text
stringlengths 101
991k
| id
stringlengths 27
27
| date
stringclasses 0
values | title
stringlengths 0
475
| meta
stringlengths 48
59
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
McQuirk, Arrangements for, 1621, should be, Case of, 586.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.
Cattle Driving Government Attitude, 593, delete.
Prosecutions, Procedure in, 602, should be, 600.
Persia, Situation in, 4, should be, 39.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Old Age Pensions—Poor Relief Disqualification, 26, should be, 29.
Banbury, Sir F.
Local Government Board Administration, Criticisms on, 1439, should be, 1463.
Benn, Mr. W. W.
London Rating System—Reform Proposed, 1515, should be, 1519.
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. T. R.
Deportation and Imprisonment of certain persons under Regulation of, 820, 1818, 1257, 1258, should be, Regulation of, 1818.
Police Cases, Prosecution of, 564, should, be, 563.
Cecil, Lord R.
Fiscal Policy—Colonial Preference, 2781, should be, 281.
Channing, Sir F. A.
Army—Special Reserve Infantry Officers, 1669, should be, 1699.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. L. S.
Unemployment, Government Proposals for dealing with, 18, should be, 186.
Craughwell Outrage
Goldrick's Relatives, Grant to, 866, should be, 860.
Death Certificates (Charges) Bill
1R.* 1430, should be, 1434.
Fiscal Policy
Colonial Preference, add, 292
Haldane, Rt. Hon. R. B.
Territorial Force—Recruiting Statistics, 1547, should be, 1597.
Hope, Mr. James
House of Commons Cleaners, Information as to, 1556, should be, 1550.
Army—Plague Inoculation and Vaccination, Power of, 808, 825, 834, should be, Army—Plague Inoculation and Vaccination, Power of Officers to order, 866.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, Provisions of, 934, should be, 834.
Crimes Act—Necessity for putting into Operation, 90, should be, 590.
Land Purchase (Ireland)
Temperance (Scotland) Bill, 2R. 1066, delete.
Law of Murder (Amendment) Bill
1R.* 1121, should be, 1125.
Levy, Sir M.
Loughborough, Unemployment in, 461, should be, 1461.
Lynch, Mr. H. F. B.
King's Speech—Address in Answer, 281, should be, 81, delete 308.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A.
Fiscal Policy Reform, Necessity for, 812, should be, 312.
Police (Weekly Holiday) Bill
1R.* 899, should be, 890.
Post Office
Mail Van Service—Wages Paid by Messrs. Webster, 1396, should be, 1400.
Seely, Colonel
Natal—Dinizulu Case, 556, should be, 566.
Transvaal—Village Deep Mine Riot, 413, should be, 419.
Trinidad Sunday Closing Ordinance, 506, should be, 566.
Strachey, Sir E
Watford Small Holdings—Case of T. Willson, 432, should be, 438
|
S5CV0001P0_191e268d953e3358
| null |
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, 1909.
|
{"house": "", "speaker": null, "word_count": 350}
|
THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY contains all that can be collected of the Legislative History of this country from the Conquest to the close of the XVIIIth Century (1803), 36 vols. The chief sources whence these Debates are derived are the Constitutional History, 24 vols.; Sir Simonds D'Ewes' Journal; Debates of the Commons in 1620 and 1621; Chandler and Timberland's Debates, 22 vols.; Grey's Debates of the Commons, from 1667 to 1694, 10 vols.; Almon's Debates, 24 vols.; Debrett's Debates, 63 vols.; The Hardwicke Papers; Debates in Parliament by Dr. Johnson, &c., &c.
THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES commence with the year 1803, and the contents are set forth in the following Chronological Table:—
CONQUEST to 34 GEO. II.—1066 to 1760.
REIGN OF GEORGE III.—1760 to 1820.
REIGN OF GEORGE IV.—1820 to 1830.
REIGN OF WILLIAM IV.#x2014;1830 to 1837.
REIGN OF VICTORIA—1837 to 1901.
REIGN OF EDWARD VII.
|
S5CV0001P0_73881cd30f350545
| null |
CHRONOLOGY OF "THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES."
|
{"house": "", "speaker": null, "word_count": 144}
|
Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury—Rt. Hon. H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P.
Lord President of the Council—Rt. Hon. Viscount WOLVERHAMPTON.
Lord Chancellor—Rt. Hon. Lord LOREBURN.
Chancellor of the Exchequer—Rt. Hon. DAVID LLOYD-GEORGE, M.P.
Secretaries of State—
Home Department—Rt. Hon. HERBERT J. GLADSTONE, M.P.
Foreign Affairs—Rt. Hon. Sir EDWARD GREY, Bt., M.P.
Colonial Office—Rt. Hon. Earl of CREWE.
War Office—Rt Hon. R. B. HALDANE, M.P.
India Office—Viscount MORLEY OF BLACKBURN.
First Lord of the Admiralty—Rt. Hon. REGINALD McKENNA, M.P.
Chief Secretary for Ireland—Rt. Hon. A. BIRRELL, M.P.
Lord Privy Seal—Rt. Hon. Earl of CREWE.
President of the Board of Education—Rt. Hon. WALTER RUNCIMAN, M.P.
President of the Board of Trade—Rt. Hon. WINSTON CHURCHILL, M.P.
President of the Local Government Board—Rt. Hon. JOHN BURNS, M.P.
President of the Board of Agriculture—Rt. Hon. Earl CARRINGTON.
Postmaster-General—Rt. Hon. SYDNEY BUXTON, M.P.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—Rt. Hon. Lord FITZMAURICE, M.P.
The Secretary for Scotland—The Rt. Hon. Lord PENTLAND.
The First Commissioner of Works—Rt. Hon. L. HARCOURT, M.P.
Under Secretary of State, Foreign Affairs—T. McKINNON WOOD, Esq., M.P.
Under Secretary of State, Home Office—Rt. Hon. HERBERT SAMUEL, M.P.
Under Secretary of State, Colonial Office—Colonel SEELY, M.P.
Under Secretary of State, India Office—Rt. Hon. T. R. BUCHANAN, M.P.
Under Secretary of State, War Office—Lord LUCAS.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education—C. P. TREVELYAN, Esq., M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty—Dr. MACNAMARA, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade—H. J. TENNANT, Esq., M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board—C. F. G. MASTERMAN, Esq., M.P
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury—Rt. Hon. J. A. PEASE, M.P.
Financial Secretary to the Treasury—CHARLES C. E. HOBHOUSE, Esq., M.P.
Financial Secretary to the War Office—F. D. ACLAND, Esq., M.P.
Junior Lords of the Treasury—HERBERT LEWIS, Esq., M.P.
Junior Lords of the Treasury—Captain CECIL W. NORTON, M.P.
Junior Lords of the Treasury—J. H. WHITLEY, Esq., M.P.
Civil Lord of the Admiralty—GEORGE LAMBERT, Esq., M.P.
Attorney-General—Rt. Hon. Sir W. ROBSON, K.C., M.P.
Solicitor-General—S. T. EVANS, Esq., K.C., M.P.
Paymaster-General—Right Hon. R. K. CAUSTON, Esq., M.P.
Government Whips—(Mr. J. A. PEASE.
Government Whips—The Master of ELIBANK.
Government Whips—Mr. J. HERBERT LEWIS.
Government Whips—Captain CECIL NORTON.
Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Bart.
Government Whips—Mr. J. M. F. FULLER.
Government Whips—Mr. J. H. WHITLEY.
(In the House of Commons, Sir EDWARD STRACHEY represents the Board of Agriculture; Mr. E. J. SOARES, the Charity Commissioners; and Mr. J. TOMKINSON, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.)
Lord Chamberlain—Viscount ALTHORP.
Lord Steward—Earl BEAUCHAMP.
Master of the Horse—Rt. Hon. Earl of GRANARD.
Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard—Lord ALLENDALE.
Lords-in-Waiting—Earl GRANVILLE.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord HAMILTON of DALZELL.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord ACTON.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord COLEBROOKE.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord SUFFIELD.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord HERSCHELL.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord FARQUHAR.
Treasurer of the Household—Sir E. STRACHEY, Bart., M.P.
Comptroller of the Household—The Master of ELIBANK, M.P.
Vice-Chamberlain—J. M. F. FULLER, Esq., M.P.
Secretary for Scotland and Keeper of the Great Seal—LORD PENTLAND.
Lord Advocate—Right Hon. ALEXANDER URE, K.C., M P.
Solicitor-General—A. DEWAR, Esq., K.C., M.P.
Lord-Lieutenant—Earl of ABERDEEN, G.C.M.G.
Chief Secretary and Keeper of Privy Seal—Right Hon. A. BIRRELL, M.P.
State Steward and Chamberlain—The Earl of LIVERPOOL.
Controller—Lord PIRRIE.
Lord Chancellor—Lord Justice WALKER.
Attorney-General—Rt. Hon. R. R. CHERRY, K.C., M.P.
Solicitor-General—REDMOND BARRY, Esq., K.C., M.P.
Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland)—T. W. RUSSELL, Esq., M.P.
|
S5CV0001P0_06059065380441f1
| null |
HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.
|
{"house": "", "speaker": null, "word_count": 535}
|
Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury—Rt. Hon. H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P.
Lord President of the Council—Rt. Hon. Viscount WOLVERHAMPTON.
Lord Chancellor—Rt. Hon. Lord LOREBURN.
Chancellor of the Exchequer—Rt. Hon. DAVID LLOYD-GEORGE, M.P.
Secretaries of State—
Home Department—Rt. Hon. HERBERT J. GLADSTONE, M.P.
Foreign Affairs—Rt. Hon. Sir EDWARD GREY, Bt., M.P.
Colonial Office—Rt. Hon. Earl of CREWE.
