievances of these people, the same statement that they are only a very small number of people, and that, after all, he is doing what he can to deal with a few individual hard cases brought to his notice. I hope we have reached the end of that method of dealing with the question, and that the Committee will be satisfied before the right hon. Gentleman has finished his reply that he really means to mend his ways, and intends to deal with this subject in a fair and sympathetic manner, and not in the spirit of niggling meanness that has hitherto characterised his action.

I fully sympathise with the argument of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, but I do not intend to follow him in that direction, because the tenour of my whole remarks will be towards sweeping away the whole system and showing how indefensible is the supposed scientific basis of vaccination at the present time. Though this subject is raised on the question of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, it is not in the least degree applicable to himself personally, because unfortunately he is in the position of having to administer Acts which put upon him no inconsiderable burden. Vaccination may briefly be described as putting an unknown substance into the body for an ill-defined purpose—

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in raising the general question of vaccination?

I will show that this comes within the administrative powers of the right hon. Gentleman. I will show that it is within his functions to standardise the vaccine material, and in order to standardise the material it is necessary that he should have some idea of what that material is.

It will be out of order for the hon. Gentleman to deal with the general question of vaccination. The subject at present is the administration of the Act. Any allusion to the general question of vaccine material must be of a very brief character and directly and closely relating to the administration of the Act by the Local Government Board.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I will endeavour to keep within the question of administration. It seems to me that if I am to exemplify my view before the Committee with any cogency I must, at any rate, touch on the question of the character of vaccine. I repeat that vaccination at the present time consists in introducing an unknown substance into the body for an ill-defined purpose, and supporting the results by illusory statistics. Singularly enough, of all the diseases for which vaccination is employed small-pox is the particular disease for which it is least adapted. I speak now not as an anti-vaccinist, but as a medical man, believing that we require a scientific method, and not the haphazard method which prevails at the present time. Lymph from the calf is obtained by a very uncertain process, a process which shocks anyone who has become acquainted with the particular science to which it applies, because no proper precautions are taken for sterilisation. Above all, there is an entire absence of any means of standardisation. I urge this as a reproach against the right hon. Gentleman, for he has it within his power to endeavour to have standardised material, and to institute proper experiments for discovering what are the best means of preparing the lymphs or providing substitutes for them. In all other diseases where vaccination is employed the very first essential is that the vaccine should be submitted to some kind of standardisation.

On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Does this come within the scope of the Vote?

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is travelling outside this Vote. The only thing that is within his competence to discuss is the administration of the Act by the Local Government Board, and the hon. Gentleman should keep to that point.

I will endeavour to keep within the scope of the matter before the Committee, but I would point out that the question of standardisation is really within the power of the right hon. Gentleman. My contention is that he should promote experiments by his staff in order to obtain some means of standardisation. Further, it is within his functions as President of the Local Government Board to prevent small-pox by sanitary measures. It is really important, with regard to the adequacy of sanitary measures, to show the weak points of the present methods of dealing with the disease. The question of dispensation from vaccination is one which will assume larger and larger proportions, and I believe it is already the custom of the Department to pass over carelessly wholesale exemptions, as for instance in Leicester. I believe the statistics show that, in so doing, it is made clear that small-pox has not increased, but has had a tendency to diminish. Since I cannot touch on the more scientific aspect of the question, I come to the definite point of administration, and I would say to the President of the Local Government Board that it would be a wise policy to be more and more lax with regard to exemptions while at the same time safeguarding the interests of the medical officers involved. I quite agree with the hon. Member who preceded me (Mr. Peto) that the medical officers do a great deal of work for which on the whole they are very inadequately paid. I myself, in regard to small-pox, believe that inoculation is an absurdity as at present practised, and that there should be very careful and more and more circumspect consideration of all questions of sanitation. I believe by that means alone you will eliminate from the community in a far greater degree not only small-pox, but other diseases and it should be the mainspring of the whole organisation of administration in dealing with these infectious diseases.

I join in the appeal made in regard to the vaccination officers, and I hope the day is not far distant when questions of this sort will be dealt with by a Committee of the House, so that all Civil servants will have one authority able to deal with their grievances in a comprehensive planner. There is no doubt about it very great hardship exists in regard to those men who are to be dealt with. I also wish to join, if I may, in the appeal made with regard to children in connection with outdoor relief. The right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion was good enough to tell us of the splendid work done in the schools under the various boards of guardians. No one denies that, but I wish to bring the right hon. Gentleman's attention to bear on the Metropolitan area. Here, in London, at least one board of guardians, the Hammersmith Board, have put on record that they deliberately and of set purpose give widows in London not sufficient outdoor relief. They have been asked by care committees why it is the children who attend the elementary day schools are obliged to go to the dining centres to get their meals. The difficulty we experience in London is that the care committees have been set up to deal with these children, and the London County Council feels very strongly that where you have the board of guardians relieving the children they ought to relieve them adequately, and that the care committees ought not to be called upon to give them meals at all. Between the two authorities the unhappy children in many districts are made to suffer. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of appointing persons to visit outdoor relief cases. Only a week or two ago the right hon. Gentleman poured scorn and ridicule on the payment of more officials, and in this case I wonder whether the Committee realise exactly what this proposal to appoint visitors means. The widow will be visited by the relieving officer, by the visitor of the Local Government Board, and on top of that by the school attendance officer, the care committee officer, and the representatives of schools. I know that is the fact, because such persons have visited myself in Bow to inquire into the physical well-being of my children, as they do with regard to other people's children. You are going to add one more terror to the life of the widow by having her case investigated by a representative of the Local Government Board. The light hon. Gentleman is certainly a practical man, and I ask him whether it is not time to face this problem, certainly so far as London is concerned, in another fashion.

The Local Government Board claims to desire to give boards of guardians power to subscribe to any organisation which is doing work which the guardians might otherwise have to do. That is to say, they may give contributions to hospitals and homes of various descriptions. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should allow the boards of guardians in London to make contributions to care committees on condition that the care committees take over the care of the child entirely. I am only making this as a temporary suggestion pending the arrival of some statesman who will sweep away all these anomalies, and who will bring in a real working scheme for co-ordinating all the various bodies that at present I think mismanage the care of the poor. At the moment we in London are faced with the difficulty that the children are not being fed, and therefore I suggest that he should take the authority set up by Parliament. Nothing can be said for making the children of widows paupers when you do not make the children of able-bodied men paupers. You deliberately say in the case of a man out of work that the children may be fed without the scheme of pauperism entering into it at all. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow the boards of guardians, or what would be very much better, to make a Grant from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund to the London County Council in proportion as they spend money on the care of the children of widows, who would otherwise become chargeable to the Poor Law. I know there may be some difficulties which his Department is bound to raise, but by taking the course I suggest you will be removing the children from the sphere and care of the relieving officer, and my experience is that that would be a most excellent thing to do. You would place them under the care committees, working as they do now in a voluntary manner, and the children would thus have an infinitely better chance of being decently brought up. The thing for the Committee of this House to understand now is that these children are not being properly fed, while a great deal of public money is being spent on investigations and inquiries, and all kinds of things. This House has said that the education authority shall deal with the children of able-bodied men who are out of work through the care committees, and so take away all question of pauperism from them, and I am asking that the children of widows shall be dealt with in exactly the same manner.

There is a similar question to which I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. If a woman or a man has to make application for medical relief, the new Order states that there is a document to be produced. There are fifty or sixty questions on that document going back to the time of Adam with regard to the persons, where they come from, and how it comes they are in the position in which they find themselves. All those have to be kept, not merely on the first application, but have to be brought up each time though the person concerned may be in the workhouse year after year. I understood when the right hon. Gentleman was appointed that he was going to get rid of red tape, and that some other kind of tape was to be used. I venture to say that this kind of document in the case of medical relief, is too monstrous for boards of guardians to be either allowed or compelled to obtain such particulars as are required under it. In that connection there is again in London a gross waste of public money going on. In the districts where the care committees give relief to children, a similar kind of document is filled up for the educational authority, so that you have both those authorities getting exactly the same particulars about the same case. I think it is time that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of multiplying red tape with regard to the Poor Law, should get rid of some of it. So far as this House is concerned, they have over and over again broken through the old Poor Law traditions, and it is only since the right hon. Gentleman has been at the Local Government Board that we have gone back to the old idea that each person who comes for assistance, whether a widow or anyone else, must be looked on as a person less worthy than the rest of the citizens.

Another matter I wish to mention, also in this connection, is in regard to the action of the auditors. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has instructed them, or whether any of his permanent officials have instructed them, but the auditors up and down the country now are taking action in regard to whether relief, and especially outdoor relief, is legal in certain cases. The kind of case that they interfere with boards of guardians is, that of a person getting relief where the income coming into the house is considered to be sufficient to maintain the person who needs relief and the persons who are earning the money. That is a very dangerous sort of business indeed. At this moment quite close to me in Bow, there is a case where the action of the Poor Law authority is really going to break up a very nice relationship, the relationship that ought to exist between sons and their parents. The auditor has declared that because the sons are earning £1 per week, that that is enough to maintain themselves and their father and mother. That leaves out of account altogether that the sons one day want to be able to get homes of their own, to save money, and set up housekeeping. The auditors in any case where there has been anything like that income, have surcharged the guardians who gave the relief. Consequently, that kind of decision having been once given has gone to the country so that the boards of guardians now are afraid to give assistance. In the case that I have mentioned, surely the right thing to do would be to help the sons to maintain their parents. The results of what the guardians have done will be that the sons will have to move a little way off, give their parents a small sum per week, and the guardians will be obliged to make it up. The idea that because they live together the whole cost of the upkeep of their parents should be put on their shoulders is, I think, a perfectly monstrous proposition, and one which I am certain the auditors would not have set on foot if they had not been prodded on to it by someone at the Local Government Board.

Again, the circumstances under which relief has been given have been reviewed by the auditors. If it is good enough for the auditors to determine whether there is too much relief ought it not to be the duty of someone to see if there is enough relief? Instead of that being the case the auditor looks out for what is being earned and takes no account of what may have been done with the money by people living at home. On the amount of the earnings he bases the plea that the income into the home is sufficient. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that it is comparatively easy for him, and easy for me to lecture the poor as to their responsibility towards their parents when both of us are in fairly comfortable positions so far as money is concerned, and as most Members of this House are now. I like to face facts as I find them. I think it is the height of impudence on my part, or on the part of the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else, to lecture the poor, who have to live under infinitely harder conditions than we have, as to their duties towards their aged relations. The State up to a certain point has taken that over, and I stand here as one who believes in the duty of each of us doing our very best for our parents, but I deny the right of the Local Government Board and its auditors to penalise any man or to penalise any woman by imposing on them burdens which are very much too much for them to bear, and which very often cripple them practically throughout their lives.

There is also the question of Hollesley Bay. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt will tell me that this is a hardy annual, and he will tell us of all the money he spent there, and of the good will he has exhibited there. I visited that place again about three weeks ago, and I want to say this much—that if there is one thing that will be to the eternal disgrace of the Local Government Board since the right hon. Gentleman went there, it is his treatment of that experiment down there. He rolled out figures the other day that only seventeen men had been settled in the country, and he made a statement that they cost so much per head, yet he knows perfectly well, and no one knows it better than he, that in the main that colony has had to take people when there was nothing else for them to do, and to keep their wives and children in London under quite abnormal conditions. He knows that it is himself and his Department that have prevented the extension of that experiment, which he has called merely a glorified workhouse. I put it to him as a practical man. You have money being poured out and at this moment twenty-five to thirty families who have been decoyed down to Hollesley Bay on the understanding that if they prove themselves eligible, decent people, that they should be given the chance to work similar holdings under independent conditions. The right hon. Gentleman has stopped the attempt to land those people out into the country under those conditions. He refused to allow the Central (Unemployed) Body to take another estate—told them it was no part of their duty to set out men in that business. Let us take it for granted that he is right, and what I ask is, What is he going to do with that estate, and with those twenty-five or thirty families that are down there now?

Proposals have been made over and over again that the estate and all its belongings should be transferred to the Board of Agriculture, and let them see what they could make of it. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House definitely what he proposes to do. What I and others propose to do in regard to the place is, in his opinion, foolhardy, stupid, and nonsensical. Words fail him to paint our stupidity in thinking that men could be got back on the land. I deny that, but let it pass, and I ask what does he propose to do? Is Hollesley Bay to go on, with an expenditure of from £20,000 to £30,000 per year, as a sort of glorified workhouse? What proposal has he to make for dealing with the place? Our proposal, that he waives on one side, was that the Board of Agriculture should take it over. Is he going to say, "Although you want to do something, I shall not allow you to do it, and I will not allow anything else to be done, but I shall simply deal with it in such a manner that I can proclaim it to be a failure from beginning to end"? That is not playing the game in any sort of way at all. I would like to take every Member interested in this question down to Hollesley Bay, so that they might see what the whole proposition was. But perhaps many Members have been down. Public money is being poured out there, and people are being taken down under false pretences. If Members could interview the people who have been there three, four, or five years, they would know the sort of despair that has settled upon them with regard to their future. I ask again, as I have asked before, What do the right hon. Gentleman and his Department propose to do with these people? What do they propose to do to carry out the promises which have been made to them, either through the Central (Unemployed) Body or by any other means that he and his Department can suggest?

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some consideration to the valuable suggestion of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) as to the money that might be handed over by boards of guardians to the care committees, so that the children in London, who are the children of the Poor Law at present, might be adequately fed, and, as far as possible, taken out of the meshes of the Poor Law and placed on the same level as the children whose parents have been more fortunate in life. That is a practical proposal to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give careful consideration. My purpose in rising is to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee some indication of what he and his Department are doing to carry out the duties imposed upon the Local Government Board by the Insurance Act, particularly under Section 8. I have always considered it most unfortunate that the Local Government Board should have been ousted from so much jurisdiction under this Act, which appertains really to the health of the people and to local government in its truest and most practical aspects. But there it is: the House has passed the Act; it has ousted the Local Government Board from the place it might well have occupied; and the Treasury has taken upon itself duties which ought to have been carried out by the Local Government Board, and which, in my opinion, the Treasury is most unfit to carry out in any practical way. We have never been able to ascertain how much the right hon. Gentleman knows about what is going on under the Insurance Act. We have recently read in the newspapers that provisional committees are about to be appointed to carry out the main duties under the Act, and I have learnt this afternoon that a notice has been served on the London County Council asking them to nominate fourteen members out of a committee of seventy which is to be set up in London. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman was consulted on this matter, which very much concerns local government. Is he taking steps to see that these provisional committees shall be furnished with full and adequate information in connection with the sanatorium benefits, which we are told are to come into being after 15th July? That is, in less than two months from the present time these provisional committees ought to find sanatorium benefit.

Under Section 8 of the Act it is incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman, as President of the Local Government Board, to say what diseases besides consumption may be properly treated in these sanatoria, whether or not county councils may build sanatoria, and what Grants they may make towards the building of such institutions. How far is the Local Government Board co-operating with the Treasury? How far is the right hon. Gentleman kept informed of what the Treasury is doing in this matter? Is he taking care to see that the provisional committees shall be supplied with all the information which ought to be placed at their disposal? Under Section 77 there ought to be going on throughout the country inquiries as to the numbers of those who are likely to need sanatorium benefit, either as consumptive cases or as other cases suitable for sanatorium treatment, so that these provisional committees, which will have very hard work to perform, particularly during the first few months of their career, may have at their disposal all the information which the Local Government Board is most fitted to obtain for them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has been consulted at every point. Some of us are inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman is rather a cypher in the carrying out of the Insurance Act, and that the superman is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are very jealous for the position of the right hon. Gentleman as President of the Local Government Board in matters that concern local government. I have more than once stated in this House that the present Government were doing a great deal to destroy the power of local government in the country. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman assert himself and insist that such powers as are given to him shall be left to him, and that he shall have something to do with providing the county councils with the information which he is able to place at their disposal. I regret that we cannot have a more adequate discussion of the very important proposal of the Government to appoint these provisional committees, which are to have such vast powers, but which they are appointing in such a haphazard way. I regret that the Government should have chosen the very moment when the London County Council were in recess to send them a notice informing them that they were expected to nominate fourteen members for this committee by a certain date before that on which the county council were to reassemble. That shows a certain amount of dilatoriness on the part of the Treasury or of the Department which has undertaken the responsibility of carrying out this measure. I cannot help thinking that if more of these matters had been left to the President of the Local Government Board the London County Council would not have been treated in this unfortunate way.

