BRITISH POLITICS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9040, 16 March 1908, Page 5

BRITISH POLITICS.

UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN'S BILL.

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Received February 15, 5.S p.m. LONDON, March 14. In the House of Commons Mr Phillip Wilson, Labour M.P., moved the second reading of the Unemployed Workmen's Bill, in which much public interest has been displayed. Mr Wilson, explaining the bill, said that the problem of unemployed must be regarded as a national matter. Mr Ramsay Mac Donald, Labour M.P. for Leicester, seconded the m tion. He claimed that the measure was only an extension of the legislation of 1905, which gave the unemployed a hope of StateJJ employment. No fateful result would follow . this labour demand. The cost would not exceed one Dreadnought annually. Mr F. Maddison, Labour M.P. for Burnley, moved an amendment affirming that the bill would throw out of work more than it would assist, and would also destroy the power of organised labour. He censured the Socialists for telling the people that there was a way by which everybody could get work, and advocating ruinous and disastrous land schemes.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

Receive.! March 15, 5.54 p.m. LONDON. March 15,

During the debate on the Unemployed Bill Mr V. Grayson, Socialist M.P. for Colne Valley, said that if the Government were unable to solve the unemployed question they ought to resign. The money needed could be oltained by bursting the bags of thß wealthy, which-were filled with unearned increment.

The Hon. John Burns, President of the Local Government Board, in a vigorous argumentative speech, repudiated the charge that nothing had been done for the poor. The cry had everywhere been raised that the Government were threatening the monopolies of the rich, and exalting the fustian and corduroy at the expense of the tall hat and frock coat. No other country would have spent so much on the relief of the poor as Britain did or the people interested themselves so whole-heartedly to assist the indigent. Referring to the failure of the farm colonies Mr Burns stated that the farm at Hollesley Bay involved a loss of £22,000 per year, and gave a striking illustration of the unsatisfactory results obtained from such methods of assisting the unemployed. Few local authorities desired the powers the bill conferred. He was confident such legislation wa3 a delusion and a snare.

Hon. H. H. Asquifch, Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared that the acceptance of the main principle of the bill would be more prejudicial to the workers than any other class, and would vastly aggravate unemployment and ultimately necessitate complete state control of the whole machinery of production. The bill was rejected by 265 to U6. The amendment was carried by 241 to 95.

There was much cross voting. The majority against the bill comprised 195 Ministerialists jmd 70 Unionists. The minority included 41 Labourites, 20 Nationalists, 2 Unionists and a number of .Radicals. The South Australian Premier (Hon. T. Price) attended the debate.