War Office—Rt Hon. R. B. HALDANE, M.P.
India Office—Viscount MORLEY OF BLACKBURN.
First Lord of the Admiralty—Rt. Hon. REGINALD McKENNA, M.P.
Chief Secretary for Ireland—Rt. Hon. A. BIRRELL, M.P.
Lord Privy Seal—Rt. Hon. Earl of CREWE.
President of the Board of Education—Rt. Hon. WALTER RUNCIMAN, M.P.
President of the Board of Trade—Rt. Hon. WINSTON CHURCHILL, M.P.
President of the Local Government Board—Rt. Hon. JOHN BURNS, M.P.
President of the Board of Agriculture—Rt. Hon. Earl CARRINGTON.
Postmaster-General—Rt. Hon. SYDNEY BUXTON, M.P.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—Rt. Hon. Lord FITZMAURICE, M.P.
The Secretary for Scotland—The Rt. Hon. Lord PENTLAND.
The First Commissioner of Works—Rt. Hon. L. HARCOURT, M.P.
|
S5CV0001P0_6a569618246b0b24
| null |
RIGHT HON. H. H. ASQUITH'S ADMINISTRATION. THE CABINET.
|
{"house": "", "speaker": null, "word_count": 166}
|
Under Secretary of State, Foreign Affairs—T. McKINNON WOOD, Esq., M.P.
Under Secretary of State, Home Office—Rt. Hon. HERBERT SAMUEL, M.P.
Under Secretary of State, Colonial Office—Colonel SEELY, M.P.
Under Secretary of State, India Office—Rt. Hon. T. R. BUCHANAN, M.P.
Under Secretary of State, War Office—Lord LUCAS.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education—C. P. TREVELYAN, Esq., M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty—Dr. MACNAMARA, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade—H. J. TENNANT, Esq., M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board—C. F. G. MASTERMAN, Esq., M.P
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury—Rt. Hon. J. A. PEASE, M.P.
Financial Secretary to the Treasury—CHARLES C. E. HOBHOUSE, Esq., M.P.
Financial Secretary to the War Office—F. D. ACLAND, Esq., M.P.
Junior Lords of the Treasury—HERBERT LEWIS, Esq., M.P.
Junior Lords of the Treasury—Captain CECIL W. NORTON, M.P.
Junior Lords of the Treasury—J. H. WHITLEY, Esq., M.P.
Civil Lord of the Admiralty—GEORGE LAMBERT, Esq., M.P.
Attorney-General—Rt. Hon. Sir W. ROBSON, K.C., M.P.
Solicitor-General—S. T. EVANS, Esq., K.C., M.P.
Paymaster-General—Right Hon. R. K. CAUSTON, Esq., M.P.
Government Whips—(Mr. J. A. PEASE.
Government Whips—The Master of ELIBANK.
Government Whips—Mr. J. HERBERT LEWIS.
Government Whips—Captain CECIL NORTON.
Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Bart.
Government Whips—Mr. J. M. F. FULLER.
Government Whips—Mr. J. H. WHITLEY.
(In the House of Commons, Sir EDWARD STRACHEY represents the Board of Agriculture; Mr. E. J. SOARES, the Charity Commissioners; and Mr. J. TOMKINSON, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.)
Lord Chamberlain—Viscount ALTHORP.
Lord Steward—Earl BEAUCHAMP.
Master of the Horse—Rt. Hon. Earl of GRANARD.
Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard—Lord ALLENDALE.
Lords-in-Waiting—Earl GRANVILLE.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord HAMILTON of DALZELL.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord ACTON.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord COLEBROOKE.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord SUFFIELD.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord HERSCHELL.
Lords-in-Waiting—Lord FARQUHAR.
Treasurer of the Household—Sir E. STRACHEY, Bart., M.P.
Comptroller of the Household—The Master of ELIBANK, M.P.
Vice-Chamberlain—J. M. F. FULLER, Esq., M.P.
|
S5CV0001P0_e09b552ba6c617f6
| null |
NOT IN THE CABINET.
|
{"house": "", "speaker": null, "word_count": 292}
|
Secretary for Scotland and Keeper of the Great Seal—LORD PENTLAND.
Lord Advocate—Right Hon. ALEXANDER URE, K.C., M P.
Solicitor-General—A. DEWAR, Esq., K.C., M.P.
|
S5CV0001P0_c3648a53846d296d
| null |
SCOTLAND.
|
{"house": "", "speaker": null, "word_count": 23}
|
Lord-Lieutenant—Earl of ABERDEEN, G.C.M.G.
Chief Secretary and Keeper of Privy Seal—Right Hon. A. BIRRELL, M.P.
State Steward and Chamberlain—The Earl of LIVERPOOL.
Controller—Lord PIRRIE.
Lord Chancellor—Lord Justice WALKER.
Attorney-General—Rt. Hon. R. R. CHERRY, K.C., M.P.
Solicitor-General—REDMOND BARRY, Esq., K.C., M.P.
Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland)—T. W. RUSSELL, Esq., M.P.
|
S5CV0001P0_04198b5cf2ee454f
| null |
IRELAND.
|
{"house": "", "speaker": null, "word_count": 54}
|
The Right Hon. J. W. LOWTHER, M.P.
DEPUTY SPEAKER AND CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—The Right Hon. A. EMMOTT, M.P. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN—J. CALDWELL, Esq., M.P.
|
S5CV0001P0_5e2a8fba6c93f513
| null |
THE SPEAKER.
|
{"house": "", "speaker": null, "word_count": 25}
|
Clerk of the House of Commons—Sir COURTENAY PEREGRINE ILBERT, K.C.B., K.C.S.I., C.I.E.
Clerk-Assistant—ARTHUR W. NICHOLSON, Esq., C.B.
Second Clerk-Assistant—T. L. WEBSTER, Esq.
Principal Clerks—
Public Bill Office, and Clerk of Fees—W. GIBBONS, Esq., C.B.
Clerk of the Journals—G. C. GIFFARD, Esq.
Committee Office—Sir E. H. DOYLE, Bart.
Private Bill Office—J. H. W. SOMERSET, Esq.
Senior Clerks—C. V. FRERE, Esq.; S. L. SIMEON, Esq.; ARTHUR I. DASENT, Esq.; HORACE WEST, Esq.; HENRY A. FERGUSON-DAVIE, Esq.; ARTHUR H. ELLIS, Esq.
Assistant Clerks—PERCY A BULL, Esq; F. R. WILLIAMS WYNN, Esq; W. E. GREY, Esq.: F. C. HOLLAND, Esq.: J. W. G. BOND, Esq.; H. C. DAWKINS, Esq.; R. P. COLOMB, Esq.; B. H. FELL, Esq.; R. E. CHILDERS, Esq.; J. SCOTT PORTER, Esq.; F. C. BRAMWELL, Esq.; W. T. LEGGE, Esq.
Junior Clerks—C. R. TURNER, Esq.; W. K. GIBBONS, Esq.; W. P. JOHNSTON, Esq. R. N. BAILEY, Esq.; G. F. M. CAMPION, Esq.; S. DE LA POER BERESFORD, Esq.; H. S. GREEN, Esq.; O.C. WILLIAMS, Esq.; V. W. D. Fox, Esq; E. F. WISE, Esq.; I. W. B. THROCKMORTON, Esq.; F. SEYMOUR, Esq.
Serjeant at Arms—H. D. ERSKINE, Esq., C.V.O.
Deputy Serjeant—F. R. GOSSET, Esq.
Assistant Serjeant—W. H. ERSKINE, Esq.
Chaplain to the House—The Ven. Archdeacon BASIL WILBERFORCE, D.D.
Secretary to the Speaker—Hon. EDWARD GULLY, C.B.
Counsel to the Speaker—ERNEST MOON, Esq., K.C.
Clerk to Referees—Sir E. H. DOYLE, Bart.
Examiners of Private Bills—C. W. CAMPION, Esq.; J. F. SYMONS JEUNE, Esq.
Taxing Master—C. W. CAMPION, Esq.; Clerk—F. C. BRAMWELL, Esq.
Superintendent of Official Reporting Staff—J. DODS SHAW, Esq.
Assistant Superintendent—W. T. PERKINS, Esq.
Vote Office—
Principal Clerk—PHILIP SMITH, Esq.
Librarian—A. E. A. W. SMYTH, Esq.
Shorthand Writer—W. H. GURNEY SALTER, Esq.
Office Clerk in Journal Office—A. A. TAYLOR, Esq.
Inspector of Police attending the House of Commons—Mr. SCANTLEBURY.
|
S5CV0001P0_98ed7c0448d74e58
| null |
PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 297}
|
Abraham, William (Glamorgan, Rhondda)
Abraham, William (Cork Co., N.E.)
Acland, F. D. (Yorkshire, Richmond)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir A., Bt. (Somerset, Wellington)
Adkins, W. R. (Lancashire, S.E., Middleton)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. (Cornwall, St. Austell)
Agnew, George William (Salford, W.)
Ainsworth, John S. (Argyll)
Alden, Percy (Middlesex, Tottenham)
Allen, A. A. (Christchurch)
Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester, Stroud)
Ambrose, Dr. Robert (Mayo, W.)
Anson, Sir William R., Bt. (Oxford University)
Anstruther-Gray, Major (St. Andrews Burghs)
Arkwright, John S. (Hereford)
Armitage, R. (Leeds, Central)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton- (Suffolk, Sudbury)
Ashley, W. W. (Lancashire, N., Blackpool)
Ashton, Thomas Gair (Beds, Luton)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. (Fife, E.)
Astbury, J. M., K.C. (Lancashire, South port)
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn, K.C. (Durham, N. W.)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H., Bt., C.B (Sussex, Lewes)
Baker, J. Allen (Finsbury, E.)