In reference to the point raised by the hon. Member opposite, one knows in connection with the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor) that a great deal of information has been placed at the disposal of local authorities through the medium of the Local Government Board, and that the Department is exceedingly active in endeavouring to induce local authorities to submit provisional schemes. I should like to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto). I think the vaccination officers have a very good case for being given some security in regard to their salaries which have been reduced indirectly by the action of this House and through no fault of their own. I wish to refer particularly to the question of the milk supply. Everyone "who looks into this question must confess that the state of affairs at the present time is deplorable. We have about two million cows yielding milk, and according to a report of Dr. Collingridge, the medical officer of health for the county of London, up to 1907, 45.8 per cent. of the specimens of milk examined were either tuberculous or dirty—that is to say, hundreds of thousands of gallons of tuberculous or dirty milk were being drunk every day tinder the powers which the county council obtained in 1908 they have examined 7,896 samples of country milk, and 850, or 10 per cent., were tuberculous. On examination of the cows it was found that only 1.3 per cent. of the cows were infected with tubercle, as against 10 per cent. of the milk—that is to say, the milk from tuberculous cows had been mixed with milk from cows which were not tuberculous, and had spread the infection all through the milk churns sent from the same dairy.

It is interesting to inquire where the obnoxious material comes from. A joint committee, appointed by the county boroughs of Bradford, Hull, Leeds, Rotherham and Sheffield, and the administrative counties of the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire, conducted an inquiry, and found that in 86.8 per cent. of the samples examined the dirt or tuberculous material was in the milk in the place where it came from—the milkshed or the dairy. In only a very small percentage of samples had the material been introduced afterwards—that is to say, out of the enormous volume of milk consumed by the people every day a great amount is rendered dirty or tuberculous at the place from whence it comes. One does not want to exaggerate the case. One knows very well that in a city like Birmingham, which has been tackling its housing problem lately, they have reduced the death rate from tuberculosis, for example, to a very great extent. But still 10 per cent. of their milk supply was tuberculous last year. So that the death rate has been very much reduced, while the people are still consuming a great quantity of tuberculous milk. Ten thousand children under the age of fifteen died last year from tuberculous diseases other than tuberculosis. I notice in the report of the Medical Officer of Health of the Board of Education that we have in our schools at the present time 600,000 children suffering from glands in the neck. The Royal Commission which inquired into the question of the spread of tuberculosis amongst children came deliberately to the conclusion that, at all events, a large amount of the tuberculosis in children was derived from food, and that food, of course, is pre-eminently milk. In the cases which they examined most carefully they found that out of twenty-seven abdominal cases fourteen were infected by bovine tuberculosis and thirteen had glands in the neck. Some of the evidence before the Committee on Tuberculosis with respect to glands in the neck puts the figure higher than that. It means, at any rate, that there are 200,000 children with tubercular glands in the neck which are bovine in origin. According to some of the evidence which has been obtained by Mr. Stiles and the workers under him a very much higher proportion than that is due to the infection of children through milk, or, at all events, milk was the channel of infection. I do not want to spend any further time in elaborating this problem, but I want to say two or three words as to how we ought to deal with it. One thing is strikingly evident, the more we come to look into this thing, and that is the children under five have a very high death rate from tuberculosis other than of the lungs; the older they get the more it is in the lungs.

In Manchester the authorities have endeavoured within the limits of their powers to control the supply of milk, and to try to get it as clean as possible. They have been doing this fairly energetically for a few years. The point here is of great interest, because it bears out what I have been saying previously. If the obtaining of clean milk in Manchester operates generally in regard to the prevention of tuberculosis, you would have had a corresponding fall in the death rate on account of the diseases which are caused by tuberculosis. The general increase of sanitation and so forth would have caused a proportionate fall in the rate to that from tuberculosis in the chest, certainly in the case of the children. What do we find? This extra care with regard to the milk supply brings about an unusual diminution of that section of tuberculosis which prevails amongst children—that is to say, we find that these particular measures for reducing that cause of tuberculosis act apart from the general influence of sanitary measures collectively. For example, take the years 1891–95 with the corresponding years 1896–10. The proportionate ratio of reduction we find was, that in children's diseases other than chest diseases which are tuberculous, the fall in the death rate in Manchester has been 2.1, whilst in the country generally it has been 1.7. In that municipality, with its limited powers for undertaking the efficient control of the milk supply, that control has been accompanied by a striking decrease in the mortality of children from tuberculosis. That is my point.

I know that it is a long and difficult business to expect to remove tuberculosis from cattle. There is not time this evening to go into that. At the same time we know that there has been, for example, attempts to remove from herds tuberculous cows. But if we did this generally we should cut off at one stroke about 250,000,000 gallons of milk, so that is impossible. We should send up the price of milk, which is the very thing we do not want to do; at the same time the process would cost enormous sums in compensation. Therefore it is evident that to deal with tuberculosis in cattle is a slow and difficult business, and will need international effort. It would not have to be done by different sanitary authorities up and down the country, with differing standards and operations and different ideas. The London County Council has been energetic in their efforts in regard to the milk supply. I believe that at the national conference on infant mortality in 1906 there was specific reference made to our lack of control in our dealing with dirty milk. The London County Council can deal with tuberculosed milk coming into this great city. They can go down into the country and inspect the cows, and so forth. But they have not the powers necessary to deal with milk that is practically so dirty as to be unfit for human food. When we think of these hundreds of thousands of gallons consumed annually, I am quite sure no one more than the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we have a right to look to his Department for bringing forward measures which will enable us to deal with this problem adequately and on proper lines.

The legislation of the London County Council has been chequered and unsatisfactory. They made various efforts in 1907, when they had a Bill; but they were mot able to deal with dirty milk. In 1908 the process was repeated. In 1909 we had the Government Bill of the right hon. Gentleman—which was subsequently withdrawn—since when we have seen no other. It is quite evident that no other operation, but that of a great central Department like the Local Government Board can enable us to deal adequately with the question of the national milk supply. At the same time, what has happened is this: All over the country are the sanitary authorities and others who administer our various regulations and orders. They have their inspectors. We will assume that a municipality has adopted the model milk clauses. They send their inspectors into the area from which the milk is derived. But that same area may supply ten other milk districts and you may have the unfortunate milk producer harassed by the attention of ten different inspectors from ten different places. These inspectors have not always the same ideas. Some men seem to think that the whole thing depends upon having cement floors. Some others think that the matter depends upon other things. The unfortunate milk producer really does not know where he is at the present time. I have no doubt whatever that a considerable number of men have given up the trade in despair because of the harassing interference and the regulations which exist at the present time. Again, a considerable number of sanitary authorities have adopted the Dairies, Cow Sheds, and Milk Shops' Orders deliberately, I feel sure, in order that they might not put them into operation. I have a case within my own knowledge where a sanitary authority was pressed by the Local Government Board to adopt the Milk Shops' Orders. They declined to do so for a long time. At last the pressure became so great that they adopted them, at the same time deliberately resolving that they would not carry them out. As things are now, if a cow is found by the inspector of the county council to have tuberculosis all that the owner has to do is to send the milk somewhere else, or to take the cow to a neighbouring parish where the inspector has not been.

As a matter of fact, I know a case where a cow was removed and sold to another man. It went simply across the river, and the milk of this particular cow, which proved to be tuberculous on the one side, came back to the other side of the river to the self same buyers as it had previously been going to. Of course, the reason is that some authorities appoint inspectors who do the work as well as they can. Others do not appoint inspectors. The members of the various authorities in the country, that is, small urban district councils and so forth, frankly, are not enthusiastic to adopt the Cow Sheds' Orders; are not enthusiastic to secure clean milk supplies for London or Birmingham, or some place two or three hundred miles away. When one comes to study the various Public Health Acts and the enormous number of private Acts which have to do with the control and the regulation of our milk production, I think it is fair to describe them as hopeless chaos. There is not, it seems to me, in our existing legislation, anything which is a more hopeless tangle, and at the same time entirely incompetent to provide us with clean milk, than the existing state of affairs in regard to the production and control of our milk supplies. The right hon. Gentleman's Department fully recognises this, I know. They have had a Bill which was, with certain reservations, on sound lines.

The hon. Member is going into legislation, which does not arise.

I am sorry for having allowed myself to wander into legislation which is not before the Committee. However, I have been able to point out that at the present time our divers sanitary authorities are, some willing and some unwilling, to regulate their milk supplies, and to endeavour to secure clean milk, with the result that there is overlapping of authorities and unnecessary interference with the milk producers, who are in despair of knowing exactly where they are. What we want is for the Local Government Board to come along and to give us a national scheme—one on simple, uniform lines, and, I hope, to take the whole thing out of the hands of the small sanitary authorities and deal with it in large areas on comprehensive lines, and not in an expensive and inefficient way calculated to produce the maximum of interference and annoyance with the minimum of useful result, which is what the existing arrangements in the country do at present.

7.0 P.M.

We have heard from the other side a good deal about the Milk Bill. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, straight out, when he is going to bring this in, because it has been for a long time wanted. Has he any information, too, regarding the draft Regulations of the Local Government Board on the question of milk and cream? He issued this draft Order and promised that the trade should receive full consideration. The trade has approached him, but I am not aware yet that he has granted any of the requests they made. We only ask, both from the traders and from the producers, for a modification of this Order. We do not ask for anything that will in any way prevent the public or the consumers being protected; but we do ask that this Order should be simplified, and we ask for certain modifications in it. We shall really like to know whether this Order is now in force or not. The date on which it was proposed to be put into force was 1st June. If these modifications and requests are to be totally ignored, I suppose the Order will be in force. I would like to call the attention of the President to one or two other matters. We asked that the percentage of fat should be reduced. In the Order it says 40 per cent. I think that the President and the Members of this Committee must know that really is too high. We also ask that hydrogen peroxide may be omitted and only boric acid used. We also want to know what he is going to call the preservative. We do not want the word "boracised." Why cannot we have the word "preserved"? We also asked to describe it only as. "preserved cream," and that it need not be set out in every single document that comes out of the shop wherein preserved cream is sold. Why cannot it be put in some prominent part of the shop marked in a way in which-the cream that is preserved now is sold at the present moment? There was one more modification we wanted, and that is that the labels should be of one size and of one standard. At the present moment the Order sets out that there should be three different sorts of labels of three different sizes, containing three different wordings. Why not have one label to do the work? I should like to have gone deeper into some of these subjects, but I shall not do so now, knowing that the right hon. Gentleman and others want to speak, so I shall leave the matter, asking on behalf of the trade and' the producers that the right hon. Gentleman will give some definite answer to these questions in order to allay the feeling which exists that the Order has been even now, or will shortly be, in force without the modifications asked for by the trade.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has pressed me to consider the questions which he has addressed to me. The first is whether the Local Government Board are going to revive the Milk Bill introduced in 1909. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton that a Milk Bill is desirable, and that we ought to have it, and the President of the Board of Agriculture and myself are hopeful to get a Bill through this year that will deal not only with the points raised by the hon. Member, but also with the points raised by my hon. Friend behind me. An hon. Member opposite has suggested, I could not help hearing the remark, that the Bill is likely to be less contentious than it would otherwise have been. That is so, because the long interval of time has enabled the various interests that were previously almost irreconcilable to come together and to adjust some of their differences. I certainly trust that a Bill, that might have taken a very long time in 1909, may, owing to the negotiations that have taken place in the meantime, be got through in a shorter period than it otherwise would have taken. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked me, what about the milk and cream regulations? The hon. Gentleman had the pleasure of introducing one of the most interesting deputations I ever received at the Local Government Board about a fortnight ago, and I gather that—we went into the matter as practical men—he was satisfied with the outline I gave in reply. I dealt with the question of the degree of fat, whether it should be 40 or 30, and I suppose that if a compromise between the two figures were arrived at much harm would not be done.

Then as to the question of the labels and the invoices, and what the size of the labels should be, and whether it should be called preserved or boracised, or some other description, that was gone into fully, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman before our final decision is given we hope to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to the various interests concerned, and I shall take care that the various interests affected will know what the intention of the Order is before it is finally issued. I do not think it is altogether fair to suggest that undue delay has taken place, because I was asked deliberately to delay it so that the interests concerned should know how the Order affected them, and to what extent they might get it modified, and to receive their suggestions, some of which are still coming in. I think now there is no reason for any further delay before issuing the Order. The next question raised of a similar character was that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton, who dealt, as he always does, in a lucid and direct manner with the question of the milk supply. He referred to the milk supplies of London, and I gather that he assumed that because no Milk Bill was introduced in 1909 therefore the local authorities were not doing what he imagines a Milk Bill alone would enable them to do. But there is a great deal that the local authorities could do under their existing powers, because many of them have got in the London area, and under special Acts for the sale and consumption of milk, powers, and if they only wanted to show what good administration under existed limited powers could do, they had only to take the various borough councils and the London County Council in London, combined, to see what could be done. Last year London had 9,000 milk shops. Oddly enough it had the same number of public-houses and beershops. I wish we had less of the latter and more of the former. There are 9,000 milk shops in London, and last year the London County Council and the borough councils and the Local Government Board, combined, struck off 1,141 milk shops out of the 9,000 because of the unsuitability of the premises for milk and dairy purposes. If that were done universally by all the local authorities considerable advance would be made even under the existing limited power. I admit that is no excuse for not producing a Milk Bill, but it indicates that if the local authorities in this and many other respects were to do their duty and to carry out their administrative and legal powers, to the fullest possible limits a great deal more good would be done under local government than is now done owing to the local authorities having the power but not always the inclination to do their duty.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham addressed one or two practical suggestions to me. He said under Clause 8 and Clause 77 and one or two other Clauses of the Insurance Act of last year the Local Government Board had certain powers devolving upon it, and he trusted that I would do my best to see that these Clauses from the point of view of the Local Government Board were properly administered. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is so. I have many faults, tout standing up for my Department is not one of them or allowing the Department, whose jurisdiction I am in charge of in this House, to be sidetracked, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that though not altogether sharing in one of the suggestions he made in his speech, that immediately the Insurance Act not only passed, but immediately that there were signs that it was going to pass, I at once instructed my officers, even before it was put upon the Statute Book, to bring all the weight and influence and information at the disposal of that Department to see that the public health and, above all, the tuberculosis and sanatorium Clauses of the Insurance Act, were not only enforced, but to see they were enforced in full measure, pressed down, and running over. The hon. Member for Plymouth knows that from the very earliest stages when this Insurance Act had to be administered that the Local Government Board anticipated and to the fullest extent complied with every condition in the Insurance Act in ascertaining from local authorities the number of beds they have now and the number they wanted, and have placed all the information at the disposal of the Treasury and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Insurance Commissioners and the Special Committee that the hon. Member for Plymouth himself so worthily presides over. The hon. Gentleman will endorse what I say, that so far as the Local Government Board is concerned no effort is spared to see that every information is placed at the disposal of the Treasury in this particular matter. The next point was about the provisional committees. So far as the Local Government Board can help these committees, and so far as it can co-operate with them or supply them with information of any kind or assistance from whatever quarter, the Local Government Board will only be too pleased to help the provisional committees as they have helped the Insurance Commissioners and the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Public Health aspect of the Insurance Act.