Baker, Sir J. (Portsmouth)
Balcarres, Lord (Lancashire, N., Chorley)
Baldwin, S. (Worcester, Bewdley)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. Arthur J. (City of London)
Balfour, R. (Lanark, Partick)
Banbury, Sir F., Bt. (City of London)
Baring, G. (Isle of Wight)
Baring, Hon. G. V. (Winchester)
Barker, Sir John, Bt. (Penryn and Falmouth)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott, Bt. (Somerset, Frome)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)
Barnard, E.B. (Kidderminster)
Barnes, G.N. (Glasgow, Blackfriars)
Barran, Sir John, Bart. (Hawick Burghs)
Barran, Rowland H. (Leeds, N.)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)
Barry, Edward (Cork Co., S.)
Barry, Redmond, K.C. (Tyrone, N.)
Beach, Hon. M. Hicks (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)
Beale, W. P., K.C. (Ayrshire, S.)
Beauchamp, Edward (Suffolk, Lowestoft)
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert (Sussex, Eastbourne)
Beck, A. C. (Cambridge, Wisbech)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase (York, N.R., Whitby)
Bell, Richard (Derby)
Bellairs, C. (Lynn Regis)
Belloc, Hilaire V. P. R. (Salford, S.)
Benn, Sir John W. (Devonport)
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)
Bennett, E. N. (Oxfordshire, Woodstock)
Berridge, T. H. D. (Warwick and Leamington)
Bertram, J. (Herts, Hitchin)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)
Bignold, Sir Arthur (Wick Burghs)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. A., K.C. (Bristol, N.)
Black, A. W. (Beds, Biggleswade)
Boland, John P. (Kerry, S.)
Bottomley, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Boulton, A. C. F. (Hunts, Ramsey)
Bowerman, C. W. (Deptford)
Bowles, G. Stewart (Lambeth, Norwood)
Brace, W. (Glamorgan, S.)
Bramsdon, T. A. (Portsmouth)
Branch, J. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Bridgeman, W. C. (Shropshire, Oswestry)
Brigg, John (Yorks, W.R., Keighley)
Bright, J. A. (Oldham)
Brocklehurst, W. B. (Cheshire, Macclesfield)
Brodie, H. C. (Surrey, Reigate)
Brooke, S. W. (Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley)
Brotherton, E. A. (Wakefield)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancashire, S.W., Leigh)
Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir John T., Bt. (Cheshire, Northwich)
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)
Buchanan Rt. Hon. Thomas R. (Perthshire, E.)
Buckmaster, S. O., K.C. (Cambridge)
Bull, Sir William James (Hammersmith)
Burdett-Coutts, W. L. A. B. (Westminster)
Burke. E. Haviland (King's County, Tullamore)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)
Burnyeat, W. J. D. (Whitehaven)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Morpeth)
Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge University)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
Byles, William Pollard (Salford, N.)
Caldwell, James (Lanark, Mid)
Cameron, Robert (Durham, Houghton-le-Spring)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M., K.C. (Dublin University).
Carlile, E. H. (Hearts, St. Albans)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. (Southwark, Rotherhithe)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H., K.C. (Dublin University)
Castlereagh, Lord (Maidstone)
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight (Southwark, W.)
Cave, G., K.C. (Surrey, Kingston)
Cawley, Sir Frederick, Bt. (Lancs., Prestwich)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Cecil, Lord Robert, K.C. (Marylebone, E.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. Austen (Worcestershire, E.)
Chance, F. W. (Carlisle)
Channing, Sir Francis A., Bt. (Northants, E.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. H. (Surrey, Wimbledon)
Cheetham, J. F. (Stalybridge)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R., K.C. (Liverpool, Exchange)
Chiozza-Money, L. G. (Paddington, N.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Dundee)
Clancy, John J. (Dublin Co., N.)
Clark, George (Belfast, N.)
Cleland, J. W. (Glasgow, Bridgeton).
Clive, Capt. P. A. (Herefordshire, Ross)
Clough, W. (Yorks, W.R., Skipton)
Clynes, J. R. (Manchester, N.E.)
Coates, Major, E. F. (Lewisham)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley (Ipswich)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. (Ayrshire, N.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse (Birmingham, Bordesley)
Collins, S. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Collins, Sir W. J. (St. Pancras, W.)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. (Yorks, W.R., Osgoldcross)
Condon, Thomas J. (Tipperary, E )
Cooper, Dr. G. (Southwark, Bermondsey)
Corbett, Arch. Cameron (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, East Grinstead)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, N.)
Cornwall, Sir E. A. (Bethnal Green, N.E.)
Cory, Sir C. J., Bt. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. (Nottingham, E.)
Courthope, G. L. (Sussex, Rye)
Cowan, W. H. (Surrey, Guildford)
Cox, Harold (Preston)
Craig, Charles C. (Antrim, S.)
Craig, H. J. (Tynemouth)
Craig, Capt. J. (Down, E.)
Craik, Sir H., K.C.B. (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)
Crean, Eugene (Cork, S.E.)
Crooks, W. (Woolwich)
Crosfield, A. H. (Warrington)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow, Camlachie)
Crossley, W. J. (Cheshire, Altrincham)
Cullinan, J. (Tipperary, S.)
Curran, Pete (Durham, Jarrow)
Dalmeny, Lord (Edinburgh, Midlothian)
Dalrymple, Capt. Viscount (Wigton)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
Davies, D. (Montgomeryshire)
Davies, Ellis W. (Carnarvonshire, Eifion),
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)
Davies, T. (Fulham)
Davies, Sir Mr. H. (Bristol, S.)
Delany, William (Queen's Co., Ossory)
Devlin, Joseph (Belfast, W.)
Dewar, A., K.C. (Edinburgh, S.)
Dewar, Sir John A., Bt. (Inverness)
Dickson, Charles Scotts K.C. (Glasgow Central)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir J., Bt. (Wilts, Chippenham)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir C. W., Bt. (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)
Dillon, John (Mayo, E.)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D., Bt. (Middlesex, Uxbridge)
Dobson, T. W. (Plymouth)
Donelan, Capt. A. J. C. (Cork, E.)
Doughty, Sir George (Great Grimsby)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. Aretas Akers (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Duckworth, Sir James (Stockport)
Du Cros, Arthur (Hastings)
Duffy, William J. (Galway, S.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, W.R., Otley)
Duncan, R. (Lanark, Govan)
Dunn, A. E. (Cornwall, Camborne)
Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)
Edwards, A. C. (Denbigh District)
Edwards, E. (Hanley)
Edwards, Sir Francis, Bt. (Radnor)
Elibank, Master of (Peebles and Selkirk)
Ellis, Right Hon. John Edward (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)
Emmott, Right Hon. Alfred (Oldham)
Erskine, D. C. (Perthshire, W.)
Esmonde, Eir T. Grattan, Bt. (Wexford, N.)
Essex, R. W. (Gloucestershire, Cirencester)
Esslemont, G. B. (Aberdeen, S.)
Evans, Sir Samuel Thomas, K.C. (Glamorgan, Mid)
Everett, R. L. (Suffolk, Woodbridge)
Faber, G. Denison (York)
Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, Andover)
Falconer, J. (Forfarshire)
Fardell, Sir T. George (Paddington, S.)
Farrell, James P. (Longford, N.)
Fell, A. (Great Yarmouth)
Fenwick, Charles (Northumberland, Wansbeck)
Ferens, T. R. (Hull, E.)
Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro (Leith Burghs)
Fetherstonhaugh, G. (Fermanagh, N.)
Ffrench, Peter (Wexford, S.)
Field, William (Dublin, St. Patrick)
Fiennes, Hon. E. E. (Oxfordshire, Banbury)
Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N.E.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph (Kerry, N.)
Fletcher, J. S. (Hampstead)
Flynn, James C. (Cork, N.)
Forster, Henry William (Kent, Sevenoaks)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter (Derby, Ilkeston)
Freeman-Thomas, F. (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Fuller, John Michael F. (Wilts, Westbury)
Fullerton, H. (Cumberland, Egremont)
Furness, Sir Christopher (Hartlepool)
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, Wokingham)
Gibb, J. ((Middlesex, Harrow)
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, W.)
Gilhooly, James (Cork Co., W.)
Gill, A. H. (Bolton)
Ginnell, L. (Westmeath, N.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J. (Leeds, W.)
Glen-Coats, Sir T., Bt. (Renfrewshire, W.)
Glendinning, R. (Antrim, N.)
Glover, T. (St. Helens)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford (Ipswich)
Gooch, G. P. (Bath)
Gooch, H. C. (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gordon, John, K.C. (Londonderry, S.)
Goulding, E. A. (Worcester)
Grant, Corrie, K.C. (Warwickshire, Rugby)
Grayson, Victor (Yorks, W.R., Colne Valley)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Greenwood, H. (York)
Gretton, John (Rutland)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward, Bt. (Northumberland, Berwick)
Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)
Grove, T. N. A. (Northants, S.)
Guest, Hon. Ivor C. (Cardiff District)
Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
Guinness, Hon. Walter (Bury St. Edmunds)
Gulland, J. W. (Dumfries Burghs)
Gurdon, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Brampton, K.C.M.G., C.B. (Norfolk, N.)
Gwynn, Stephen L. (Galway)
Haddock, G. B. (Lancashire, North Lonsdale)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B., K.C. (Haddington)
Hall, F. (Yorks, W.R., Normanton)
Halpin, J. (Clare, W.)
Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Lancashire,. N.E., Rossendale)
Harcourt, R.V. (Montrose Burghs)
Hardie, James Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hardy, G. A. (Suffolk, Stowmarket)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)
Harmood-Banner, J. S. (Liverpool, Everton)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Worcester, Droitwich)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester (Caithness)
Harrington, Timothy (Dublin, Harbour)
Harris, F. Leverton (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)
Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. (Yorks, E.R., Howdenshire)
Hart-Davies, T. (Hackney, N.)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Harwood, George (Bolton)
Haslam, J. (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)
Haslam, L. (Monmouth Boroughs)
Haworth, Arthur A. (Manchester, S.)
Hay, Hon. Claude G. D. (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
Hayden, John P. (Roscommon, S.)
Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. (West Bromwich)
Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)
Healy, Timothy M., K.C. (Louth, N.)
Heaton, J. Henniker (Canterbury)
Hedges, A. P. (Kent, Tonbridge)
Helme, Norval W. (Lancashire, N., Lancaster)
Helmsley, Viscount (Yorks, N.B., Thirsk)
Hemmerde, E. G., K.C. (Denbighshire, E.)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham, Barnard Castle)
Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Henry, C. S. (Shropshire, Wellington)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor, Bt., C.B., C.M.G. (Monmouthshire, S.)
Herbert, T. A. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Higham, John Sharp (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Hill, Sir Clement L., K.C.B., K.C.M.G. (Shrewsbury)
Hills, J. W. (Durham)
Hobart, Sir Robert, K.C.V.O., C.B. (Hants, New Forest)
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. (Bristol, E.)
Hodge, J. (Lancashire, S.E., Gorton)
Hodge, Sir Robert Hermon (Croydon)
Hogan, M. (Tipperary, N.)
Holden, E. H. (Lancashire, Heywood)
Holland, Sir William H., Bt. (Yorks, W.R., Rotherham)
Holt, R. D. (Northumberland, Hexham)
Hooper, A. G. (Dudley)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Hope, John D. (Fife, W.)
Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)
Hornby, Sir Wm. Henry, Bt. (Blackburn)
Horniman, E. J. (Chelsea)
Horridge, Thomas G., K.C. (Manchester, E.)
Houston, Robert P. (Liverpool, W. Toxteth)
Howard, Hon. G. (Cumberland, Eskdale)
Hudson, W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne)
Hunt, Rowland (Shropshire, Ludlow)
Hutton, Alfred E. (Yorks, W.R., Morley)
Hyde, C. G. (Wednesbury)
Idries, T. H. W. (Flint Boroughs)
Illingworth, P. (Yorks, W.R., Shipley)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel, K.C. (Reading)
Jackson, R. S. (Greenwich)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred (Derbyshire, Mid)
Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)
Jenkins, J. (Chatham)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Johnson, W. (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)
Joicey-Cecil, Lord John (Lincolnshire, Stamford)
Jones, Sir David Brynmor (Swansea, District)
Jones, Leif (Westmoreland, Appleby)
Jones, William (Carnarvon, Arfon)
Jordan, eremiah (Fermanagh, S.)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, W.)
Joyce, M. (Limerick)
Joynson-Hicks, W. (Manchester, N.W.)
Kavanagh, W. M. (Carlow)
Kearley, Sir Hudson E., Bt. (Devonport)
Kekewich, Sir G. W. (Exeter)
Kelley, G. D. (Manchester, S. W.)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H., Bt., C.B. (Devon, Honiton)
Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.)
Kerry, Lord (Derbyshire, W.)
Keswick, William (Surrey, Epsom)
Kettle, T. M. (Tyrone, E.)
Kilbride, Dennis (Kildare, S.)
Kimber, Sir Henry, Bt. (Wandsworth)
King, A. J. (Cheshire, Knutsford)
King, Sir H. Seymour, K.C.I.E. (Hull. Central)
Laidlaw, R. (Renfrew, E.)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Hereford, Leominster)
Lamb, Ernest H., C.M.G. (Rochester)
Lambert, George (Devon, South Molton)
Lambton, Hon. F. W. (Durham, S.E.)
Lamont, Norman (Buteshire)
Lane-Fox, G. (Yorks, W.R., Barkston Ash)
Langley, J. Batty (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Lardner, J. C. R. (Monaghan, N.)
Law, A. Bonar (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Layland-Barratt, Sir F., Bt. (Devon, Torquay)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)
Leese, Sir Joseph F., Bt., K.C. (Lancashire, N.E., Accrington)
Lehmann, R. C. (Leicester, Market Harborough)
Lever, A. L. (Essex, Harwich)
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Levy, Sir Maurice (Leicestershire, Loughborough)
Lewis, John Herbert (Flintshire)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David (Carnarvon, etc.)
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. Amelius, C.V.O. (Essex, Epping)
Long, Col. Charles W. (Worcestershire, Evesham
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter H. (Dublin, S.)
Lonsdale, John B. (Armagh, Mid)
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Islington, W.)
Lowe, Sir Francis W. (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. Wm. (Cumberland, Penrith), Speaker.
Lupton, A. (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)
Luttrell, H. F. (Devon, Tavistock)
Lyell, C. H. (Dorset, E.)
Lynch, H. F. B. (Yorks, W.R., Ripon)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. George's, Hanover Square)
MacCaw, W J. MacGeagh (Down, W.)
Macdonald, J. A. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Mackarness, F.C. (Berks, Newbury)
Maclean, D. (Bath)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. (Camberwell, N.)
MacNeill, J. G. Swift, K.C. (Donegal, S.)
Macpherson, J. T. (Preston)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
M'Arthur, C. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McCallum, J. (Paisley)
McCalmont, Col. James (Antrim, E.)
McCrae, Sir George (Edinburgh, E.)
McHugh, Patrick A. (Sligo, N.)
McIver, Sir Lewis, Bt., (Edinburgh, W.)
McKean, J. (Monaghan, S.)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Monmouth, N.)
McKillop, W. (Armagh, S.)
McLaren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. Bright, Bt., K.C. (Leicester, Bosworth)
McLaren, H. D. (Staffordshire, W.)
McMicking, Major G. (Kirkcudbrightshire)
McVeigh, C. (Donegal, E.)
Maddison, F. (Burnley)
Magnus, Sir P. (London University)
Mallet, C. E. (Plymouth)
Manfield, H. (Northants, Mid.)
Mansfield, H. R. (Lincoln, Spalding)
Markham, A. B. (Notts, Mansfield)
Marks, G. C. (Cornwall, Launceston)
Marks, H. H. (Kent, Thanet)
Marnham, F. J. (Surrey, Chertsey)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Mason, J. F. (Windsor)
Massie, John (Wilts, Cricklade)
Masterman, C. F. G. (West Ham, N.)
Meagher, Michael (Kilkenny, N.)
Meehan, F. (Leitrim, N.)
Meehan, P. A. (Queen's County, Leix)
Menzies, W. (Lanark, S.)
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. (Stafford, Handsworth)
Micklem, N., K.C. (Herts, Watford)
Middlebrook, W. (Leeds, S.)
Middlemore, John T. (Birmingham, N.)
Mildmay, Francis B. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell-Thomson, W. (Lanark, N.W.)
Molteno, P. A. (Dumfriesshire)
Mond, A. (Chester)
Montagu, Hon. E. S. (Cambs, Chesterton)
Montgomery, H. G. (Somerset, Bridg-water)
Mooney, John J. (Newry)
Moore, W., K.C. (Armagh, N.)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall, Truro)
Morgan, John Lloyd, K.C. (Carmarthen, w.)
Morpeth, Viscount (Birmingham. S.)
Morrell, P. (Oxon, Henley)
Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Devon, Ashburton)
Morse, L. L. (Wilts, Wilton)
Morton, A. C. (Sutherland)
Muldoon, John (Wicklow, E.)
Muntz, Sir Philip Albert, Bt. (Warwickshire, Tamworth)
Murnaghan, George (Tyrone, Mid)
Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)
Murphy, Nicholas J. (Kilkenny, S.)
Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincardineshire)
Murray, James (Aberdeenshire, E.)
Myer, Horatio (Lambeth, N.)
Nannetti, Joseph P. (Dublin, College Green)
Napier, T. B. (Kent, Faversham)
Newdegate, F. A. N. (Warwickshire, Tam-worth)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Newnes, Sir George, Bt. (Swansea Town)
Nicholls, G. (Northants, N.)
Nicholson, C. N. (Yorks, W.R., Doncaster),
Nicholson, William G. (Hants, Petersfield)
Nield, H. (Middlesex, Ealing)
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)
Norman, Sir Henry (Wolverhampton, S.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil W. (Newington, W.)
Nugent, Sir W. R., Bt. (Westmeath, S.)
Nussey, Thomas Willans (Pontefract)
Nuttall, Harry (Lancashire, S.E., Stretford)
O'Brien, K. E. (Tipperary, Mid)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
O'Brien, William (Cork)
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
O'Connor, Thomas P. (Liverpool, Scotland)
Oddy, J. J. (Yorks, W.R., Pudsey)
O'Doherty, P. (Donegal, N.)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Newington, Walworth)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)
O'Dowd, John (Sligo, S.)
O'Grady, J. (Leeds, E.)
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
O'Malley, William (Galway, Connemara)
O'Neill, Hon. R. Torrens (Antrim, Mid.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. (Limerick. W.)
O'Shee, James John (Waterford, W.)
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Parker, J. (Halifax)
Parkes, Ebenezer (Birmingham, Central)
Partington, Oswald (Derbyshire, High Peak)
Paul, H. W. (Northampton)
Paulton, James M. (Durham, Bishop Auckland)
Pearce, R. (Staffordshire, Leek Beech-croft)
Pearce, W. (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)
Pearson, Harold (Suffolk, Eye)
Pearson, Sir Weetman D., Bt. (Colchester)
Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Essex, Saffron Walden)
Peel, Hon. R. W. (Taunton)
Percy, Lord (Kensington, S.)
Pe ks, Sir Robert W., Bt. (Lincolnshire, Louth)
Philips, John (Longford, S.)