I come now to other questions addressed to me from various quarters of the House, and I will take them in the reverse order of time in which they were put to me. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley made one or two observations with regard to Hollesley Bay. I have dealt with Hollesley Bay so many times and I think with sufficient information as to justify me in dealing with it very briefly this afternoon. It is not my fault that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley now, in 1912, confesses that he does think Hollesley Bay is a glorified workhouse. That is the contention I started with six years ago, and I congratulate the hon. Member on his tardy conversion. If he followed my advice he might have taken this view years ago. It is true that money has been poured out upon it amounting to nearly £150,000. I have done my best to see that the ratepayers got reasonable value for their money and if I have not succeeded it is not my fault. The only way in which the Local Government interfered in regard to Hollesley Bay is that we did think that when they had an estate of 1,400 acres it was not unreasonable to say that until they got more value out of what they had from every point of view they had no right to embark upon another experiment of a similar kind. In the event of its not continuing to be used for its present purpose it is not improbable it could be used most satisfactorily for a sanatorium under the Insurance Act. It might be used for small holdings most advantageously, and I think it would give a great deal of satisfaction to a number of people if, failing its use for sanatoria or small holdings, it might be used for the feeble-minded or mentally deficient. The other point raised was the question of the outdoor relief children, and on that may I say that I am compelled in this connection to deal not only with the outdoor relief children but with the indoor relief children, and with the permission of the House I will take these questions as they were first raised. I think I have a right, considering the strong criticisms I received last year on this point, to reply to one or two of the comments made by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) who spoke to-day and who also spoke last year on this subject. I ask the House, coming together as the House always does on a Minister's Estimates, not necessarily to take for pure gospel every statement that is made at the moment by a Member of Parliament who may not have command of the facts and information quite so accurately as the Minister in charge. I would like to remind the hon. Member for Durham that last year he made a statement which I have only now the opportunity of correcting on the same subject which he dealt with this afternoon. On 27th April the hon. Member said that— since the Poor Law Commission reported not one single child, so far as I know, had been taken out of the workhouse. The hon. Member admits that he said that. He represents the City of Durham. I only wish to say that at the time he made that statement the union he represents had removed its children from its workhouse and the Durham Union had taken two houses in different parts of the city for their thirty-one children. I think that disposes of statement number one made by the hon. Member.

That had not been done when I made that statement. I know it has been done now.

No, the hon. Member is wrong, because you cannot buy two houses to accommodate thirty-one children and transfer them since 27th April, and it is now only 4th June. I am not saying the hon. Member ought to have known this, but it is a fact that in the adjoining unions in Chester-le-Street, Sunderland, South Shields, and Tynemouth, children have been taken out of the workhouses into scattered homes. I only make that comment to show that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of statement, and I do think that a statement made only in April last that not a single child had been taken out of the workhouse since the Report of the Poor Law Commission was issued is wide of the mark, but I will leave the matter there. The hon. Member said he wished to refer to the administration of the Poor Law so far as vagrancy is concerned, and ho said he was concerned about what we are doing in London with regard to casuals and vagrants. My Department is sometimes charged with not moving fast enough, but it seems in this particular I have gone too fast to please some hon. Members. I thought, and I still hold that there is no place like London so fruitful for an experiment in the treatment of casuals and vagrants, and it was impossible to give an adequate treatment of this experiment so long as the twenty-eight boards of guardians in London had different methods of treating their casuals and vagrants. I trust I have sensibly unified the administration of these twenty-eight boards of guardians, because they are now centred in one Poor Law authority. I have made the Metropolitan Asylums Board the authority for dealing with this unified, and, I trust, scientifically unified area. The register we set up for the unification of the administration is showing great promise. It was only done in April last, but the various authorities, public and private, are working most heartily in this particular matter, and, in the first instance, after it had only been talked about, and before the experiment was tried, a large and rapid diminution in the number of casuals took place. The number used to range between 1,000 and 1,300, but on several days during the last week they have come down to 600 or 700. It seems to me that very often when you talk about a reform it does as much good as the reform itself. We trust that by this centralisation, by the register, and unification of the casual wards we shall get an experiment from which we can produce a certain process of dealing with casuals in the country and also with vagrants, and we hope that the Home Office and the Local Government Board combined may soon apply a scheme of this kind to other parts of the country.

The hon. Member touched very lightly— I think the right way to express it is to say rather gingerly—the question of labour colonies. I am not going to give my view about labour colonies, because the House has heard it before. The more one inquires about them, the less one is enamoured of them, and the number of advocates for labour colonies to-day is considerably less than it was five or six years ago. This is due to the operation and influence of education, which is causing Members to detach themselves from the enthusiastic adherence to what they did not quite understand when they first commenced advocating these colonies. The hon. Member for Durham said there were three cardinal points in the Minority Report which were in process of being dealt with. The hon. Member for Durham is, or was, a great adherent of the Minority Report, but he talks differently about it now. He said there were three principal features of the Minority Report to which he attached great importance. First, Labour Exchanges; secondly, insurance against unemployment; and the third was the establishment of day training centres at places of detention. Those were the three cardinal principles of the Minority Report to which he attached great importance, and I find that two out of the three, and the most important two, are carried out by the Department of the Government which he alleges in the next breath is making no progress at all.

Labour Exchanges referred to in the Minority Report were in the minds of the people long before the Minority Report was issued, because they were talked about by trade unionists and critics of our social and political economy long before the Poor Law Commission was instituted. Therefore, one at least of those three cardinal points has been carried out by this Government. The Local Government Board took a hand, as was its duty, in ascertaining the facts before the Bill was printed. We had a special report written by one of my officers before the Bill was introduced, and I am able to say that 300 Labour Exchanges, which the hon. Member approves of, is a solid contribution to what the Minority Report thought was progress in the right direction of dealing with the Poor Law as an industrial problem. The next point was insurance against unemployment. May I say that one of the reasons why the Local Government Board did not deal with this question is because it is only indirectly connected with that Department and other Departments are more directly concerned, and upon them rests the responsibility for introducing legislation to deal with it. But that does not mean that the Local Government Board is not doing its duty. It means that the Local Government Board, in conjunction with other Departments and in co-operation with the Ministers who are more responsible than the Local Government Board, is contributing its quota towards the solution of a problem that is in the hands of another Minister. That is true with regard to Labour Exchanges.

With regard to insurance against unemployment, we have put our proposals forward. Hon. Members seem to think we put them forward as an alternative to the proposals of both the Minority and the Majority Reports. They were certainly put forward as against relief works and labour colonies, and I still hold the view that the best way in which to help all sections of unemployed workmen is not by the charity that degrades or by institutionalism which frequently corrupts, but by providing them with the opportunity of more regular work, and if we cannot do that to provide them with the means by which they can make the best of the trade unions under a scheme of insurance and provide an unemployed donation when there is no work for them. This has been done by the Government, and that is the second point of the three cardinal principles of the Minority Report. If I were not the modest man which I am, I should say on the hon. Member's own showing that his own speech answers nine-tenths of the futile criticism directed against this Government that it is making no progress in social or industrial reform, because his remarks show that two out of the three cardinal points in the Minority Report have not only been done well, but, done better than the critics opposite could do them, and done to a surprising extent by people who get no credit whatever for doing them from critics opposite.

The third cardinal point was the advisability of instituting day training centres at detention colonies. That is not the Local Government Board's duty at all, but the duty of the educational authority on the one side and the industrial and training schools on the other who have to look after the young boys. It is for the Home Office to deal with that matter by an improved method of developing the excellent Borstal system. There, again, we have made considerable progress, and I think I am justified with regard to getting the children out of the workhouses, in the establishment of Labour Exchanges and in regard to insurance against unemployment, in appealing from Philip sober to Philip otherwise. I am only referring to what the Government is doing on these particular matters. The hon. Member asked me what about the feeble-minded. Hon. Members have been pressing me for the last year or two to deal with this subject, but departmentally I am only concerned in so far as the feeble-minded come under the care of boards of guardians. Here, again, as the hon. Member knows, before the Bill was introduced by the Home Office to deal with this subject in a comprehensive way the Local Government Board had not only taken steps, but had made considerable progress in combining boards of guardians in Wiltshire, Essex, and elsewhere. Before those combinations of guardians were set up we had made considerable progress even in the workhouses and infirmaries and other buildings we had, owing to the way in which public opinion is widely and humanely playing upon this particular aspect of one side of the Poor Law question. Owing to old age pensions and other reasons, the workhouses are not so full as they were, and we are using a larger amount of space in existing workhouses and infirmaries without adding to the cost of the ratepayer at all for the further segregation and the better classification and proper and special treatment of the feeble minded whom we have under our control. I think we deserve the credit of the House for anticipating the Home Office in the production of the Mental Deficiency Bill, which, I trust, will deal with this matter in a broad and statesmanlike way.

Then the hon. Member noted with regret, as we all do, that the pauper lunatics in the last five years have increased from 111,000 to 121,000. I am not a lunacy expert, but for eighteen years I was a member of the London County Council. [Laughter.] My view of lunacy is tempered by that fact, which most properly gives some amusement to my colleagues. What did I discover when I was on the London County Council? I discovered what nearly every lunacy expert is now beginning to admit, that the pessimists, who are always depreciating their own country and who from every platform talk about England being a dying race with vanishing trades and disappearing industries, every man who is not in the workhouse being either on the way to a lunatic asylum or a home, may cite a statistical increase either in lunacy or in crime, and give it too wide and at times a universal application. My own view is that the actual increase in lunacy is not commensurate with the statistical increase of lunatics, imbeciles, idiots, and feebleminded persons. Twenty or thirty years ago many imbeciles, idiots, and feebleminded persons were allowed to run about the countryside, but they are now all gathered in, and the result is the statistics indicate in my judgment a much larger increase in lunacy than the facts warrant. The population of this country is urbanising very rapidly, and, the people having to live more closely packed than formerly, it frequently happens that two sons who would have kept their father and looked after him in a small town or rural village are unable to do so in a big city like Birmingham, Manchester, or Sheffield, and they make arrangements with the local authority to keep him. He goes to a lunatic asylum, and because he goes there he is counted. Hon. Members, therefore, say there is a tremendous increase in lunacy. In my judgment that is not the fact, and lots of men are now beginning to realise it. I think we have reason to hope for a diminution in lunacy. I find the drink bill has dropped down 25 per cent. in ten years, and that we are spending £40,000,000 less on liquor than ten years ago, and I believe if that continues for another ten or fifteen years lunacy will not only not increase, but will show a substantial diminution.

The hon. Member used this statistical increase in lunacy as a medium for asking one or two questions. One was: Have imbeciles, idiots, and feeble-minded people under the Poor Law correspondingly increased? Our information is that they have. I frequently go to lunatic asylums, and the most remarkable thing about modern lunacy is that it is milder than it used to be. I often go into a lunatic asylum where there are 1,500 or 2,000 patients, and I am frequently told by the doctors that they have not had a padded-room case for four or five months. Lunacy, although more in number, is less violent than it used to be, and there is really no comparison in the treatment and the environment of the lunatic, imbecile, and feeble-minded person to-day and ten, twenty, or forty years ago. The hon. Member also said, what about the children in workhouses? I am glad to note, and I am grateful for it, that the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Sir A. Spicer), the hon. Member for Bury (Sir George Toulmin) and the hon. Member for Durham himself admitted there had been a considerable diminution in the number of children in workhouses. It is in my judgment not a bad achievement to have diminished the children in workhouses by 21 per cent. during the last four or five years. There are in London practically no children whom we can safely detach from their mothers who are in the workhouses at all. We have solved the problem so far as London is concerned, and I can give the hon. Member for Durham and the House generally this guarantee that we intend to apply the same process to the rest of the country, and we are prepared, if necessary, to adopt the same drastic remedies against all the recalcitrant boards of guardians that refuse to comply with the reasonable requests of the Local Government Board. At this moment beyond what has been done, sixty boards of guardians are either building, leasing, or hiring cottages or cottage homes for children now in workhouses, and I can assure the House I shall do my very best to press them on in that very good work.

The hon. Member asked why it is that, notwithstanding the number of children taken out of workhouses, there are more children taken into the Poor Law infirmaries. That on the face of it seems irreconcilable, but it is not. A great deal of this is due to London. In London, as in many other parts, owing to improved sanitation in some areas, from 50 to 70 per cent. of the infectious hospital accommodation is not only now not required, but in many cases has been empty for months; and in some cases for years. That is a waste of public money, and since I have been President of the Local Government Board I have done my best to stop it, and where infectious hospitals can be safely diverted to other purposes, such as the treatment of sick children on outdoor relief, by their conversion into convalescent homes for sick children, I have done that, particularly in London. There was a tremendous institution at Carshalton for infectious hospital patients, which cost £260,000. It was unoccupied for over a year, and we prevailed upon the Metropolitan Asylums Board two years ago to take all the sick children out of all the London workhouses and put them into this magnificent institution, which was lying derelict on Epsom Downs. In two years 5,874 sick children have gone there, and have got well in half the time they would have done in their homes or in the workhouse. That is one of the reasons the number of Poor Law infirmary children have increased. A similar thing has happened to another London infectious hospital, and in two years 9,000 children have gone through the two institutions.

The hon. Member next asked whether it would be possible for all the children of school age now under the boards of guardians to come under the Education Authorities. My answer is that there is no evidence at present that the education authorities are willing to do the work, but it is one of those things we ought to take into consideration, and we are discussing with the various authorities concerned the question how we can stop overlapping, save money, and, generally speaking, get the right authority to do the right work. The hon. Member wound up by saying he thought if Lord George Hamilton, Mrs. Sidney Webb, and the President of the Local Government Board were to have a conference we might have a concordat on Poor Law which the House would adopt. I have not the same confidence as the hon. Member as to the result of that conference. I think all those three persons are rather arbitrary individuals, but I am not indisposed to act in the spirit of the hon. Member's remark, though I am not prepared to call the conference. I note the reason that induces him to make that excellent suggestion, and I note it as an indication of a change in his mental attitude towards the Poor Law problem in my Department. We are making great progress when the President of the Local Government Board can be invited, only invited, to a conference of this description. If we wait another six months I may join it, and, if I do, I hope to have the honour of converting the other two to my particular view. An hon. Member for one of the Scotch divisions made a very sensible suggestion with regard to recalcitrant boards of guardians. There is something to be said for a time limit for boards of guardians who will not take their children out of the workhouse. He asked how many workhouses are now used as places of detention. He will be pleased to know that it was with reluctance I consented to some workhouses being used as places of detention. We were compelled to do it. The law compelled us to provide some place, and it was the only place available. A year ago fifty places were being so used, but I am glad to say there are now only seventeen, and I hope they will ultimately all disappear. The hon. Member also alluded to the children who are now inspected by male relieving officers under the Children Act. We have in addition the advantage of women inspectors under the Order issued in 1911.

That brings me to the children on out-door relief. Several hon. Members have raised this point. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley said that children on out-relief ought to have more relief than is now given. Generally speaking that is true, and the Local Government Board is doing everything within its power to persuade and in some cases to compel boards of guardians to give widows— deserving widows—with children dependent on them more money per week than is now granted. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley said that in his district the amount had been increased from 2s. l0d. to 3s. 6d. per head. One or two boards have gone beyond that, and I have issued instructions—serious instructions— to my inspectors to look into this matter and to see that no deserving widow with children, and indeed that no widow with deserving children—shall receive in out-relief an amount by which their physical well-being and reasonable comfort cannot be secured. I would like to put in this qualification. There are widows and widows. The overwhelming majority of widows are quite worthy people; but there are some in whose cases the more money you give for the children, the less the children get. The larger amount, the smaller proportion goes to the children, and we must be very careful to see that any increase granted does go to the children; we must also see that indiscriminate and extravagant outdoor relief to widows shall not be used as a medium—as it has been in London, particularly in the neighbourhood of Poplar, and Bow and Bromley—to employ women separated from their husbands on sweated wages, thereby subsidising the very worst kind of employers who take advantage of the increased generosity of the ratepayers to sweat and overwork the women.