Philipps, Lt.-Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Philipps, O. C. (Pembroke and Haverfordwest)
Pickersgill, E. H. (Bethnal Green, S.W.)
Pirie, Duncan Vernon (Aberdeen, N.)
Pollard, Dr. G. H. (Lancashire, S.E., Eccles)
Ponsonby, A. A. W. H. (Stirling Burghs)
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp, Bt. (Wigan)
Power, Patrick J. (Waterford, E.)
Pretyman, Captain E. G. (Chelmsford, Essex)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Price, Sir Robert John (Norfolk, East)
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Pullar, Sir Robert (Perth)
Radford, G. H. (Islington, E.)
Rainy, A. R. (Kilmarnock Burghs)
Randles, Sir J. S. (Cumberland, Cocker-mouth)
Raphael, H. H. (Derbyshire, S.)
Ratcliff, R. F. (Staffordshire, Burton)
Rawlinson, J. F. P., K.C. (Cambridge University)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Rea, W. R. (Scarborough)
Reddy, M. (King's County, Birr)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Redmond, William H. K. (Clare, E.)
Rees, J. D., C.V.O., C.I.E. (Montgomery Boroughs)
Rem ant, James F. (Finsbury, Holborn)
Rendall, A. (Gloucester, Thornbury)
Renton, Major Leslie (Lincolnshire, Gains-borough)
Renwick, G. (Newcastle-on-Tyne)
Richards, Tom (Monmouthshire, W.)
Richards, T. Fred (Wolverhampton, W.)
Richardson, A. (Nottingham, S.)
Ridsdale, E. A. (Brighton)
Roberts, Charles (Lincoln)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Roberts, Sir John Herbert, Bt. (Denbighshire, W.)
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford, Central)
Robertson, J. M. (Northumberland, Tyneside)
Robinson, S. (Breeknock)
Robson, Sir Wm. Snowdon, K.C. (South Shields)
Roch, W. F. (Pembroke)
Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Roe, Sir Thomas (Derby)
Rogers, F. N. (Wilts, Devizes)
Ronaldshay, Lord (Middlesex, Hornsey)
Ropner, Col. Sir E. H. O. R., Bt. (Stockton)
Rose, Charles D. (Cambridge, New-market)
Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W. (Bucks, Aylesbury)
Rowlands, J. (Kent, Dartford)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)
Russell, Thomas W. (Tyrone, S.)
Rutherford, John (Lancashire, N.E., Darwen)
Rutherford, Dr. V. H. (Middlesex, Brent-ford)
Rutherford, William W. (Liverpool, W., Derby)
Salter, A. Clavell, K.C. (Hants, N.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Herbert Louis (Yorkshire, Cleveland)
Samuel, Stuart M. (Tower Hamlets Whitechapel)
Sandys, Col. Thomas M. (Lancashire, Bootle)
Sassoon, Sir Edward A., Bt. (Hythe)
Scarisbrick, T. L. (Dorset, S.)
Schwann, C. D. (Cheshire, Hyde)
Schwann, Sir Charles E., Bt. (Manchester, N.)
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Scott, Sir Samuel E., Bt. (Marylebone, W.)
Sears, J. E. (Cheltenham)
Seaverns, J. H. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Seddon, J. R. (Lancashire, S.W., Newton)
Seely, Col. J. E. B. (Liverpool, Abercromby)
Shackleton, David (Lancashire, N.E., Clitheroe)
Shaw, Sir Charles Edward, Bt. (Stafford)
Sheehan, Daniel D. (Cork Co., Mid)
Sheehy, David (Meath, S.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley, Bt. (Lincolnshire, Brigg)
Sherwell, A. J. (Huddersfield)
Shipman, Dr. John G. (Northampton)
Silcock, T. B. (Somerset, Wells)
Simon, J. A., K.C. (Essex, Walthamstow)
Sloan, Thomas H. (Belfast, S.)
Smeaton, D. M. (Stirlingshire)
Smith, Abel Henry (Herts, Hertford)
Smith, F. E., K.C. (Liverpool, Walton)
Smith, Capt. M. K. (Warwickshire, Stratford-upon-Avon)
Smith, Hon. W. Fred. D. (Strand, Westminster)
Smyth, T. F. (Leitrim, S.)
Snowden, P. (Blackburn)
Soames, Arthur W. (Norfolk, S.)
Soares, Ernest J. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spicer, Sir Albert, Bt. (Hackney, Central)
Stanger, H. Y., K.C. (Kensington, N.)
Stanier, B. (Shropshire, Newport)
Stanley, Hon. A. L. (Cheshire, Eddisbury)
Stanley, Hon. Arthur, C.V.O. (Lancashire, S.W.)
Stanley, Albert (Staffordshire, N.W.)
Starkey, J. R. (Notts, Newark)
Stavely-Hill, H. (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)
Steadman, W. C. (Finsbury, Central)
Stewart, H. (Greenock)
Stewart-Smith, D., K.C. (Westmoreland, Kendal)
Stone, Sir John Benjamin (Birmingham, E.)
Strachey, Sir Edward, Bt. (Somerset, S.)
Straus, B. S. (Tower Hamlets, Mile End)
Strauss, E. A. (Berks, Abingdon)
Stuart, J. (Sunderland)
Summerbell, T. (Sunderland)
Sutherland, J. E. (Elgin Burghs)
Talbot, Lord Edmund, M.V.O. (Sussex, Chichester)
Talbot, Rt. Hon. John G. (Oxford University)
Taylor, Austin (Liverpool, E. Toxteth)
Taylor, J. W. (Durham, Chester-le-Street)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Lancashire, S.E., Radcliffe)
Tennant, Sir E. P., Bt. (Salisbury)
Tennant, Harold John (Berwickshire)
Thomas, Abel, K.C. (Carmarthenshire, E.)
Thomas, Sir Alfred (Glamorganshire, E.)
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thomasson, F. (Leicester)
Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Thorne, Will (West Ham, S.)
Thornton, Percy M. (Clapham)
Tillett, Louis John (Norwich)
Tomkinson, James (Cheshire, Crewe)
Toulmin, George (Bury, Lancashire)
Trevelyan, Charles P. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Tuke, Sir John Batty (Edin. and St. Andrew's Universities)
Ure, Alexander, K.C. (Linlithgow)
Valentia, Rt. Hon. Lord (Oxford)
Verney, F. W. (Bucks, N.)
Villiers, Ernest Amherst (Brighton)
Vivian, Henry (Birkenhead)
Wadsworth, J. (Yorks., W.R., Hallamshire)
Waldron, L. A. (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)
Walker, H. de R. (Leicestershire, Melton)
Walker, Col. William H. (Lancashire, S.W., Widnes)
Walrond, Hon. L. (Devon, Tiverton)
Walsh, S. (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)
Walters, J. T. (Sheffield, Brightside)
Walton, Joseph (Yorks, W.R., Barnsley)
Ward, J. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Ward, W. D. (Southampton)
Warde, Col. Charles E. (Kent, Medway)
Wardle, G. J. (Stockport)
Waring, Capt. W. (Banffshire)
Warner, T. Courtenay T. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wason, Rt. Hon. Eugene (Clackmannan and Kinross)
Wason, J. C. (Orkney and Shetland)
Waterlow, D. S. (Islington, N.)
Watt, H. A. (Glasgow, College)
Wedgwood, J. C. (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Weir, James Galloway (Ross and Cromarty)
Whitbread, S. H. (Hunts, Huntingdon)
White, Sir George (Norfolk, N. W.)
White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R., Buckrose)
White, Patrick (Meath, N.)
Whitehead, R. (Essex, S.E.)
Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. (Yorks, W.R., Spen Valley)
Wiles, Thomas (Islington, S.)
Wilkie, A. (Dundee)
Williams, A. Osmond (Merionethshire)
Williams, J. (Glamorgan, W.)
Williams, Col. Robert (Dorset, W.)
Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen District)
Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)
Wills, A. W. (Dorset, N.)
Wilson, Arthur S. (Yorks, E.R., Holderness)
Wilson, Hon. Guy G. (Hull, W.)
Wilson, Henry Joseph (Yorks, W.R., Holmfirth)
Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Wilson, John William (Worcestershire, N.)
Wilson, P. Whitwell (St. Pancras, S.)
Wilson, W. T. (Lancashire, S.E., Westhoughton)
Winfrey, R. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Winterton, Earl (Sussex, Horsham)
Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)
Wolff, Gustavus Wilhelm (Belfast, E.)
Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow, St. Rollox)
Wortley, Rt. Hon. Charles B. Stewart, K. C. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George (Dover)
Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Younger, G. (Ayr Burghs)
Yoxall, James Henry (Nottingham, W.)
|
S5CV0001P0_e853f53d45e0381f
| null |
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 3437}
|
Abraham, William (Glamorgan, Rhondda)
Abraham, William (Cork Co., N.E.)
Acland, F. D. (Yorkshire, Richmond)
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir A., Bt. (Somerset, Wellington)
Adkins, W. R. (Lancashire, S.E., Middleton)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. (Cornwall, St. Austell)
Agnew, George William (Salford, W.)
Ainsworth, John S. (Argyll)
Alden, Percy (Middlesex, Tottenham)
Allen, A. A. (Christchurch)
Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester, Stroud)
Ambrose, Dr. Robert (Mayo, W.)
Anson, Sir William R., Bt. (Oxford University)
Anstruther-Gray, Major (St. Andrews Burghs)
Arkwright, John S. (Hereford)
Armitage, R. (Leeds, Central)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton- (Suffolk, Sudbury)
Ashley, W. W. (Lancashire, N., Blackpool)
Ashton, Thomas Gair (Beds, Luton)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. (Fife, E.)
Astbury, J. M., K.C. (Lancashire, South port)
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn, K.C. (Durham, N. W.)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H., Bt., C.B (Sussex, Lewes)
|
S5CV0001P0_e2cba0ff7243dbe1
| null |
A
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 129}
|
Baker, J. Allen (Finsbury, E.)
Baker, Sir J. (Portsmouth)
Balcarres, Lord (Lancashire, N., Chorley)
Baldwin, S. (Worcester, Bewdley)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. Arthur J. (City of London)
Balfour, R. (Lanark, Partick)
Banbury, Sir F., Bt. (City of London)
Baring, G. (Isle of Wight)
Baring, Hon. G. V. (Winchester)
Barker, Sir John, Bt. (Penryn and Falmouth)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott, Bt. (Somerset, Frome)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)
Barnard, E.B. (Kidderminster)
Barnes, G.N. (Glasgow, Blackfriars)
Barran, Sir John, Bart. (Hawick Burghs)
Barran, Rowland H. (Leeds, N.)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)
Barry, Edward (Cork Co., S.)
Barry, Redmond, K.C. (Tyrone, N.)
Beach, Hon. M. Hicks (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)
Beale, W. P., K.C. (Ayrshire, S.)
Beauchamp, Edward (Suffolk, Lowestoft)
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert (Sussex, Eastbourne)
Beck, A. C. (Cambridge, Wisbech)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase (York, N.R., Whitby)
Bell, Richard (Derby)
Bellairs, C. (Lynn Regis)
Belloc, Hilaire V. P. R. (Salford, S.)
Benn, Sir John W. (Devonport)
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)
Bennett, E. N. (Oxfordshire, Woodstock)
Berridge, T. H. D. (Warwick and Leamington)
Bertram, J. (Herts, Hitchin)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)
Bignold, Sir Arthur (Wick Burghs)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. A., K.C. (Bristol, N.)
Black, A. W. (Beds, Biggleswade)
Boland, John P. (Kerry, S.)
Bottomley, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Boulton, A. C. F. (Hunts, Ramsey)
Bowerman, C. W. (Deptford)
Bowles, G. Stewart (Lambeth, Norwood)
Brace, W. (Glamorgan, S.)
Bramsdon, T. A. (Portsmouth)
Branch, J. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Bridgeman, W. C. (Shropshire, Oswestry)
Brigg, John (Yorks, W.R., Keighley)
Bright, J. A. (Oldham)
Brocklehurst, W. B. (Cheshire, Macclesfield)
Brodie, H. C. (Surrey, Reigate)
Brooke, S. W. (Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley)
Brotherton, E. A. (Wakefield)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancashire, S.W., Leigh)
Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir John T., Bt. (Cheshire, Northwich)
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)
Buchanan Rt. Hon. Thomas R. (Perthshire, E.)
Buckmaster, S. O., K.C. (Cambridge)
Bull, Sir William James (Hammersmith)
Burdett-Coutts, W. L. A. B. (Westminster)
Burke. E. Haviland (King's County, Tullamore)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)
Burnyeat, W. J. D. (Whitehaven)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Morpeth)
Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge University)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
Byles, William Pollard (Salford, N.)
|
S5CV0001P0_a89489017fafefcf
| null |
B
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 355}
|
Caldwell, James (Lanark, Mid)
Cameron, Robert (Durham, Houghton-le-Spring)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M., K.C. (Dublin University).
Carlile, E. H. (Hearts, St. Albans)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. (Southwark, Rotherhithe)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H., K.C. (Dublin University)
Castlereagh, Lord (Maidstone)
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight (Southwark, W.)
Cave, G., K.C. (Surrey, Kingston)
Cawley, Sir Frederick, Bt. (Lancs., Prestwich)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Cecil, Lord Robert, K.C. (Marylebone, E.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. Austen (Worcestershire, E.)
Chance, F. W. (Carlisle)
Channing, Sir Francis A., Bt. (Northants, E.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. H. (Surrey, Wimbledon)
Cheetham, J. F. (Stalybridge)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R., K.C. (Liverpool, Exchange)
Chiozza-Money, L. G. (Paddington, N.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Dundee)
Clancy, John J. (Dublin Co., N.)
Clark, George (Belfast, N.)
Cleland, J. W. (Glasgow, Bridgeton).
Clive, Capt. P. A. (Herefordshire, Ross)
Clough, W. (Yorks, W.R., Skipton)
Clynes, J. R. (Manchester, N.E.)
Coates, Major, E. F. (Lewisham)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley (Ipswich)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. (Ayrshire, N.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse (Birmingham, Bordesley)
Collins, S. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Collins, Sir W. J. (St. Pancras, W.)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. (Yorks, W.R., Osgoldcross)
Condon, Thomas J. (Tipperary, E )
Cooper, Dr. G. (Southwark, Bermondsey)
Corbett, Arch. Cameron (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, East Grinstead)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, N.)
Cornwall, Sir E. A. (Bethnal Green, N.E.)
Cory, Sir C. J., Bt. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. (Nottingham, E.)
Courthope, G. L. (Sussex, Rye)
Cowan, W. H. (Surrey, Guildford)
Cox, Harold (Preston)
Craig, Charles C. (Antrim, S.)
Craig, H. J. (Tynemouth)
Craig, Capt. J. (Down, E.)
Craik, Sir H., K.C.B. (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)
Crean, Eugene (Cork, S.E.)
Crooks, W. (Woolwich)
Crosfield, A. H. (Warrington)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow, Camlachie)
Crossley, W. J. (Cheshire, Altrincham)
Cullinan, J. (Tipperary, S.)
Curran, Pete (Durham, Jarrow)
|
S5CV0001P0_9f6f7ce34c4732f2
| null |
C
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 302}
|
Dalmeny, Lord (Edinburgh, Midlothian)
Dalrymple, Capt. Viscount (Wigton)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
Davies, D. (Montgomeryshire)
Davies, Ellis W. (Carnarvonshire, Eifion),
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)
Davies, T. (Fulham)
Davies, Sir Mr. H. (Bristol, S.)
Delany, William (Queen's Co., Ossory)
Devlin, Joseph (Belfast, W.)
Dewar, A., K.C. (Edinburgh, S.)
Dewar, Sir John A., Bt. (Inverness)
Dickson, Charles Scotts K.C. (Glasgow Central)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir J., Bt. (Wilts, Chippenham)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir C. W., Bt. (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)
Dillon, John (Mayo, E.)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D., Bt. (Middlesex, Uxbridge)
Dobson, T. W. (Plymouth)
Donelan, Capt. A. J. C. (Cork, E.)
Doughty, Sir George (Great Grimsby)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. Aretas Akers (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Duckworth, Sir James (Stockport)
Du Cros, Arthur (Hastings)
Duffy, William J. (Galway, S.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, W.R., Otley)
Duncan, R. (Lanark, Govan)
Dunn, A. E. (Cornwall, Camborne)
Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)
|
S5CV0001P0_26a5e1ca31a710a2
| null |
D
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 155}
|
Edwards, A. C. (Denbigh District)
Edwards, E. (Hanley)
Edwards, Sir Francis, Bt. (Radnor)
Elibank, Master of (Peebles and Selkirk)
Ellis, Right Hon. John Edward (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)
Emmott, Right Hon. Alfred (Oldham)
Erskine, D. C. (Perthshire, W.)
Esmonde, Eir T. Grattan, Bt. (Wexford, N.)
Essex, R. W. (Gloucestershire, Cirencester)
Esslemont, G. B. (Aberdeen, S.)
Evans, Sir Samuel Thomas, K.C. (Glamorgan, Mid)
Everett, R. L. (Suffolk, Woodbridge)
|
S5CV0001P0_c155d82bb8112f14
| null |
E
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 65}
|
Faber, G. Denison (York)
Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, Andover)
Falconer, J. (Forfarshire)
Fardell, Sir T. George (Paddington, S.)
Farrell, James P. (Longford, N.)
Fell, A. (Great Yarmouth)
Fenwick, Charles (Northumberland, Wansbeck)
Ferens, T. R. (Hull, E.)
Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro (Leith Burghs)
Fetherstonhaugh, G. (Fermanagh, N.)
Ffrench, Peter (Wexford, S.)
Field, William (Dublin, St. Patrick)
Fiennes, Hon. E. E. (Oxfordshire, Banbury)
Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N.E.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph (Kerry, N.)
Fletcher, J. S. (Hampstead)
Flynn, James C. (Cork, N.)
Forster, Henry William (Kent, Sevenoaks)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter (Derby, Ilkeston)
Freeman-Thomas, F. (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Fuller, John Michael F. (Wilts, Westbury)
Fullerton, H. (Cumberland, Egremont)
Furness, Sir Christopher (Hartlepool)
|
S5CV0001P0_fccddba67b49295e
| null |
F
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 114}
|
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, Wokingham)
Gibb, J. ((Middlesex, Harrow)
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, W.)
Gilhooly, James (Cork Co., W.)
Gill, A. H. (Bolton)
Ginnell, L. (Westmeath, N.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J. (Leeds, W.)
Glen-Coats, Sir T., Bt. (Renfrewshire, W.)
Glendinning, R. (Antrim, N.)
Glover, T. (St. Helens)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford (Ipswich)
Gooch, G. P. (Bath)
Gooch, H. C. (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gordon, John, K.C. (Londonderry, S.)
Goulding, E. A. (Worcester)
Grant, Corrie, K.C. (Warwickshire, Rugby)
Grayson, Victor (Yorks, W.R., Colne Valley)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Greenwood, H. (York)
Gretton, John (Rutland)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward, Bt. (Northumberland, Berwick)
Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)
Grove, T. N. A. (Northants, S.)
Guest, Hon. Ivor C. (Cardiff District)
Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
Guinness, Hon. Walter (Bury St. Edmunds)
Gulland, J. W. (Dumfries Burghs)
Gurdon, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Brampton, K.C.M.G., C.B. (Norfolk, N.)