The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley made one or two other suggestions. He said we should allow boards of guardians to subscribe to care committees so that they may take over children who now get outdoor relief. That seems, on the face of it, a simple and direct suggestion that one can grapple with; but at this moment we are discussing with certain local authorities the question how this matter can be dealt with. We are endeavouring to secure the overlapping shall be avoided. I will take this point into consideration in the discussion we are to have with care committees of various local authorities. Then the hon. Member dealt with case paper. That was universally asked for by all sorts of people who knew something about Poor Law relief. We instituted the case paper system, and I have only had two complaints about it since it has been instituted. I will look into the matter and if the case paper itself can be shortened or simplified, if one case paper can be made available by different authorities for the same purpose, I am quite prepared to unify that case paper. Then the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley cited the case of two sons, each earning £1 per week, while the father or mother were compelled to apply for outdoor relief. In the first place I would like to say I do not care to hear of any man in London being called upon to live upon £1 per week, and the proper thing is for the wage to be raised to a point which would enable the man to expend his pound and have something over. If you allow a subsidy of 10s. per week the probability is that the wage of £1 per week would soon be reduced to 15s. I am, however, looking into the matter.

Another point was mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth, and he will, pardon me for saying that it is relatively unimportant. The hon. Member, with finely tempered indignation, dealt with the case of one of his constituents. It is not always an advantage for a Member of Parliament to take up the case of a constituent. It sometimes happens that the Minister in charge of the Department knows more about it and is able to tell the other side of the story. Anyone who listened to the hon. Member would come to the conclusion that the Local Government Board had been leaden-footed and dilatory, and had been taking too much, time to deal with this subject; that it had not in fact dealt with the case in a proper way. But in this case the fault did not lie with the Local Government Board, or with the pension officer. I regret the name of this man has been mentioned. I do not propose to mention it myself; but his wife's health had broken down through his misconduct, and the guardians had required him to pay 2s. 6d. per week out of his Army pension towards her maintenance. The pension officer had great difficulty in ascertaining the man's real position. He is an Army pensioner getting £21 6s. per annum, and that, of course, would disentitle him to the full old age pension of 5s. per week. But then it was found out that in addition he was earning a few shillings per week for casual labour, and finally it was brought down to 3s. per week. The pension officer has the law to carry out. On the one side we are told that the Pension Act is being fraudently used by people who have no right to a pension; but when we try and put a stop to any attempt at the improper enjoyment of a pension, we are accused of needless delay. All this trouble arose from the obstinacy of this man who did not wish the pension officer to know the real facts as to his income.

That brings me to another matter which has been raised, and that is the question of housing. The Noble Lord who represents Nottingham was very keen about Norfolk. There is another hon. Member who also is properly keen on that point; and I would ask the Committee not to be too much influenced by what the Noble Lord has said about housing in Norfolk. I am, of course, anxious to improve housing there, and five weeks ago I gave one of my special inspectors instructions to go down into Norfolk and see what the local authorities are doing. I told him to enforce upon them the absolute necessity of doing all within their existing powers. My inspector reported on the condition of things there. It was not a mere rectification of sanitary defects. He inspected nineteen districts in which pressure had been brought to bear on the local authorities to exercise their powers. I am glad to say that only recently in three rural district councils with which the Noble Lord is well acquainted, we have given authority for housing orders, and several urban district councils have asked and received sanction for orders in order to carry them out. With regard to Chertsey, no objection can be raised to the action of the Local Government Board. It was a very difficult case. We had a reluctant local authority, and public spirited men who demanded that the local authority should do its duty simply found that the local authority was determined not to do so. The Noble Lord will be glad to hear that instead of nothing being done by the Local Government Board a loan has in fact been sanctioned and twelve cottages are in process of erection at this particular moment. The hon. Member for Gainsborough, with great force, dealt with housing in certain areas. The hon. Member stated that he went to live in a certain area, and he took chauffeur and a first and second gardener. I gather that one result of the chauffeur and first or second gardener being taken was that a labourer might have been displaced.

8.0 P.M.

May I put this case to the hon. Member? Gentlemen go from London into the countryside, and take with them their motor chauffeurs and their gardeners. They displace thereby two or three agricultural labourers, and then they put the responsibility for the difficulty upon the President of the Local Government Board, who has no motor, and who, if he had one, would not employ a chauffeur under any consideration, because, being an engineer, he would drive himself. This is a most interesting social point, and I would make this appeal to hon. Members. There are 250,000 motor vehicles—it is an enormous number—of all descriptions in the United Kingdom, and a big number of them are taken into the country by their owners. It seems to me that housing reformers who talk about the agricultural labourer being displaced by ordinary economic and social reasons, when they apprehend that their removal from London to a country district is going to accentuate the eviction of the rural labourers from the countryside, their business is to provide houses for the chauffeur and the first and the second gardener. As they are so fond of preaching to me about housing reform, let them do a little themselves and show us an example. [An HON. MEMBER: "They cannot get any land."] Oh, yes, you can. Under the Housing and Town Planning Act you have only to get yourself, the chauffeur, and the first and second gardener, and you have the four statutory persons under the Act. If you send to me, I will see that you get land by the compulsory process. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Walter Guinness) wanted to know from me the number of formal complaints under Part I. of the Housing Act. They have been twelve in number. The Board cannot take action without complaints. Of the twelve, seven have been inquired into. As regards three, houses are being provided as a result of the inquiry at Chertsey, Winterbourne, and elsewhere, and we are dealing with the others.

I come to the speech made by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen). He criticised as he always does. I hope to reply to him in a different spirit from that in which he couched his criticism. He always criticises the administration of the Housing Acts by the Local Government Board. He repeated what he has said before, and what I have satisfactorily answered, that little was being done, that more might be done and ought to be done, and he asks what is the policy of the Government. Let me once again tell the hon. Baronet that the Local Government Board never did say, and does not pretend, that everything is right in the matter of housing. The answer to his suggestion is that with accelerated pressure from the Local Government Board on all the authorities, the authorities are increasingly responding to the call of the Housing and Town Planning Act, and are increasingly doing their work. Considering the short time the Act has been in operation, and the slowness with which some local authorities act —even the one with which the hon. Baronet himself has been associated for many years—I think, on the whole, reasonable progress has been made. He misquoted or misinterpreted the speech I made to the Municipal Corporations Association.

I quoted it.

I know you did, but you can quote a thing and wrench it out of its context and give it a different meaning from that which was in the mind of the speaker. What I said at the Municipal Corporations Association's dinner was that an enormous amount of housing reform could be carried out without a single new Bill, and that if all the local authorities were to carry out their housing responsibilities, as some authorities now are, almost a revolution—given an inclination on the part of the local authorities—would be carried out in this country. I said no more than that. The hon. Baronet quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am going to pass over that quotation. He did not quote it for love of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor with any particular regard for myself; it was out of a desire to pit the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the President of the Local Government Board. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself understand each other very well, and when both of us are engaged in each doing his work in our respective Departments to the best of our ability—and, as I have demonstrated in my answer to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) on other points, doing it very well—I am not going to allow a political attempt on a Parliamentary occasion to make bad blood between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. My answer to his general criticism is this: The Housing and Town Planning Act is so good that in his attempt to amend it his first cardinal proposition was that there should be three Housing Commissioners appointed. I may appoint, instead of three Housing Commissioners, four or five Housing Inspectors, who will do more good in one year than three Commissioners irritating local authorities would do in five or six years. I may possibly go further than the hon. Baronet's three Commissioners, but I will call them by another name. I would not have them independent of the Board as the hon. Baronet wants them to be, but inspectors of the Board, amenable through the Minister to Parliament, directly acting in the light of publicity and not independent Commissioners, who often render themselves independent both of the Department and of Parliament. The hon. Baronet quoted Hereford. He has only to ask the Member for Hereford to ask me a question in this House as to what the Hereford City Council is doing in this matter—

I quoted a town in Herefordshire, not the City of Hereford.

I am sorry I did not hear the name of the town. I can assure the hon. Baronet that I will ask the medical officer for a report on all districts in Herefordshire, and if the facts are as that question indicated I will see what can be done. Rather scant justice was done to us, by saying that since I have been President only 200 loans representing £1,300,000 had been sanctioned for housing. That in no sense represents what has been done, because to assume that the measure of housing is what local authorities themselves do is to entirely ignore what private enterprise is doing, which, in regard to housing, is seventy or eighty times more than what local authorities attempt. With regard to town planning, what the hon. Member said is technically true, namely, that only one single town-planning scheme has been finally sanctioned. But what is the reason for that? One of the chief merits of housing and town planning is that you should peg out the whole of the country into possible town-planning schemes as quickly as you can. I was more concerned in getting local authorities to go on, as they have been doing in various cities, with over 100 town-planning schemes, than I was in giving final sanction to one, two or a dozen schemes. The hon. Baronet asks, what is the Local Government Board doing with regard to the urban problem of housing? The hon. Baronet cannot in one breath accuse me of not sanctioning as many loans for housing as my predecessor, and then in another capacity as Chairman of the Housing Committee come to me—I am not complaining—and very properly ask me to exempt the London County Council from its housing obligations to the tune of large sums of money. The hon. Baronet cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse me of not pressing forward housing schemes in urban centres, of which London is one, and measure my activity, or inactivity by the amounts of loans which are sanctioned or the amount of money spent, and at the same time come to me, as he did as Chairman of the Housing Committee, and ask me to exempt, on cause shown, the London County Council from housing obligations in Tabard Street and other places, to the tune of gross £211,000 for 4,000 persons, and net £162,000 for 3,257 persons.

The right hon. Gentleman forgets the amount of voluntary housing we are doing under Part III.

I do not. I know all about that. I am taking the simple facts. I am accused of not pressing forward the amount in money of housing that my predecessor did, when as a matter of fact the situation in London has absolutely changed since my predecessor was in office. Ten years ago in London you could hardly get an empty house or an empty room. In the East End poor alien tailors and others had to pay 10s. or 15s. key money. There were not any empty houses or rooms in Stepney. Now key money has gone. House rent and rent per room has declined, and there are two or three thousand empty houses and rooms in the parish of Stepney, where there were hardly any seven or eight years ago. I have said that the county council ought not to be called upon to spend enormous sums of money in a city like London, where now there are 60,000 empty houses, where rent is not rising, and where the people have the command of more houses than they had. I have nothing more to say on the question of housing. The last point, with which I will deal very briefly, is that of vaccination. I put these facts to the Committee. Of 1,420 vaccination officers, sixty-one only have made complaint. Of those sixty-one, forty-one have been compensated by guardians since the complaints were made. I have put compulsion upon two, which makes forty-three. In eight cases there is no compensation needed, and ten cases are under consideration. Beyond this, 460 vaccination officers have received fees or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of income. These men have been treated, not only fairly, but generously, and they have received more consideration than they asked for. I ask the Committee to take it from me that that consideration will be extended to the remaining ten cases. Having answered the various points made by hon. Members, I trust I have given the Committee a justification for the policy we have pursued, and I think I have justified my appeal to the Committee to vote against the Amendment to reduce my salary.

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question with regard to over-crowding. Perhaps he will give us the answer another time. I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the carts which collect refuse in London and other towns. These carts are employed during the day time, while food and milk is being distributed. The food and milk must get contaminated from the dust which comes off the refuse carts. Are not the carts employed during the daytime in that kind of work a public nuisance? I believe that in Germany and other countries they are not used at a time when the food and milk is being distributed, and consequently there is less possibility of injury to health. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to find some way by which these carts can do their work at a time, either earlier or later, when food and milk are not being sent round.

And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

I scarcely think any apology is needed1 for bringing this matter before the attention of the House in view of the serious position which obtains in the Port of London. At present there are something over 100,000 men out on strike in the Port of London, and something like £1,200,000,000 capital is represented. I mention these facts to show the great seriousness of the situation and the absolute necessity on the part of the Government to do something to put an end to this trouble. I should like to mention two or three matters which have come to my attention since I have been connected with the Strike Committee. There can be no shadow of doubt that the men are not being dealt with in a fair manner in this dispute by the Port Authority. The police at present are doing what we consider to be the work of the dockers, and in that sense blacklegging our own men. It has gone beyond mere protection. We quite, appreciate the fact that protection is required for the escort of provisions from the docks to the warehouses. The vans which are carrying provisions are overloaded, and that, as the photographs in the Press show, they have broken down on many occasions, and were not sufficiently horsed, and that the police themselves have to get behind and push them up the small inclines. That is going beyond protection. If the employers want to get their goods from the Port to their warehouses they ought to send down sufficient vans, horses, and men to carry on the work in a proper manner. Under ordinary circumstances, had these things occurred in the streets, the first thing the police would have done would have been to haul the carters before the Court and sue the firms for overloading vans and for cruelty to horses. I suppose the House has heard about the civilian force. It has been organised by the shipping federation; they are uniformed men, and they carry sticks. I am certain that were we to arm our dockers with sticks one thing would be sure to happen. They would be hauled before the Court, because it would be clear evidence of the fact that they intended to break the peace.

Another point which I wish to bring to the attention of the House is this. It has been taken for a sign of weakness that the organisation of the men who are out on strike has agreed to allow the necessary foodstuffs to come from the vessels to the warehouses. We, in our simplicity, thought that would have been taken as an evidence of our strength. Not only that, but we agreed with the Home Secretary, if he cared to accept the suggestion, that instead of allowing the police to escort these provisions from the docks to the warehouses we would do it ourselves. That has been rejected and the civilian force has been used, and upon some occasions the War Office authorities have also sent their men down to get their necessary provisions. That is not fair and square dealing. It is done for the purpose of showing the force of authority and of giving security to the men whom we call blacklegs, and therefore prolonging the strike much longer than would otherwise have been the case. In connection with this dispute a curious attitude is taken up by the Port of London Authority, and the matter ought to be seriously considered by the House. This is a statutory body set up by the Government for the purpose of safeguarding and serving the interests of all those employed in the trade of the Port. Among those interests necessarily must be the interests of the men who are out on strike, and through the mouth of their assistant manager, a gentleman of the name of Watts, a public declaration has been made to the effect that the Port of London Authority are more determined than ever not to have anything more to do with the men. That is a very curious position for a semi-public body to take up, and that statement must have been made at the instance of the authority itself, and it cannot receive the sanction of the Government which set up the authority. These are a few of the preliminary incidents in connection with the trouble itself. Important though these matters are, in the sense that I think the Government itself ought to see that these things are put right, it is more important still that the House itself would desire to know the reason for the present dispute. Statements are made in the public Press which reflect upon the men. There has been blame all round on the men and no blame on the employers. I do not know how it is, but whenever these industrial battles occur the men are always in the wrong and not the employers. I think I shall be able to show that this strike is the result of a policy of pin-pricking, and that the men themselves have been deliberately goaded into striking by the employers and the employers' associations. If I prove that point I think the House will insist that the Government should take some action to place these things upon a business footing which will prevent the recurrence of these disastrous disputes in the Port of London.

I desire to submit that the effect of Sir Edward Clarke's Report is that he has found against the men on two points—that is to say, they broke two agreements, but they broke them through a misunderstanding; but with regard to the other five points, he finds that the employers deliberately broke agreements, and made a profit out of it. There are thousands of pounds owing in the form of wages to the men who are out upon strike owing to the breaking of agreements since 21st August last. That being the fact, I submit that things should not any longer be allowed to go on in that chaotic manner. But quite apart from the interests of the workmen and employers, the interests of the community ought to be considered, and steps should be taken by the Government so that these things should not occur in future in the same way as they have done up to the present. Take the three points on which I want to suggest that this dispute has been forced upon the men. Take first of all the case of the man Thomas. I want to deal with that briefly. Sir Edward Clarke has declared his opinion on that point. The men agree that they were wrong in their interpretation of the agreement, and they have accepted Sir Edward Clarke's report on that point. This man Thomas, in our judgment, was not a foreman at the time the dispute broke out. The inference of any ordinary common-sense person with respect to the position would be that if foremen must not be members of the union, ordinary workmen could be members. When this dispute occurred the men belonging to the union tried to localise it and not allow it to go outside of the firm where the dispute occurred over Thomas. What did the firm do? They immediately transferred work to another firm where there were union men employed. I do not want to draw unjust conclusions as regards all the employers, but I want to express a very strong opinion that this was done deliberately, and that the transfer of the work from one firm to another was an operation of which the employers knew. The men did not burst out on that occasion. They politely told the employers that as union men they could not be expected to handle work which came from the firm with whom Thomas was employed. The result of that was that seventeen men were at once discharged, and that accentuated the dispute with the firm who employed Thomas. I do not wish to go further than to declare on the part of the transport workers that they accept Sir Edward Clarke's judgment that there was some misunderstanding in regard to that matter.