Gwynn, Stephen L. (Galway)
|
S5CV0001P0_e55ebd7a09d09b54
| null |
G
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 144}
|
Haddock, G. B. (Lancashire, North Lonsdale)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B., K.C. (Haddington)
Hall, F. (Yorks, W.R., Normanton)
Halpin, J. (Clare, W.)
Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Lancashire,. N.E., Rossendale)
Harcourt, R.V. (Montrose Burghs)
Hardie, James Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hardy, G. A. (Suffolk, Stowmarket)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)
Harmood-Banner, J. S. (Liverpool, Everton)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Worcester, Droitwich)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester (Caithness)
Harrington, Timothy (Dublin, Harbour)
Harris, F. Leverton (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)
Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. (Yorks, E.R., Howdenshire)
Hart-Davies, T. (Hackney, N.)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Harwood, George (Bolton)
Haslam, J. (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)
Haslam, L. (Monmouth Boroughs)
Haworth, Arthur A. (Manchester, S.)
Hay, Hon. Claude G. D. (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
Hayden, John P. (Roscommon, S.)
Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. (West Bromwich)
Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)
Healy, Timothy M., K.C. (Louth, N.)
Heaton, J. Henniker (Canterbury)
Hedges, A. P. (Kent, Tonbridge)
Helme, Norval W. (Lancashire, N., Lancaster)
Helmsley, Viscount (Yorks, N.B., Thirsk)
Hemmerde, E. G., K.C. (Denbighshire, E.)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham, Barnard Castle)
Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Henry, C. S. (Shropshire, Wellington)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor, Bt., C.B., C.M.G. (Monmouthshire, S.)
Herbert, T. A. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Higham, John Sharp (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Hill, Sir Clement L., K.C.B., K.C.M.G. (Shrewsbury)
Hills, J. W. (Durham)
Hobart, Sir Robert, K.C.V.O., C.B. (Hants, New Forest)
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. (Bristol, E.)
Hodge, J. (Lancashire, S.E., Gorton)
Hodge, Sir Robert Hermon (Croydon)
Hogan, M. (Tipperary, N.)
Holden, E. H. (Lancashire, Heywood)
Holland, Sir William H., Bt. (Yorks, W.R., Rotherham)
Holt, R. D. (Northumberland, Hexham)
Hooper, A. G. (Dudley)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Hope, John D. (Fife, W.)
Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)
Hornby, Sir Wm. Henry, Bt. (Blackburn)
Horniman, E. J. (Chelsea)
Horridge, Thomas G., K.C. (Manchester, E.)
Houston, Robert P. (Liverpool, W. Toxteth)
Howard, Hon. G. (Cumberland, Eskdale)
Hudson, W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne)
Hunt, Rowland (Shropshire, Ludlow)
Hutton, Alfred E. (Yorks, W.R., Morley)
Hyde, C. G. (Wednesbury)
|
S5CV0001P0_056b08d436724a7b
| null |
H
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 323}
|
Idries, T. H. W. (Flint Boroughs)
Illingworth, P. (Yorks, W.R., Shipley)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel, K.C. (Reading)
|
S5CV0001P0_a1de85626ed556c8
| null |
I
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 16}
|
Jackson, R. S. (Greenwich)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred (Derbyshire, Mid)
Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)
Jenkins, J. (Chatham)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Johnson, W. (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)
Joicey-Cecil, Lord John (Lincolnshire, Stamford)
Jones, Sir David Brynmor (Swansea, District)
Jones, Leif (Westmoreland, Appleby)
Jones, William (Carnarvon, Arfon)
Jordan, eremiah (Fermanagh, S.)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, W.)
Joyce, M. (Limerick)
Joynson-Hicks, W. (Manchester, N.W.)
|
S5CV0001P0_f8168e28af8154ee
| null |
J
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 59}
|
Kavanagh, W. M. (Carlow)
Kearley, Sir Hudson E., Bt. (Devonport)
Kekewich, Sir G. W. (Exeter)
Kelley, G. D. (Manchester, S. W.)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H., Bt., C.B. (Devon, Honiton)
Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.)
Kerry, Lord (Derbyshire, W.)
Keswick, William (Surrey, Epsom)
Kettle, T. M. (Tyrone, E.)
Kilbride, Dennis (Kildare, S.)
Kimber, Sir Henry, Bt. (Wandsworth)
King, A. J. (Cheshire, Knutsford)
King, Sir H. Seymour, K.C.I.E. (Hull. Central)
|
S5CV0001P0_65a1c9039242330a
| null |
K
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 70}
|
Laidlaw, R. (Renfrew, E.)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Hereford, Leominster)
Lamb, Ernest H., C.M.G. (Rochester)
Lambert, George (Devon, South Molton)
Lambton, Hon. F. W. (Durham, S.E.)
Lamont, Norman (Buteshire)
Lane-Fox, G. (Yorks, W.R., Barkston Ash)
Langley, J. Batty (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Lardner, J. C. R. (Monaghan, N.)
Law, A. Bonar (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Layland-Barratt, Sir F., Bt. (Devon, Torquay)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)
Leese, Sir Joseph F., Bt., K.C. (Lancashire, N.E., Accrington)
Lehmann, R. C. (Leicester, Market Harborough)
Lever, A. L. (Essex, Harwich)
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Levy, Sir Maurice (Leicestershire, Loughborough)
Lewis, John Herbert (Flintshire)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David (Carnarvon, etc.)
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. Amelius, C.V.O. (Essex, Epping)
Long, Col. Charles W. (Worcestershire, Evesham
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter H. (Dublin, S.)
Lonsdale, John B. (Armagh, Mid)
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Islington, W.)
Lowe, Sir Francis W. (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. Wm. (Cumberland, Penrith), Speaker.
Lupton, A. (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)
Luttrell, H. F. (Devon, Tavistock)
Lyell, C. H. (Dorset, E.)
Lynch, H. F. B. (Yorks, W.R., Ripon)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. George's, Hanover Square)
|
S5CV0001P0_f93c6963213a6d6f
| null |
L
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 187}
|
MacCaw, W J. MacGeagh (Down, W.)
Macdonald, J. A. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Mackarness, F.C. (Berks, Newbury)
Maclean, D. (Bath)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. (Camberwell, N.)
MacNeill, J. G. Swift, K.C. (Donegal, S.)
Macpherson, J. T. (Preston)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
M'Arthur, C. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McCallum, J. (Paisley)
McCalmont, Col. James (Antrim, E.)
McCrae, Sir George (Edinburgh, E.)
McHugh, Patrick A. (Sligo, N.)
McIver, Sir Lewis, Bt., (Edinburgh, W.)
McKean, J. (Monaghan, S.)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Monmouth, N.)
McKillop, W. (Armagh, S.)
McLaren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. Bright, Bt., K.C. (Leicester, Bosworth)
McLaren, H. D. (Staffordshire, W.)
McMicking, Major G. (Kirkcudbrightshire)
McVeigh, C. (Donegal, E.)
Maddison, F. (Burnley)
Magnus, Sir P. (London University)
Mallet, C. E. (Plymouth)
Manfield, H. (Northants, Mid.)
Mansfield, H. R. (Lincoln, Spalding)
Markham, A. B. (Notts, Mansfield)
Marks, G. C. (Cornwall, Launceston)
Marks, H. H. (Kent, Thanet)
Marnham, F. J. (Surrey, Chertsey)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Mason, J. F. (Windsor)
Massie, John (Wilts, Cricklade)
Masterman, C. F. G. (West Ham, N.)
Meagher, Michael (Kilkenny, N.)
Meehan, F. (Leitrim, N.)
Meehan, P. A. (Queen's County, Leix)
Menzies, W. (Lanark, S.)
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. (Stafford, Handsworth)
Micklem, N., K.C. (Herts, Watford)
Middlebrook, W. (Leeds, S.)
Middlemore, John T. (Birmingham, N.)
Mildmay, Francis B. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell-Thomson, W. (Lanark, N.W.)
Molteno, P. A. (Dumfriesshire)
Mond, A. (Chester)
Montagu, Hon. E. S. (Cambs, Chesterton)
Montgomery, H. G. (Somerset, Bridg-water)
Mooney, John J. (Newry)
Moore, W., K.C. (Armagh, N.)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall, Truro)
Morgan, John Lloyd, K.C. (Carmarthen, w.)
Morpeth, Viscount (Birmingham. S.)
Morrell, P. (Oxon, Henley)
Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Devon, Ashburton)
Morse, L. L. (Wilts, Wilton)
Morton, A. C. (Sutherland)
Muldoon, John (Wicklow, E.)
Muntz, Sir Philip Albert, Bt. (Warwickshire, Tamworth)
Murnaghan, George (Tyrone, Mid)
Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)
Murphy, Nicholas J. (Kilkenny, S.)
Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincardineshire)
Murray, James (Aberdeenshire, E.)
Myer, Horatio (Lambeth, N.)
|
S5CV0001P0_af5a66f5989ae215
| null |
M
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 316}
|
Nannetti, Joseph P. (Dublin, College Green)
Napier, T. B. (Kent, Faversham)
Newdegate, F. A. N. (Warwickshire, Tam-worth)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Newnes, Sir George, Bt. (Swansea Town)
Nicholls, G. (Northants, N.)
Nicholson, C. N. (Yorks, W.R., Doncaster),
Nicholson, William G. (Hants, Petersfield)
Nield, H. (Middlesex, Ealing)
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)
Norman, Sir Henry (Wolverhampton, S.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil W. (Newington, W.)
Nugent, Sir W. R., Bt. (Westmeath, S.)