The first important point that led up to the dispute was that the Transport Workers' Federation asked the tug-owners for a normal week of seventy-two hours for the men. I should say that that was a very reasonable request indeed. After the workmen have been employed for seventy-two hours a week, I think the employers ought not to cavil with them about the thing, but ought to agree to the request. What was the reply? A blunt refusal to even meet the men. The men did not come out on strike then. The union kept the men at work, and, furthermore, they negotiated with the Government Department on the matter, in order to see if some arrangement could be arrived at. But the employers stood by their position, and refused to meet the men or to consider their conditions at all. Sir Edward Clarke's comment upon that is as follows:— No explanation was given to me of the refusal of the Association to discuss with the Amalgamated Society the claim for an increase of wages. I was informed that the deck hands upon the tugs were not within the provisions of either of the agreements of 11th and 19th August, 1911, and there does not appear to be any agreement which bound the Association to discuss the matter with the Amalgamated Society and in case of difference submit it to the decision of the Board of Trade; but it is clear that the peremptory refusal to consider this application for a higher wage was one of the causes, and not an unimportant one, of the present disputes. I submit to the House that the men should be able to meet the employers in this industry as they ordinarily do in connection with other industries. For instance, in connection with the Miners' Association the employers are glad to meet the representatives of the workmen. But if that kind of action on the part of the employers is to be refused in connection with work at the docks and on the river, then there is no alternative but to adopt another line of action, and the only alternative is to come out and strike, and force a conference and negotiations with the employers. I come now to another very important point which arose, and which was another cause of dispute. Prior to August last year a Joint Board was set up, and they met at the Port of London Authority offices. When the Board was set up, there was complete representation of all the employers in the transport industry in the Port of London. But a curious thing happened. As the Board went on fixing up agreements with the men in each particular section of the transport workers' occupations, the Board gradually became depleted of the employers. They cleared out.

In what is known as the Devonport agreement there was a clause saying, with regard to the question of oversea ships, that in case of any trouble arising the matter should be submitted to arbitration. Let me give an instance of a dispute that arose with regard to wages. At that time the men who were doing oversea work had 7d. an hour, and other dockers, the ordinary common type of dockers, got their wages increased from 6d. to 7d. an hour. The men engaged on the oversea boats thought that their wages would be increased from 7d. to 8d. They expected that advance, but did not get it. The clause in the agreement provided for arbitration on that matter. The men who had charge of the oversea boats positively refused to pay the men 8d. an hour. The men accordingly agreed that the question should be submitted to arbitration, and they met, under Sir Albert Rollit, and discussed all the pros and cons of the case. The result was that Sir Albert Rollit gave his decision in favour of the men, that under the Devonport agreement they were entitled to 8d. an hour. One would have expected that the decision given by a fair-minded business man like Sir Albert Rollit would be observed by the masters. Nothing at all of the kind. The men in sheer desperation then agreed to go to another arbitrator, and the case was submitted to the Lord Chief Justice of England, and he definitely decided again in favour of the men. He said Sir Albert Rollit's award was the correct interpretation of the agreement. His own view was the same as that of Sir Albert Rollit. The employers then said that it only applied to the "Sea Belle," and not to the general trade. I do not wish to speak in strong terms of the employers who took that view. The men held that the agreement applied to the whole trade, and that view was sustained by the decision first of Sir Albert Rollit and then of the Lord Chief Justice, but when the employers took up the attitude that it only applied to the "Sea Belle" there was no alternative but for the men in the face of that position to come out on strike in order that these things might be brought to the attention of the general public and of the Government. Sir Edward Clarke in his Report, referring to Sir Albert Rollit's award, said— I can deal shortly with this, because what passed at the inquiry satisfies me that if doubt still exists as to the meaning of the award of Sir Albert Rollit, it will be agreed that he shall decide the question. The point is simple. By the Devonport agreement, workmen receiving fid an hour had their pay raised to 7d., and, this included men employed by wharfingers and unloading oversea vessels Certain men employed in unloading such ships in the river were then receiving 7d. per hour, and the question was referred to Sir Albert Rollit to say if their wage should be raised to 8d. He granted the advance, and in the case of the Sea Belle, owned by Mr. Leach, a wharfinger, the question was submitted to the Lord Chief Justice as to whether Mr. Leach was only bound to pay the lower rate or whether, as the shin was an oversea ship, he was bound to pay the 8d. The Lord Chief Justice decided on 27th November, 1911, that under Sir Albert Rollit's award, Mr. Leach was liable to pay the higher rate. I do not understand why that decision was not accepted as governing the case of all oversea ships. I do not like strikes. My colleagues do not like them, and we do not want them. But when employers are not observing a law, I submit that there is no other alternative but for the men to come out on strike. I will not go into too much detail, as I am anxious that the matter should be fully discussed: but I will take another case, the case of the carmen. If I may say so I think in their case a positively scandalous condition of affairs has been revealed, because the men were compelled by force of circumstances to hit their employers, a thing which they do not want to do upon any occasion; but if the conditions are such that they are bound to do it, who is going to blame the men? Here was the case of Mr. Bissell. He was a member of the Master Carters' Association, which decided to accept certain conditions of employment with certain overtime rates of pay. After a while he refused to pay the overtime rates. The union men claimed the overtime rates under the terms of the agreement. He discharged the union men and employed non-union men. The Master Carters' Association went to the workmen's organisation and said, "Look here, help us out of this difficulty. He is not paying the rates which we are paying—that is, the rates according to the terms of our agreement—and you must do something to force the sweating employers to pay what the fair employers are already paying, according to the terms of the agreement." I suggest to the House that there was no other means of taking action but the workmen's organisation should move in reference to the men in the employment of Mr. Bissell. The employers declared that if that was not done, and they were compelled to go on paying the higher rates, they would be ruined. They were perfectly entitled to take up that position. They went further than that; they wrote to this gentleman protesting against his not observing the agreement entered into by the Master Carters' Association, of which at the time he was a; member. Mr. Bissell, fearing the consequence that the Master Carters' Association would have to expel him from membership, took the other course and resigned.

That is the situation as far as three' fourths of the dispute are concerned. I want to appeal to this House, and to the public outside, that the men have not been merely unduly blamed, but deliberately blamed for the part that they are taking in this matter. They are being derided in all directions because they are bound to take certain other action, and they are being told in certain newspapers that if they take up this action the whole of the police and, if necessary, the military shall be placed on guard at the docks and elsewhere in order that the work of the Port may be carried on. Why is the same line of conduct not pursued in reference to the employers? I do not see why we are always being threatened with the police, the military, and the law, while the employer gets scot-free from all these things. After all, there is a third party to all these disputes, a party outside the employers and outside the workmen engaged in that particular trade or industry, and that is the general public. I claim that it is the function of this House of Parliament to safeguard the interests of the public in all these matters, and the only way in which they can be safeguarded is to insist that when agreements are entered upon by corporate bodies like employers' associations and workmen's organisations these agreements shall apply over the whole industry, or the section of the industry, as the case may be, and that the men shall be able to claim in a Court of Law the wages which they are duly entitled to under the terms of the agreement. The Attorney-General knows full well that we cannot take that course of action now. It is a matter of contract between an employer and his individual workman. That kind of thing has got to end. We do not want compulsory arbitration, neither the transport workers nor the employers. I do not know what the Government are going to do in the matter; but something must be done, so that if those conditions are entered into they shall apply all round, and may be enforced. I have here an agreement which was entered into between the Amalgamated Society of Watermen, Lightermen, and Bargemen and the employers, and this is what Sir George Askwith says:— The list of rates for sailing barges on the Thames, Medway, etc., has been compiled in consultation with the representatives of the parties in accordance with the terms of the agreement of 11th August. 1911. Signed G. R. Askwith. Chief Industrial Commissioner. There was a compact entered into between the workmen and the employer under the Rollit award, signed by one of our chief Civil servants, a man of large experience in these matters, and I submit to this House that the mere fact that this has not been carried out is not merely a flouting of the Department concerned, but of the Government itself, and of the House of Commons. The employers have consigned the agreement to the waste paper basket. That is my case for the men's side. In conclusion, I may say that we do not want to carry on this dispute in the Port of London longer than is necessary, but I say that the men will not go back to work—and I am speaking now for the Transport Workers' Association— until they have some guarantee that when they solemnly enter into agreements and compacts with employers, those compacts and agreements will stand for a period of time, during which the men can claim under them their wages and their proper conditions of employment; and I trust that as a result of this brief statement of the case, the Government to-night will be able to give us some satisfactory answer that will prove to be a solution of the difficulty which at present exists in the Port of London.

I beg to second the Motion.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told us that he has moved this Motion for several reasons. The first reason is that policemen are being employed to protect the carters bringing wheat to consumers, whereas the federation which he represents have given an undertaking that their men would protect the vans. I have seen statements in the newspapers to that effect, but I would point out to hon. Gentlemen that the proper people to protect men who are endeavouring to earn an honest livelihood are the forces of the Crown, and not a trade union, or a member of the trade union. Before I go into the question of the merits of the dispute, what, in my opinion, the Government have first of all to do is to see that a man, whether he is an employer or a workman, whether he is a member or is not a member of a trade union, is protected by the police in his desire to do what he chooses to do for himself, and any attempt forcibly to prevent that man from doing it because he happens to be called by the hon. Member and his friends a "blackleg," and from earning an honest livelihood, should be stopped by the whole forces of the Crown. Until that is done these disputes will continue. The next point the hon. Member made was that Sir Edward Clarke finds that the men are right in five points. I dispute that altogether. That is a statement that is made in a letter which I have, and which was written by the President of the Board of Trade to, I think, the master lightermen. I have the letter here, but in my opinion the President of the Board of Trade is not confirmed by Sir Edward Clarke.

Sir Edward Clarke was appointed under the Conciliation Act of 1896, in no kind of way as an arbitrator, but to make a report to the Government as to certain conditions which had arisen in certain trades. It was a very hurried inquiry—I do not in the least blame Sir Edward Clarke for that—during which many of the people who were concerned were not heard, and Sir Edward Clarke in his report, I venture to say does not, in many of the cases named by the hon. Member, say that the men were right. In the first two cases the hon. Member admits that Sir Edward Clarke said that the employers were in the right. With regard to the next case, which is Clause 3, I may explain, for the information of the House, that Sir Edward Clarke divided his report into several heads, and under the first two heads he reported in favour of the employers. That, I think, is admitted by the hon. Member. Clause 3 which the hon. Member alluded to was:— The refusal of the Association of Master Lightermen to meet the representatives of the Amalgamated Society of Watermen, Lightermen and Bargemen for the purpose of arranging rates of wages and conditions of employment of masters and mates of tugs owned by members of the association. And Sir Edward Clarke in his Report on page 6 says:— No explanation was given to me of the refusal of the Association to discuss with the Amalgamated Society the claim for an increase of wages.

Read on.

I have the Report here, and if the hon. Member wishes me to do so, I will read on— I was informed that deck hands upon the tugs were not within the provisions of either of the agreements of 11th and 19th August, 1911, and there does not appear to be any agreement which binds the Association to discuss the matter with the Amalgamated Society, and in case of difference submit it to the decision of the Board of Trade; but it is clear that the peremptory refusal to consider this application for a higher wage was one of the causes, and not an unimportant one, of the present disputes. What is the answer to that? First of all it must be remembered Sir Edward Clarke, on page 5 of the Report, stated that— On the 4th April a reply was sent saying that the Council were not prepared to reopen the question which had been recently arranged. The reason for that was that an arrangement had been come to so lately as the 27th of last July, and the employers said that having come to an arrangement so recently they were not going to reopen the question. In that I think they were right. It is absolutely impossible to carry on business if, after having made an arrangement within two or three months, or five or six months, as the case may be, that arrangement is to be reopened. An arrangement once made must be binding, and it must not be binding only on one party, but on both parties, and binding for a reasonable time. It must not be upset because of some small dispute as to whether or not a foreman should belong to the Foremen's Union or the men's union, because we find that there is a provision in the agreement that any case of dispute should be submitted to the Board of Trade. The men took the matter into their own hands and struck. I have disposed of Clause 3. As to Clause 4, that was— The refusal by certain sailing barge-owners to pay the men according to a list of freight rates settled on 1st January, 1912, according to an agreement made on 11th August, 1911. Sir Edward Clarke's report stated that it was not denied that certain agreed payments had not been made. The report of the sailing barge-owners and members of the Master Lightermen's Association was that no representative of the sailing barge-owners was present, nor had he been invited to attend inquiries. Mr. Brooks, who signed the agreement—I have his statement here—says that Mr. Henry Gosling, after having agreed to certain arrangements last year, changed his ground, and absolutely repudiated the agreement. Is it to be wondered at, when these gentlemen were not asked to be present, and when they felt from their former experience that it was impossible to come to terms with the men, who had agreed to certain resolutions, and had decided to tear them up—is it to be wondered at that the employers said, "We have had enough of this sort of thing, and we will settle our arrangements in the old English fashion between master and men." I do-not know whether the laughter of hon. Members opposite is caused by my having used the words "master and men," but if it will please them I withdraw those words, and substitute "between employers and employed." That is the whole foundation of the trouble. Clause 5 refers to:— The refusal of certain wharfingers to pay in respect of the discharge of oversea ships the rate of pay fixed in the award of Sir Albert Rollit. These are the terms of the reference to Sir Albert Rollit:— Whether in view of the increased pay granted by the Port of London Authority and wharfingers, there shall or shall not be an increase up to 8d. an hour to the men employed at 7d an hour. That is an increase of 1d., and I think is perfectly clear:— And also whether there shall or shall not be an increase of overt me pay of 1s. per hour where such is not paid at present. The award was:— In view of the increase of pay granted by the Port of London Authority and wharfingers under the agreement of the 27th day of July, 1911, an increase of pay of 8d. per hour to the men at present employed at 7d. per hour, and an increase of the rate of overtime paid to 1s. per hour. The dispute was not that the men employed at 7d. per hour should have a rise to 8d., but that the men employed at 6d. an hour were to have a rise of 2d., making 8d. an hour. That is clearly not in the spirit of Sir Albert Rollit's award. What took place was that a certain gentleman called Mr. Leach, who had been paying 7d. instead of 6d., was told by Lord Alverstone, to whom apparently he had appealed, that the men should receive 8d. They were already receiving the 7d. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That is my information. That being so, that is no justification for men who did not come under the award because they did not receive 7d. being increased to 8d. Clause 6 was the question of Mr. Bissell, the master carman. Let the House consider for a moment what is the real position of this case. There are 2,000 master carmen in the City of London. There is a federation of Master Carmen which consists of 100 members, so that 1,900 out of 2,000 master carmen in London are outside the federation. Mr. Bissell was one of the 100 members of the federation. He had some dispute with his men; he may have been right or he may have been wrong, but he withdrew from the federation, and I say, why not? We hear a great deal about freedom, and why should not a free-born Englishman, whether employer or employed, withdraw from an association with which for the moment he does not agree?

And break an agreement?

Mr. Bissell, having withdrawn from the Master Carmen's Association, and being no longer a member of that association, was not bound by any agreement.

Good old English doctrine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

9.0 P.M.

I fail to understand those cheers. I would remind hon. Members of an agreement entered into in South Wales to which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was a party, and that was broken deliberately by the men without giving excuse of any sort or kind. I stated to begin with that I did not know whether Mr. Bissell was right or whether he was wrong, but in this particular case he withdrew from the association, and having withdrawn from the association he was at liberty to act on his own initiative and not on the initiative of the association. That was Clause 6. We come to Clause 7, but I do not think the hon. Member made any allusion to that. Now the hon. Member asks that the police and military should be told off in regard to employers as well as men. They are not because employers do not break the law, and do not break people's heads, and do not endeavour to interfere with a man doing what he is perfectly entitled to do, namely, to earn his livelihood and do his duty. I venture to say that if the employer was to break the law he would be treated in exactly the same way as anybody else would be. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would he?"] The hon. Member went on to say that an agreement should be enforced. I suppose he means legislation, and that the legislation which ought to be passed by the Government should be legislation which would compel all employers to be bound by a federation which would consist of certain of their members. I venture to say that such a proposal is absolutely impossible. I am informed, on what I believe to be good authority, that the desire of Mr. Gosling, because I am told it is Mr. Gosling's idea and nobody else's, and it has been adopted by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, is to form one large federation of employers, which is to include wharfingers, barge owners, lightermen, dock proprietors, and I may even include shipowners, and that a certain committee chosen from those gentlemen is to decide the rates of wages, the hours of employment, and the general way in which everybody, whether he is a member of this federation or not, who happens to be concerned in one of those trades is to carry on his business. I was for something like five-and-thirty years engaged in business in the City, and I venture to say it is absolutely impossible to carry on the business of this country on those terms. If the Government are so short-sighted as to attempt to bring forward any legislation of that sort, the only result will be that the employers will be driven to go into other countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will not cheer when that occurs. The result will be that great privation and want of employment will arise in this country. I assure the right hon. Gentleman who is leading the House that I do not make these remarks in any captious or presumptuous spirit. I make them because I believe them to be true. What I want to say is this, that the Government should not interfere between employer and employed.

Keep your police away then.

And should send their police to protect people who are desirous of working, and not only their police, but if necessary—

Soldiers.

Yes, certainly. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that during the last five or six years many attempts have been made by Government Departments to settle these matters. All those attempts that have been made by the Government Departments, and made, I do not deny, with every desire to do the right thing, have always ended in slight concessions or large concessions to the men. The action of the Government has always been the action of the opportunist. They settle something, even if it is only for a short time. The result has been that the men have been encouraged to believe that they have only got to do what is going on now, and that pressure will be put on the employers to give way to their demands, whether they are right or whether they are wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has a great knowledge of history. He goes back sometimes as far, I think, as Henry VIII. I believe my Noble Friend behind me knows that. If he will go back to the days of the invasion of the Danes he will find out when the Danes invaded this country they were given a certain amount of money to go away. The natural result was that they came back in a short time and asked for more. They got more to go away, and then they came back and took possession of a great part part of the country. I do not know if they went to Wales. However that may be, what I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman is that they have got to make a stand somewhere, and that this continual attempt to patch up differences will never succeed so long as the idea of patching up differences is to try and force certain concessions from the employers to the employed. What I venture to say the Government ought to do is to see that every man who pays rates and taxes has the protection to which he is entitled by law in endeavouring to carry out a lawful occupation. Until that is done, we shall never be free from these disputes. I do not know whether I have spoken with too much heat; but I feel very strongly on this matter, and if I have said anything which is stronger than it ought to be I wish to apologise to the House. I am certain that the whole prosperity of our country is bound up in the knowledge that persons who desire to take part in enterprises in this country, whether as employers or employed, will receive due and proper protection from whatever Government happens to be in office. Unless that is the case, good-bye to the prosperity of the country. As to any idea that the Government, even when led by such an able representative as the right hon. Gentleman, can tell employers and employed how they are to carry on their business, that is absolutely impossible. They know their own business better than anybody else, and unless they are left to fight their own battles we shall have these disputes continually recurring. I hope the Government will for once have a little courage, and take a strong line upon this matter.

Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene in this Debate, as I happen to be a shipowner who has four vessels affected by this unfortunate strike, and as I am not a member of the Shipowners' Association in London I can speak with a certain amount of detachment. As far as I understand, there is no allegation throughout against the shipowners. On the only point on which the shipowners were concerned Sir Edward Clarke found in their favour. The avowed reason for the strike was the employment of a lighterman who was not a member of the union, and on that point, the original avowed reason for the strike, Sir Edward Clarke found against the men. That is beyond dispute. I think that in itself is almost a sufficient reason why the men should return to work pending negotiations. I do not want to minimise the other points at all. I do not want to suggest that justice is all on one side. Probably there was never a quarrel in which the whole justice lay on one side. The case of the sailing barge owners is the only case justifying the hon. Member's statement that thousands of pounds owing to the men were unjustly held back. I think the hon. Member ought to have told the house that in that case Sir Edward Clarke, in his proper anxiety to report rapidly, reported without hearing what the sailing barge owners had to say. His report was an ex parts statement. The sailing barge owners have circulated the reply which, owing to the unfortunate illness of the proper person to make it, they were unable to lay before Sir Edward Clarke. I think there is no question as to the bona fides of that statement. If that reply is correct it is a complete answer to the charge against them. It was really unfortunate that on that particular point Sir Edward Clarke should have reported without hearing both sides of the case. It is all very well to be in a hurry to arrive at a verdict, but to get a speedy verdict by omitting to hear the defence does not seem to me conducive to justice.

I agree entirely with Sir Edward Clarke that the employers ought to show willingness to meet the men and discuss the situation in a cordial and ungrudging spirit. That is essential. If we are to have a termination of these labour disputes, there must be goodwill and friendliness as regards interviews and discussions between both parties. As I understand, there was no technical breach of the agreement. Can it be argued that because one very small section of the transport trade of London had acted arbitrarily, but committed no actual breach of the agreement, the whole of the workers are justified in taking action against every single employer? I want to protest against the notion that because A has acted dishonestly towards B—put it even as high as that—C, D, E, and the rest are entitled to act dishonourably in their transactions with X, Y and Z. It is a perfectly monstrous doctrine, and if it is persisted in by any section of the community, all agreements, all good feeling, and all good faith come to an end. With regard to the Bissell case, I know nothing about its merits, but what is it contended the employers ought to have done more than they have done? Does the hon. Member suggest that if a member of a trade union, having left that union, refuses to carry out the obligations into which the union has entered, somehow or other the trade union has committed an abominable action? Does the hon. Member propose that a trade union should accept any responsibility for those who leave the society? I think it is a monstrous suggestion that any association of employers or of workmen ought to be responsible for the action of a person who has left the association.

As a matter of fact, they were threatened that if they did not make Bissell pay up the other employers would not pay up.

But if an employer owes a. man money the man can bring an action and the law will make him pay up. The other members of the Employers' Association loyally carried out the award, and they got rid of the only member of the association who did not. What more could they do? With regard to this disturbance in. the Port of London, I submit that the shipowners, at any rate, have absolutely clean hands. There is no allegation against them at all. They have kept the agreement and the Rollit award; they have done absolutely nothing which justifies their men in refusing to work for them. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that almost the whole of the allegations made by the hon. Member and his friends were really true, surely taken over the whole area of the trade of London it is a very trifling matter in which to stop the trade of the port. Are we really to be told that if an award is made as between employers and men, and an employer engages men under that award, the men have no right to sue the employer for the rates there promised. I do not believe that an employer can arbitrarily pay some other amount than that settled by the award. The hon. Member suggested that some other form of coercion ought to be applied. I do not agree with that. What is wanted is no hard and fast set of rules, but a cordial and loyal feeling between the two parties which will enable them to carry out in a friendly and conciliatory spirit the work of the port.

I would appeal to both sides to try and bury the past. It is a very unprofitable matter, and the more we dig into it the more likely we are to exasperate feelings and the less likely to secure the end we have in view. I desire that the employers should see their way to announce openly that they are willing to act on the plan, or on some plan similar to that adopted in Liverpool, which has been found so entirely satisfactory. There is no reason why I should not state that some of us who are shipowners in Liverpool, and who have also considerable interests in London, wrote to the London shipowners at an early stage in this dispute, asking them if they could not see their way to agree with the men on somewhat the same basis as that we have adopted in Liverpool, and which has been found to be so entirely and absolutely satisfactory. I think I may also say that the reply was not so conciliatory as I should have expected one shipowner to send to another. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the arrangement?"] Hon. Members ask me to say what is the arrangement in Liverpool? As this House knows, in August of last year there were strikes almost all over the country. At that time an arrangement was negotiated in Liverpool between the shipowners and the stevedores and lumpers, who are the sub-contractors, and I think to some extent with the owners of lighters—but I am not able off-hand to say how far it went—by which they agreed to the formation of a joint committee, consisting in equal numbers of employers and employés to whom every matter in dispute should be referred for arbitration. It was understood that no strike and no lock-out of any sort could take place until that committee had looked into the matter. That committee has sat continuously since August—whenever it was necessary, I mean—and the very best possible relations have existed between those concerned. I happened to have heard a good deal about the committee, because my brother and partner is a secretary. I believe I would not say what is incorrect, if I say, that every decision has been arrived at unanimously.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that one of the clauses in the Liverpool agreement says that all the men employed are to be union men?

No, I do not think that is so. I have not got the agreement with me —there is no secret about it—but I think there is no pledge that the men employed should be union men. I believe, however, that the employers have given an undertaking not to discourage union men—on the other hand, rather to encourage them —but I think there is a part of the agreement to the effect that union men shall not refuse to work with non-union men.

However, I am speaking from memory. One may very easily be wrong, and the matter can be put right by reference to the printed document. The arrangement has produced very satisfactory results in Liverpool. I think it would be impossible—if I may say so—to adapt what has been done in Liverpool to London. But before I leave the subject, may I say that during the dispute in Glasgow—in March last—there were considerable conversations between Glasgow and Liverpool people. I rather think we sent someone from Liverpool to Glasgow. Finally an arrangement was come to at Glasgow very much on the same lines as that adopted in Liverpool. Therefore, we have got two of the most important ports of the country, so far as I know, working very much on the same lines.

I think it is very likely impossible London can be made to adopt ipsissima verba the same arrangement as that in Liverpool. The fact is that the interests of London in relation to the port are undoubtedly much more diversified, and much more difficult to bring under one hat, so to speak, than those of Liverpool or Glasgow. For instance, to make the shipowners discharging their vessels in, say, the Albert Dock, to come under some obligation to see that the barge owners observe the men's agreement, or that the barge owners engaged in running cement up from the Medway to London should do the same, is perhaps asking rather more than is possible to obtain. In the same way, to ask for common action between lightermen and carmen, whose interests, so far as I can see, are antagonistic to one another, is a somewhat difficult operation. But these points, after all, are largely local points, which can be decided, and ought to be decided, by people with full local knowledge. There is no matter of reasonable principle that every single interest of the London transport trade should be compelled to come under one all embracing agreement. So long as the main agreements are fairly kept and employers generally use their influence to see the secondary agreements are maintained, I do not see that it very much matters whether you have one all-embracing agreement or several agreements.

Finally, I would, if I may, urge upon both parties to try to approach this matter in a much more conciliatory and friendly spirit than they have done hitherto. I would urge upon both parties not to engage too much in the occupation of throwing mud at one another. It generally does considerable damage to the person at whom it is aimed without giving much satisfaction to the gentlemen who do it. After all, the question of the trade of London is a very serious matter for London. The state of trade at the London docks is not satisfactory. I should like to tell my Friends below the Gangway—and I hope they will consider that I am not putting forward any point of view except that of trying to state what is true—that so far as my experience goes labour at the London docks is the worst for the money in the world. That is a very serious matter, and I thing it ought to be taken into consideration. It might be well for the friends of labour in London to consider whether the workmen are giving the employers full value for their pay, because if they are not the Port is bound to lose its business. Certainly that is a very serious matter for the Port of London Authorities, because if trade is to be taken away from London, either through their fault or from the fault of the workmen, one thing is quite certain, and that is that the financial position of the Port will be extremely serious. I certainly am not going to vote for the Resolution now before the House. I gather that no one seriously wants to see it passed; but I do hope that this Debate will at least have the result that both parties will see their way to meet together and bring about a friendly settlement of this very serious dispute.

My hon. Friend in the latter part of his speech has made a very valuable contribution not merely to the Debate, but to the consideration of this subject. No one in the House can speak with greater experience and greater authority than he can. I am very glad that he emphasises the desirability at this stage of us all doing our very best not to exasperate the already rather irritated feeling that has arisen in consequence of this strike, but rather that we should do our best to endeavour to effect some arrangement on a more permanent basis than that of August last. For that reason I do not propose to enter into the details of the controversy between the two parties. In the first place, I do not think it could be a satisfactory course now; there are a good many points, some of them very small points and some of them of consequence, but, as a matter of fact, the small points are often the points that bring about strikes very largely. I do not think it could be desirable to enter into them now; we could not arrive at any conclusion; we are not equipped altogether for that purpose, owing to the fact that we have not got the evidence before us, and I think it would be exceedingly undesirable at this stage to enter into a detailed controversy upon the subject matter of the dispute. But I do think the House may very well give a little more consideration to some of the suggestions thrown out by my hon. Friend, based as they are upon the experience of two of the greatest ports of the Empire, Liverpool and Glasgow.

I am not going to say in this case—in fact, it is not for the Government to say—who is to blame, whether it is the men or the masters. All I can say is this, that on an inquiry instituted under an Act of Parliament passed in 1896, Sir Edward Clarke, one of the most distinguished lawyers in this country, and one to whom I am sure no one here would impute any partiality as between the parties, has come to the conclusion, judging from his Report, that both parties are to blame. He does, undoubtedly, report that on the subject which is the immediate cause of the strike the men were to blame, but, after all, that is really not the cause of the strike. He knew perfectly well there were many disputes going on in the Port of London upon matters, some of them rather trivial, some of them which created a good deal of ascerbation of feeling, and feeling so bitter that at last the owners absolutely refused to meet the men, as we know, some weeks ago. What we really want to get at is this: whether it is not possible to effect some sort of arrangement which will make it at any rate difficult to precipitate great conflicts of this kind in the future in the Port of London. This is the greatest port in the world, and conflicts of this character must have a very serious effect upon the trade of the whole community, and it is therefore exceedingly desirable that this opportunity, however unpleasant it may be, should be taken to seek to establish an arrangement in the Port of London with a view to placing labour disputes upon a better, more permanent, and more satisfactory basis.

I do not suppose anyone in the House will accept the view laid down by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that it is the business of the Government to stand aside and let the parties fight it out. I think that has been abandoned long ago. The Act of Parliament under which we are acting is an Act of Parliament passed by the Government which the hon. Baronet supported. It is the Act of 1896, which prescribed that the Board of Trade, in the case of labour disputes, shall take one of three alternative steps. We have taken one of those steps which was contemplated even so far back as that. Under the Act of Parliament passed by the Government of which the hon. Baronet is a supporter, it was provided that the Government at last should interfere, exercising the whole of its authority with a view to putting an end to these labour disputes. I only propose to examine now into the cause of the dispute to the extent that it is necessary to do so with a view to examine the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend, and which were put forward by the Government to both parties a couple of days ago. I might remind the hon. Baronet that that suggestion is not the suggestion of Mr. Gosling at all. It was proposed to the men before we saw Mr. Gosling, and it was proposed to Mr. Gosling after the employers had been seen upon the subject. What has been the great difficulty in the Port of London in the last few months? There are two main difficulties, one is that although the employers signed the agreement and remained in the association and adhered to this agreement—this is a subject upon which I pronounce no opinion—there were individual employers outside who did not hold themselves bound by this agreement. That was the case of Mr. Lambert, who represented, and very ably represented, the Master Lightermen. He stated that although Mr. Brooks was president of the association it was not in that capacity he signed the agreement with regard to sailing barges, so there were sailing barge owners who held that they were not bound by the agreement signed by the president of the association in August last.

Then there was Mr. Bissell's case referred to by the hon. Baronet. What was Mr. Bissell's case? He was a master carter. He was a member of the association which signed the agreement and entered into a bargain with the men. Subsequently, Mr. Bissell declined to carry out the agreement to which he was a party. That is not denied. Then the Master Carters' Association very properly called upon him to carry out his bargain. He refused to do so and they expelled him. Now there is not a word to be said about the conduct of the master carters, but observe what is the effect. It is very hard upon the employers who kept their agreements. One of them pointed out that he lost a very large contract because he stood by his bargain and paid the contract rate of wages. He was beaten by a man who paid less than the contract wage agreed to by the Masters' Association, because he was able to undercut him. That is a very unfair condition, and it is not that it is unfair to the workers alone. It is unfair to the men who stood by the agreement of the only Association of the Master Carters in the Port of London, and, I believe, the best employers, as my right hon. Friend beside me assures me. That is very unfair, and it causes a good deal of irritation. The men do not blame those inside the Association who have not kept their bargains, but they say there ought to be some means of pressing the rest of the masters to adhere to the standard which a number of members of their trade agreed to in a solemn bargain which was registered in August last. That is the position as far as the masters are concerned. There are masters who refuse to consider themselves bound by the agreement which the best employers of their trade have signed. There is a master who actually signed the agreement, and refused to stand by it, and there is no means of compelling him at all.

What is the second point? The second point is the complaint of the employers against the men. The employers say, "Here is a contract"—I am not entering into the merits at all, I am putting their case—they say "you are complaining that certain employers have not adhered to the standard conditions settled upon in August. We also complain that you are constantly breaking your agreement." That is the position. There is no power upon either side to enforce these conditions, and as long as that condition of things remains in the Port of London, you will always get trouble there. It is not merely a question of compelling the masters to stand by the standard laid down. There ought also to be the same power of bringing pressure to bear upon the men to stand by their agreement; and when this question comes to be considered, it has got to be considered from both points of view. With regard to legislation, I observe that my hon. Friend the Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) repudiates the suggestion that there should be compulsory arbitration, therefore it is a question of a voluntary arrangement between the parties, but it must be a voluntary arrangement which the parties concerned are in a position to enforce. That is why we suggested that first of all there should be a federation of the masters powerful enough to control the dissenting members of their own trade. Unless you have that it is really idle to have any agreement at all if the moment the master, finds it is to his advantage to undercut and to depart from an agreement he can say, "I will leave the federation, I will not abide by my bargain, and I will go outside." This is not a bargain you can enforce in a Court of Law, and all the employer has to do is to walk out of the federation. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) said the employer is a freeborn Englishman, and why should he not do this? I do not think that is the view taken by the bulk of employers throughout this country, in fact I do not know any other part of the United Kingdom where that view would be taken. Take any other employer, whether in textiles, coal, or in iron, and I think their view is that when the majority of employers agree in their association that a certain standard rate of wages and certain conditions of labour are fair, every pressure ought to be brought to bear on all the employers in the same trade to carry that agreement out. But when that is done in the Port of London you get a series of little quarrels and strikes arising from very inadequate causes which create a sense of irritation and unfairness on the part of the men. On the other hand, there is the same sense of irritation on the part of the employers, because they say that, although the men signed their contract, there is no means of enforcing that contract.

I have only one suggestion to make in addition to that which my hon. Friend has thrown out in his speech. He says that in the port of Liverpool the employers and the employed have met in a joint committee, they have federated, and there is the whole influence of the port brought to bear upon any employer who refuses to carry out the bargain, and upon any workman who refuses to carry out his part of the bargain. I think it would be very desirable if, first of all, the employers were to consider the possibility of forming a combination strong enough to control men like Mr. Bissell and others, who not merely pay their own workmen less than the standard rate, but by doing so make it impossible for the other employers to pay the standard rate. The master carters themselves cannot do it, and that is why we suggested a federation. The master carters said, "We cannot bring that pressure to bear upon Mr. Bissell; we brought every possible influence, every moral influence to bear upon him; we appealed to him, but unless there is some pressure greater than that, you will never control men like Mr. Bissell." But if there is a federation of all the interests of the Port of London Mr. Bissell, I think, would find it rather to his interest to adhere to the bargains made by the association who are engaged in the same business as himself, and exceedingly difficult to disturb the whole port merely that he might be able to pay a penny or twopence per hour less to his carters, or other conditions whatever they are—I do not know exactly in what respect those conditions are less favourable than the rest—in order that he should profit by means of undercutting his competitors. On the other hand I think there ought to be some guarantee on the part of the unions that whatever agreement they enter into will be abided by. There are two or three precedents for that. There are one or two agreements which have been entered into where unions have given pecuniary guarantees that where an agreement is broken this deposit or guarantee can be resorted to in order to compensate the owners for the loss which is attributable to the breach of agreement. Those agreements have worked very well, and the Government have ventured to ask the trade unions—we certainly have not been merely to the owners to bring pressure to bear upon their side —but we have also been to the unions asking them to give, on their side, some security that they will abide by agreements entered into. The agreement has been a perfectly impartial one, and I am glad to say, as far as the workmen are concerned, they are prepared to respond to that appeal, and the National Transport Workers' Federation have unanimously agreed to this resolution to-day:— That the National Council endorse the principle of Joint Boards with monetary guarantees on both sides to ensure the carrying out of agreements.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether that has been communicated to the employers?

On the part of the employers, what we really want is a federation.

I simply want to know whether the employers are aware of that offer?

No, they are not, because we only received it to-day. This is the first response we have had to the pressure we have brought to bear in that respect. We feel that if there are agreements we cannot appeal merely to the masters to bring pressure to bear upon the recalcitrant members of their own trade unless the trade unions are prepared to give some guarantee that the contracts entered into will be carried out by the men. The men are prepared to find money guarantees to carry out agreements. Now we shall certainly approach the masters with a view to getting their assistance to see that contracts are carried out.

Is that signed?

Yes, it is signed by Harry Gosling, President, and James Anderson, Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Federation. I believe it represents the National Transport Workers' Federation of the United Kingdom. I think it will be recognised that this represents a very import-ant advance, and that is why I earnestly appeal that at this stage nothing should be said which would make it more difficult to arrive at some definite and conclusive arrangement between the parties. I feel that for the first time the owners of the Port of London have got a substantial guarantee that where a bargain is entered into by the men it will be carried out, and on their part I think they are entitled to come to the owners and say, "We must have some guarantee from you that if an agreement is entered into, it will be carried out by all those within your sphere of influence." It is true it is impossible to exercise that influence unless the whole of the employers doing business in the Port federate. That is the one thing I want to impress upon the House. My hon. Friend said, and said very truly, that after all the Port of London is not the Port of Liverpool or the Port of Glasgow. I know that very well, because I had years of experience in trying to federate the various interests in order to create a Port Authority. My predecessor had two or three years at it, and the work he did was undoubtedly of very great assistance to me in trying to achieve the same end. I know how extraordinary difficult it is to adjust the various interests in London. I doubt whether there is another port in the world where the interests are so very varied. There are all sorts of ancient rights and privileges which come down from the Flood, long before the reign of Henry VIII., and I am not sure they are not before the days of the Danes. The hon. Member opposite seemed to regard the fact of the Danes settling in England as something of a great disaster. I do not agree with him. The Danes are very good people. Norfolk showed that the other day.

I only want to point out that I agree with my hon. Friend that the Port of London is an extraordinarily difficult port in which to arrange a federation of this kind. I do not for a moment minimise the objections the employers are raising on the ground of the practical difficulty; but it has been done before, and I am perfectly certain it can be done again. One of the shipowners said they had tried it, but up to the present they had failed. After all, I think they have got now a proposition made to them which is a firm one, and which is a business one; and in the face of that I think they might make another effort. I think they will realise after all that it is desirable, whatever they may think at the present moment of the immediate dispute. I can quite understand there are certain matters which cause a good deal of irritation, but, after all, it is not altogether a one-sided dispute. My hon. Friend said there were very few disputes in which all the merits were on one side, and it is perfectly clear all the merits are not on one side here. The workers in the matter which immediately precipitated the strike accept Sir Edward Clarke's Report that they ought not to have struck upon it. Therefore, my appeal is that the masters, the employers, should undertake to do their best to effect a federation of this kind immediately, and that the workmen should be prepared to resume work, because no one with any experience of the Port of London would imagine you can set up a federation like this in twenty-four hours, or even in a week. It is the most extraordinarily difficult thing in the world to adjust the various interests in the Port, to decide how many you should have on the board, whether that interest should be represented, and, if so, how many you should put on, and what the powers should be. Another difficulty is what questions you are going to submit to the Joint Board, because it is perfectly clear you cannot have a Joint Board settling every quarrel, great and small. It would take all their time, working twenty-four hours a day, to settle every dispute. Therefore I can quite conceive that small difficulties should be settled by the associations immediately concerned, and it is only as a sort of court of appeal that this Joint Board should exist.

All those things must take a good deal of time, and I should not have thought it was in their own interests that the workmen should remain out all that time. It would be a very serious thing for them. I cannot see what they can possibly accomplish by so doing, always provided this thing is taken seriously in hand with a view to accomplishing its purpose. These great business men in the Port of London who are employing labour have surmounted greater difficulties than those which are in the way of forming a federation of this kind, and I am sure, if they set their minds to it, they are able enough, and clear-minded enough, and businesslike enough to be able to achieve that purpose. I therefore do hope they will undertake to do their best to effect a federation of this kind. The only difficulty is the reinstatement of the men whose places have been filled. It is in the hands of the employers to be able to make arrangements. I can quite realise they have employed other men; but that is a difficulty which arises in every dispute. I have never seen a labour dispute yet where this difficulty has not arisen, and I have never yet seen a dispute where it has not been overcome once there was a desire on both sides to end the struggle. It has been surmounted in every case up to the present, and I am sure if there is a real desire to put an end to the strike that difficulty will be overcome by both the employers and the men. May I just make an appeal? I can quite understand the natural human desire which may inspire men who feel a sense of deep irritation because their business has been interfered with to have a victory, but that, after all, is only human. I have always thought an arrangement was better than a victory, always, in every case in litigation, and it is especially the case with people who have got to act together afterwards. When you are fighting somebody whom probably you will never meet again, well, you might as well satisfy your natural desire to get a victory at the risk of a good thrashing; but when you have got to work with them day after day, and week after week, and year after year, I do not think it is satisfactory. The only thing that would happen would be that the men would go back if they were beaten, sulking, and angry.

They will come up again if they do.

I agree. There is no doubt about it at all. That always happens with any man who has got any spirit at all. Any man of courage who thinks he has been beaten when he was in the right always harbours it, and it comes up on the first opportunity he has. That is why I think it is so much better, if possible, to effect an arrangement now which will give a guarantee to the employers—a real guarantee, and a monetary guarantee—that contracts when entered into in future will be adhered to, and on the other hand an arrangement which will enable the men to have something to which they can appeal to keep men like Bissell who break their contracts to their bargain, and I earnestly appeal to all the Members of the House rather to effect art arrangement on that basis.

I certainly do not, object to the digression of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is certainly interesting to us who sit on this side of the House to find that he discovers so much cause for rejoicing in the fact that his majority has only been reduced by one-half in a recent by-election. I am not going to take up the time of the House at any length, and I shall certainly try not to say anything which would tend in any way to prolong the dispute now going on. I may say, further, that I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said in the main. In nearly every dispute which has taken place, and in which I have taken an interest, I have desired it should be settled rather than that there should be a complete victory on one side or the other. The right hon. Gentleman has to put himself in the position of the men who are carrying on these great trades in the greatest port of the world, and he has to realise that within ten months there have been four strikes in connection with the carrying on of that trade. I am not going to deal with the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion. It was based on a purely ex-parte statement, which has been completely dealt with by my hon. Friend behind me. I will, if it is desired, give my reasons for saying that it is a purely ex-parte statement. I cannot complain of what the right hon. Gentleman said. He told us Sir Edward Clarke's report clearly showed that blame was due to both sides. But anyone who has studied that report, and who has studied the facts which have come out since the report was issued, can have no doubt that the strike was entirely due to the men, and that the points in regard to which Sir Edward Clarke said they were wrong were the sole causes of the strike. Therefore, the masters are not responsible in that respect. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that point, it follows that it is the men, and the men alone, who are forcing the dispute, and that fact must be taken into consideration in deciding our action with regard to the settlement. The important part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was his announcement that he had been in communication with the men, and that they were willing to give a pecuniary guarantee that agreement should be carried out in the future. That is very important. It seems to me it is a recognition on the part of some of the Labour leaders that the Conciliation (Trade Disputes) Act of 1896 has been found to be ruinous to the trade of the country. The result of this arrangement will be that most of the unions will become liable for breaches of agreement, an absence of which liability has made it so easy for strikes to occur in the past.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what Section of the Conciliation (Trades Disputes) Act will be in the slightest degree affected by monetary liability?

10.0 P.M.

Under that Act there is no possibility of action even if steps are taken that cause a breach of the peace. I say that this statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes an important change, and I, for one, should be very glad indeed if it be possible to have some permanent settlement arrived at on that basis. But it does seem to me that this is a question on which the employers should have had the first word, and I should have been very glad if the Government had arranged for this offer to have been made to the employers before the judgment of the House was asked upon it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that I should have withheld this information from the House at the present juncture?

I do not suggest that. But I do say that if the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out to the hon. Member below the Gangway that this had not been submitted and that it was advisable to take the discussion later on he could have succeeded in postponing the Debate. I do not think this is a subject which must be dealt with by Parliament. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was very important, but so far as I can see, unless the employers agree, it is absolutely valueless. It can only be carried out in that case by legislation. But by what kind of legislation are you going to attempt to carry it out? The hon. Member for Leeds said he would not agree to compulsory arbitration. Surely, if Parliament compels arrangements of this kind to control the wages which are to be paid, it must be obvious that if a master carman wishes to withdraw from the federation there must be some security which can only be derived from the knowledge that the rate of wages to be paid is the one compulsorily agreed upon by both sides. That means compulsory arbitration.

Another point to which I wish to call the attention of the House is this: The right hon. Gentleman says "We are willing to give a specific guarantee." But that depends altogether on what the guarantee is. Therefore, on that subject, we are absolutely unable to form any opinion until we know the precise nature of the proposal on one side and the other. I shall be very glad indeed if some such arrangement as this can be carried out; but I do think that the right hon. Gentleman does not sufficiently realise the difficulty of the action which he has taken with regard to the whole of the employers and trade of the country. There is, as everyone knows, in every port in the country a variety of interests, often antagonistic, and in the case of the Port of London we have the carters and the lightermen, whose interests are absolutely opposed to each other. Therefore it is very difficult to see how interests so opposed could be induced to form, as it were, one association, and work together in the way suggested. I say that I hope this arrangement may be carried out, but I have very little reason to believe that it is practicable. I am afraid it is not. In the meantime—and this is the point which more than any other I wish to emphasise to the House now —the Government have one clear duty to perform, and that duty is to make certain that men who desire to work are permitted to work. I can quite understand the view of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway—indeed, the hon. Member made it quite clear in addressing the House. His idea seems to be that when a strike breaks out, whatever the cause, however unjustifiable it is, if the strikers are numerous enough and aggressive enough to intimidate other workmen and prevent them from working, it is the duty of the Government to stand by and allow that intimidation to take its full course. I do not take that view.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman assuming that the men are always in the wrong?

I am doing nothing of the kind. But since the hon. Member has put that point I am bound to say this: That in this case the men are either in the wrong or they are fighting solely and simply for one purpose, which is to compel every man to join the union. I can easily show him where they are in the wrong, if that is not their object. There is not one of the complaints which does not come under one of two categories—either they refer to the employers who are not parties to the agreement, and therefore have not broken the agreement, or they refer to the branches of the agreement which they have by that agreement itself the right to refer to arbitration and finally to the Board of Trade. They did not take that course. Therefore I say they are wrong in this dispute, unless the sole object is to compel every man, whether he wishes it or not, to join the union. I am bound to say that. in the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made to-night there has been no indication that he does not recognise what is, I think, the primary duty of every Government, but I am not satisfied that the Government have acted in that way in connection with this dispute. I know nothing but what I have seen in the public Press, but if the statement there is true in regard to the "Lady Jocelyn," the steamer belonging to the Shipping Federation, if there were men in that steamer who were willing to work, who applied to be admitted to the Port of London, and if the Port Authority were willing to admit them, but that the Home Secretary refused the necessary protection—if that statement is true, I say that the Government have abrogated what I hold to be the first duty of any civilised Government. I know perfectly well that the Gentlemen who sit on that bench and those who sit behind them are so afraid of doing anything which will run the slightest risk of losing them labour votes inside this House or outside of it that they go, to put it very mildly, very gingerly in all cases of this kind. I dare say there are some of my hon. Friends behind me who take the same view, who are also afraid of the effect on the labour vote. I think both parties are wrong. I think the country has had more than enough of these continual strikes, and I am convinced that there would be fewer of them if one could get rid of two ideas, which are now largely held by one section at least of the Labour leaders. One of those ideas is that by a general strike they hold a weapon in their hands so powerful that they can obtain anything they want. I am sure they are mistaken. I am sure they will find that the forces of society, apart altogether from what any Government may do, are so strong that if attempts of that kind are made they can indeed succeed in driving away trade and taking away their employment altogether, but they cannot succeed in obtaining whatever terms they themselves think are just and right. The other idea, which I think is equally responsible—

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been more strikes in Germany than there have been in this country?

No, I am not.

Yes, there have been.

It is not so. The further ground is that the Labour leaders —and I think they have more justice for this — have the idea that whatever they may do, however many mistakes they may make, they can trust to the Government, in the last resort, to get them out of their trouble. I think that is a very deplorable position at the present moment. Whatever may result from the attempt to settle this dispute in an amicable manner by some such arrangement as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested—and I think we should all be glad to see a successful issue—in the meantime, the clear duty of the Government is to show that they represent society, and that they will use all the forces of society to give to every man in a civilised country what is his elementary right, the right to work if he desires to do so.

I certainly do not rise with any intention of following the right hon. Gentleman. I am afraid we cannot congratulate him on his new style of conciliation. He has been very frank. He has stated the view of one side, but he has refused to see the view of the other. He started by appealing to my right hon. Friend to take the view of the employers. He complained because my right hon. Friend did not exclusively take the view of the employers. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] He stated that it would be better if my right hon. Friend would put himself in the position of the employers responsible for the trade of the great Port of London.

What I said was that he should put himself in that position to this extent, that he should recognise that there had been four strikes in ten months.

Precisely. I am prepared to accept that. But the complaint was surely that the right hon. Gentleman did not put himself in the position of the men who have had reason for striking four times during the twelve months. After all, if you are going to take up a fair attitude it must be fair. I am not going to say to-night that the virtue is all on the side of the men, and that all the vices, mistakes, errors, and iniquities are on the side of the employers. As a matter of fact nobody has said that. My hon. Friend who opened this discussion made it perfectly clear that the men themselves claim that Sir Edward Clarke's statement is correct, and that they desire to act upon it. Therefore, if we are going to have conciliation, and if the result of this Debate is going to be some arrangement to-morrow, I hope, which may settle this dispute, I must say that, judging simply as an outsider, the right hon. Gentleman's speech has been an exceedingly bad piece of business, so far as the peace of the Port of London is concerned. Take a small point of detail. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) said so truly, very often things which seem to us to be large and important points, have very little influence with the men, and things which seem to us to be trivial points have enormous influence with them. The right hon. Gentleman told us that Sir Edward Clarke himself states in his report that on the only point upon which the dispute actually arose—the specific and definite point upon which it arose—the men were in the wrong. That really is not the case. Sir Edward Clarke states quite clearly in the very first sentence of his report:— The evidence brought before me at my inquiry related to seven specific causes of dispute. Undoubtedly there were seven specific causes of dispute and five causes preceded the two which ultimately brought about the dispute, and before the men made a mistake, according to Sir Edward Clarke's finding, the employers had broken their agreement. I am not going into the details. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is always an eloquent and a most acceptable advocate for the employers in. this House, and he has made out his case from his own point of view. I think in. some respects he leaned a little bit too far on the side of the employers, but he did not claim a clean bill of health so far as the employers are concerned. That bill of health which has been besmirched was besmirched before the workmen took the final step. The dispute took place in a state of mind which was irritable, and the men, according to Sir Edward Clarke—and they now admit it themselves—owing to a misunderstanding broke their agreements, but ever since the Report of Sir Edward Clarke has been published they have been perfectly willing to put it into operation if the employers would give them an honourable opportunity of doing, so.

Here is another unfortunate point. The right hon. Gentleman seized with great glee upon the offer that the men made, that if a Joint Board were established for the Port of London they would be willing to give a monetary guarantee that the agreement should be kept, provided the employers would meet them and do the same on their part. "Ah," says the right hon. Gentleman, "that is an admission that the Trade Disputes Act has been a failure." Supposing it is true—it is not—is this the time to taunt the men with, that? Is this the time, when we have been trying the whole of to-day to get some basis of settlement agreed to, for the Leader of the Opposition to fling in the teeth of the men the taunt, after this offer of theirs, which everyone in the House, irrespective of party, admits, at any rate, to be a very substantial concession on the part of the men, that they are practically throwing over the Trade Disputes Act? I do not congratulate the employers on the advocates they find in this House. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of the fact that this is not a new thing. He talked to-night as though a trade union, giving a voluntary guarantee against a breach of agreement, was something that only happened this morning. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman would have very little to say regarding the peace loving proclivities of the trade union that is strongest in my own Constituency and votes very solidly for me—that of the boot and shoe operatives. I suppose I am one of those persons who stand for lawlessness and disorder when it suits their purpose, like the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. But as a matter of fact the boot and shoe operatives meet the employers on a Joint Board of precisely the same kind which the transport workers now suggest should be formed for the Port of London. They have for years deposited a bond, and that bond has been drawn upon when it has been proved that the employés have broken an agreement. The workmen have got a bond, and the employers have got a bond, and these bonds are available when either side proves that the other side has broken an agreement signed by both sides. It is a very old and very common practice, and I am amazed to find that the Leader of the Opposition never heard of it before. That does explain his position when he talked such an amount of inaccuracies, to put it mildly, about the Trade Disputes Act. I think it is a great pity, even supposing the statement had been accurate, that he should refer to it. As a matter of fact, there is no likeness between a voluntarily deposited sum of money under an agreement come to that if conditions are broken as to certain specified matters, certain things which are quite clearly laid down, and on which there can be no dispute—there is no likeness between that and the position which the right hon. Gentleman desires to impose on trade unions.

Look at the very unfortunate speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I am bound to say that both employers and employés in the present dispute want to see an agreement come to, but surely when an agreement is come to between representative parties, they desire that it shall be honourably and honestly observed. Secondly, if that agreement is come to with employers who desire to do honourably and fairly by their men, these employers may ask that they shall not be penalised by employers—let us say sweating employers—who decline to accept their proper responsibilities in the conditions under which they work their men. These are the two things that are desired. The hon. Baronet who proclaims himself to be the friend of agreements, the good old English gentleman who only pursues ancient paths, says that if a member of the federation, who has accepted his responsibilities as such, finds at any moment that these responsibilities are onerous—finds, for instance, that he would like to get a contract instead of one of his competitors who is also a member of the federation, but discovers that he can only get that contract if he goes out of the federation and breaks the agreement to which he had attached his name, then it is perfectly right and proper that he should leave the federation and tear up the agreement.

The hon. Member will pardon me, but I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that the man has a right to leave the federation, and that I repeat. I did not say whether his conduct was right or wrong. Whether it is morally right to leave the federation is not the question, but he has a perfect legal right to leave the federation just as a simple member of a trade union has a right to leave the trade union.

If the right hon. Gentleman said no more, and meant to imply no more than that his remarks had nothing whatever to do with the question in dispute, because the whole point is that this particular employer was in the federation. He came out of the federation, and tore up the agreement. Then the federated employers said to the men whom they were paying under the agreement "unless you smash up this man who is cutting us out, we have got to abandon the agreement and reduce your wages and condition and status to the level of those of the men employed by that employer." If the right hon. Gentleman only meant to say that every man has got the right to withdraw from the federation I do not dispute it; but it does not carry us any further, and he was adopting a very unusual course in wasting the time of the House in talking about that. Another point which ought to be explained from the point of view of the men arises out of the speech of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt). I do not know that his speech was an impartial speech. I am afraid it was as partial as is mine. I am not proposing to make an impartial speech. I am making a partial speech, but I hope a speech couched in sufficiently friendly language to make its partiality not so aggressive as to do any harm in the circumstances at present existing. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that if A breaks his contract with B, he should not bring in C, D, and F. On paper that is very good, but the hon. Member for Hexham is a business man, and he knows perfectly well that that does not at all represent the facts of life. If A, B. and C and X, Y, and Z have got their businesses so inextricably mixed up that no pressure can be brought to bear on A without affecting the business of B and C, and if this House has never taken the trouble to establish a system that would not leave these disputes to be settled by war between trade unions on the one hand and federated employers on the other, then the hon. Member for Hexham must agree to A, B, and C being mixed up with X, Y, and Z until he and his colleagues have done their duty in this House and settled the whole matter by peaceful means.

Does the hon. Member mean to say that one person is entitled to break his contracts and give no notice because two other people have done a wrong action? Surely that is the doctrine that the end justifies the means?

I am not going to chop logic with my hon. Friend, but I will do it so far as to say that if what he describes as one person and another, at the same time that they are absolutely separate, belong to the same federation, and are united for the purpose of advancing their common interests, then it is quite useless for him to talk about one person and another. He has got to talk about one combination and another combination, and I think that he himself in business does precisely the same. The point, however, arises, what may be done in present circumstances? The great difficulty which we have all got to recognise is this, you get good employers coming to agreements with unions of men.

Then since these agreements have been come to, bad employers began to grow down into the texture of their trade roots, which are purely parasitic. They keep existence going by enforcing conditions on non-organised men which are substantially lower than the conditions recognised by the agreements and observed by the employers who are parties to those agreements. If you are going to have this by voluntary arrangement, and I hope we always shall, I think the Government must make up its mind to do something to make this voluntary arrangement really representative of the trade. I do not want small cliques of employers or small cliques of workmen to settle these voluntary arrangements, but if the Board of Trade can satisfy itself that the employers on the one hand and the workmen on the other who have come to such a voluntary arrangement are representative of the trade concerned, then that arrangement ought to be made common to the whole of that trade. To say that a trade cannot be carried on under such conditions is unworthy. I do not want compulsory arbitration. The Leader of the Opposition cannot mix up compulsory arbitration with the situation. Compulsory arbitration is something which is set up by an outside authority, and may be absolutely different from the demands made either by the employers on the one hand or the men on the other. Our suggestion is totally different; it is that the employers and the men should come to this voluntary arrangement. You are not going to get conditions settled which will drive the employers to Belgium to carry on the trade of the Port of London. You are not going to get conditions like those agreed to by the employers and workmen. No; from the very nature of the case such a suggestion is absurd. You may get such conditions imposed on employers and workmen by compulsory arbitration. Those hon. Members who cheered their Leader when he talked about compulsory arbitration should seriously consider what it means before cheering it in future.

An agreement come to between the employers on the one side and the workmen on the other must be an agreement which is a business proposition, and it must be drafted on such terms as will enable a trade to be carried on with profit to the employers. Those agreements ought to be made public, and that is the first proposition which I would suggest to the Board of Trade, and which they ought to consider. On the question of the funds, I am not going to commit myself one way or the other; it is a very interesting proposal, but I simply state this, that it is not a new expedient. One section of the Transport Workers' Federation involved in this dispute is at the present moment under an agreement with a monetary pledge behind it. I am speaking of the Dockers at Bristol. That, at any rate, is my point. The arrangement has been tried; it has experience behind it; it is purely a matter for the trade itself to settle; it is a matter of the internal government of a trade union, and this House ought not to interfere one way or another.

We all want to see this matter settled, and we want to see it settled in such a way that it would give at any rate some promise of security, some promise of a lasting peace. I am authorised to say that if the Government by negotiation with the employers, or by any action it sees fit to take, can give the transport workers of the Port of London any definite guarantee, without any unreasonable delay, that this matter is going to be straightened out, I think we had better leave it to further negotiation. I only state that in general terms. It is in response to a request that the right hon. Gentleman made, and I think without having taken the precaution to have written it out I could not commit myself to a form of words that would be absolutely definite, but I can honestly say, and I am sure I give it from the men concerned without any reserve, that if they can get any sort of guarantee, any sort of pledge, if anything can be done which would make it perfectly plain to them, to the men concerned, that the Government, in conjunction with the employers, or with this House behind it, is doing something immediately to get boards set up, to get some tribunal, which would consider the Clarke Report, for instance, and settle definitely what is going to be the effect of this Report in the pay and conditions of the men, then the men will be asked to go back to work without delay. They will not wait—and this is the point my right hon. Friend made—until everything is settled. All that they want is some sort of substantial and tangible guarantee that the work is being put in hand, and that their grievances will be properly considered, properly discussed, and properly settled, and then, I think, that my right hon. Friend may make up his mind and may allow his mind to rest quite easy that peace will follow without any unreasonable delay so far as the men are concerned.

I have been asked by certain employers to speak on matters in the Clarke report, but after the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) I do not propose to do so to-night. There is one point, and one point only, which I should like to press on the Government, and particularly on the Law Officers of the Crown, and that is with regard to the suggestion that has been made for a monetary payment in order to guarantee that trade unions carry out agreements that have been entered into, and that, in fact, no strikes should take place. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that this was, in effect, an abrogation of the Trade Disputes Act, I noticed that the Attorney-General violently shook his head. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking I am bound to say I thought any such proposal would be contrary to the fourth section of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906. I want the Law Officers to carefully consider this point, how it is possible for any trade union to enter into any contract or to make any deposit of money under which they could be sued or under which the stakeholder could be sued in respect of any action contrary to the provisions of the contract. If I may assume for a moment that the proposal of the Labour party which the hon. Member for Leicester has made, had been in existence prior to the Taff Vale case.

It was in existence.

Supposing there had been such a deposit by that, particular trade union, and that this Act had been passed, and supposing that that particular trade union to-day took the same steps that the particular trade union took in 1905–6 which led to the Taff Vale case, then I say that in consequence of the provisions of the Act of 1906, Section 4, it would be to-day impossible for the employer to sue the trade union that was concerned in the Taff Vale case for the action they took, if it was taken to-day, which led to the Taff Vale case. I quite agree that it is possible to deposit money on a bond to carry out a contract; but it is equally clear that it would still be possible for a trade union to commit a tortious act, such as caused the damage in the Taff Vale case, and no deposit whatever would enable the employers to sue for damages in such a case. I should very much like the Attorney General's legal opinion upon that point, because if the employers are to be asked to accept this olive branch in the expectation that they will be free from action such as that which led up to the dispute in the Taff Vale case, I submit that that is not possible without any alteration of Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906.

By leave of the House I should like to make a statement which I forgot to make before in reference to what has been attributed to Mr. Watts, the Assistant Manager of the Port of London Authority. Mr. Watts is reported to have said that the Port of London Authority was more determined than ever not to have anything to do with the men out on strike. This is a letter I have received from the Secretary to the Port of London Authority:— I beg to inform you on the direct testimony of Mr. Watts that there is not the slightest foundation for the statement attributed to him, and that it is a gross misrepresentation of what passed at an interview with a Press agency, in which no mention was made on either side of the Port Authority. I think it is right that I should make that statement.

It is rather astonishing that that contradiction has never come until now, as the statement has been made much of by all the organs representing the political party on the other side of the House. But as the contradiction has been made, of course I accept it. In view of the delicate state of the negotiations at the present moment, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.