Nussey, Thomas Willans (Pontefract)
Nuttall, Harry (Lancashire, S.E., Stretford)
|
S5CV0001P0_bf82cb9af55cfd2d
| null |
N
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 77}
|
O'Brien, K. E. (Tipperary, Mid)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
O'Brien, William (Cork)
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
O'Connor, Thomas P. (Liverpool, Scotland)
Oddy, J. J. (Yorks, W.R., Pudsey)
O'Doherty, P. (Donegal, N.)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Newington, Walworth)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)
O'Dowd, John (Sligo, S.)
O'Grady, J. (Leeds, E.)
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
O'Malley, William (Galway, Connemara)
O'Neill, Hon. R. Torrens (Antrim, Mid.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. (Limerick. W.)
O'Shee, James John (Waterford, W.)
|
S5CV0001P0_8a4afa0da07b2d08
| null |
O
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 83}
|
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Parker, J. (Halifax)
Parkes, Ebenezer (Birmingham, Central)
Partington, Oswald (Derbyshire, High Peak)
Paul, H. W. (Northampton)
Paulton, James M. (Durham, Bishop Auckland)
Pearce, R. (Staffordshire, Leek Beech-croft)
Pearce, W. (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)
Pearson, Harold (Suffolk, Eye)
Pearson, Sir Weetman D., Bt. (Colchester)
Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Essex, Saffron Walden)
Peel, Hon. R. W. (Taunton)
Percy, Lord (Kensington, S.)
Pe ks, Sir Robert W., Bt. (Lincolnshire, Louth)
Philips, John (Longford, S.)
Philipps, Lt.-Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Philipps, O. C. (Pembroke and Haverfordwest)
Pickersgill, E. H. (Bethnal Green, S.W.)
Pirie, Duncan Vernon (Aberdeen, N.)
Pollard, Dr. G. H. (Lancashire, S.E., Eccles)
Ponsonby, A. A. W. H. (Stirling Burghs)
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp, Bt. (Wigan)
Power, Patrick J. (Waterford, E.)
Pretyman, Captain E. G. (Chelmsford, Essex)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Price, Sir Robert John (Norfolk, East)
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Pullar, Sir Robert (Perth)
Radford, G. H. (Islington, E.)
|
S5CV0001P0_9183c2dbf0bd2b19
| null |
P
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 160}
|
Rainy, A. R. (Kilmarnock Burghs)
Randles, Sir J. S. (Cumberland, Cocker-mouth)
Raphael, H. H. (Derbyshire, S.)
Ratcliff, R. F. (Staffordshire, Burton)
Rawlinson, J. F. P., K.C. (Cambridge University)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Rea, W. R. (Scarborough)
Reddy, M. (King's County, Birr)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Redmond, William H. K. (Clare, E.)
Rees, J. D., C.V.O., C.I.E. (Montgomery Boroughs)
Rem ant, James F. (Finsbury, Holborn)
Rendall, A. (Gloucester, Thornbury)
Renton, Major Leslie (Lincolnshire, Gains-borough)
Renwick, G. (Newcastle-on-Tyne)
Richards, Tom (Monmouthshire, W.)
Richards, T. Fred (Wolverhampton, W.)
Richardson, A. (Nottingham, S.)
Ridsdale, E. A. (Brighton)
Roberts, Charles (Lincoln)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Roberts, Sir John Herbert, Bt. (Denbighshire, W.)
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford, Central)
Robertson, J. M. (Northumberland, Tyneside)
Robinson, S. (Breeknock)
Robson, Sir Wm. Snowdon, K.C. (South Shields)
Roch, W. F. (Pembroke)
Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Roe, Sir Thomas (Derby)
Rogers, F. N. (Wilts, Devizes)
Ronaldshay, Lord (Middlesex, Hornsey)
Ropner, Col. Sir E. H. O. R., Bt. (Stockton)
Rose, Charles D. (Cambridge, New-market)
Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W. (Bucks, Aylesbury)
Rowlands, J. (Kent, Dartford)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)
Russell, Thomas W. (Tyrone, S.)
Rutherford, John (Lancashire, N.E., Darwen)
Rutherford, Dr. V. H. (Middlesex, Brent-ford)
Rutherford, William W. (Liverpool, W., Derby)
|
S5CV0001P0_6868acc956560019
| null |
R
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 206}
|
Salter, A. Clavell, K.C. (Hants, N.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Herbert Louis (Yorkshire, Cleveland)
Samuel, Stuart M. (Tower Hamlets Whitechapel)
Sandys, Col. Thomas M. (Lancashire, Bootle)
Sassoon, Sir Edward A., Bt. (Hythe)
Scarisbrick, T. L. (Dorset, S.)
Schwann, C. D. (Cheshire, Hyde)
Schwann, Sir Charles E., Bt. (Manchester, N.)
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Scott, Sir Samuel E., Bt. (Marylebone, W.)
Sears, J. E. (Cheltenham)
Seaverns, J. H. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Seddon, J. R. (Lancashire, S.W., Newton)
Seely, Col. J. E. B. (Liverpool, Abercromby)
Shackleton, David (Lancashire, N.E., Clitheroe)
Shaw, Sir Charles Edward, Bt. (Stafford)
Sheehan, Daniel D. (Cork Co., Mid)
Sheehy, David (Meath, S.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley, Bt. (Lincolnshire, Brigg)
Sherwell, A. J. (Huddersfield)
Shipman, Dr. John G. (Northampton)
Silcock, T. B. (Somerset, Wells)
Simon, J. A., K.C. (Essex, Walthamstow)
Sloan, Thomas H. (Belfast, S.)
Smeaton, D. M. (Stirlingshire)
Smith, Abel Henry (Herts, Hertford)
Smith, F. E., K.C. (Liverpool, Walton)
Smith, Capt. M. K. (Warwickshire, Stratford-upon-Avon)
Smith, Hon. W. Fred. D. (Strand, Westminster)
Smyth, T. F. (Leitrim, S.)
Snowden, P. (Blackburn)
Soames, Arthur W. (Norfolk, S.)
Soares, Ernest J. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spicer, Sir Albert, Bt. (Hackney, Central)
Stanger, H. Y., K.C. (Kensington, N.)
Stanier, B. (Shropshire, Newport)
Stanley, Hon. A. L. (Cheshire, Eddisbury)
Stanley, Hon. Arthur, C.V.O. (Lancashire, S.W.)
Stanley, Albert (Staffordshire, N.W.)
Starkey, J. R. (Notts, Newark)
Stavely-Hill, H. (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)
Steadman, W. C. (Finsbury, Central)
Stewart, H. (Greenock)
Stewart-Smith, D., K.C. (Westmoreland, Kendal)
Stone, Sir John Benjamin (Birmingham, E.)
Strachey, Sir Edward, Bt. (Somerset, S.)
Straus, B. S. (Tower Hamlets, Mile End)
Strauss, E. A. (Berks, Abingdon)
Stuart, J. (Sunderland)
Summerbell, T. (Sunderland)
Sutherland, J. E. (Elgin Burghs)
|
S5CV0001P0_7318a65c577d395d
| null |
S
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 268}
|
Talbot, Lord Edmund, M.V.O. (Sussex, Chichester)
Talbot, Rt. Hon. John G. (Oxford University)
Taylor, Austin (Liverpool, E. Toxteth)
Taylor, J. W. (Durham, Chester-le-Street)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Lancashire, S.E., Radcliffe)
Tennant, Sir E. P., Bt. (Salisbury)
Tennant, Harold John (Berwickshire)
Thomas, Abel, K.C. (Carmarthenshire, E.)
Thomas, Sir Alfred (Glamorganshire, E.)
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thomasson, F. (Leicester)
Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Thorne, Will (West Ham, S.)
Thornton, Percy M. (Clapham)
Tillett, Louis John (Norwich)
Tomkinson, James (Cheshire, Crewe)
Toulmin, George (Bury, Lancashire)
Trevelyan, Charles P. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Tuke, Sir John Batty (Edin. and St. Andrew's Universities)
|
S5CV0001P0_4916541574c257f5
| null |
T
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 104}
|
Valentia, Rt. Hon. Lord (Oxford)
Verney, F. W. (Bucks, N.)
Villiers, Ernest Amherst (Brighton)
Vivian, Henry (Birkenhead)
|
S5CV0001P0_a297930d1de58016
| null |
V
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 17}
|
Wadsworth, J. (Yorks., W.R., Hallamshire)
Waldron, L. A. (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)
Walker, H. de R. (Leicestershire, Melton)
Walker, Col. William H. (Lancashire, S.W., Widnes)
Walrond, Hon. L. (Devon, Tiverton)
Walsh, S. (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)
Walters, J. T. (Sheffield, Brightside)
Walton, Joseph (Yorks, W.R., Barnsley)
Ward, J. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Ward, W. D. (Southampton)
Warde, Col. Charles E. (Kent, Medway)
Wardle, G. J. (Stockport)
Waring, Capt. W. (Banffshire)
Warner, T. Courtenay T. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wason, Rt. Hon. Eugene (Clackmannan and Kinross)
Wason, J. C. (Orkney and Shetland)
Waterlow, D. S. (Islington, N.)
Watt, H. A. (Glasgow, College)
Wedgwood, J. C. (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Weir, James Galloway (Ross and Cromarty)
Whitbread, S. H. (Hunts, Huntingdon)
White, Sir George (Norfolk, N. W.)
White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R., Buckrose)
White, Patrick (Meath, N.)
Whitehead, R. (Essex, S.E.)
Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. (Yorks, W.R., Spen Valley)
Wiles, Thomas (Islington, S.)
Wilkie, A. (Dundee)
Williams, A. Osmond (Merionethshire)
Williams, J. (Glamorgan, W.)
Williams, Col. Robert (Dorset, W.)
Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen District)
Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)
Wills, A. W. (Dorset, N.)
Wilson, Arthur S. (Yorks, E.R., Holderness)
Wilson, Hon. Guy G. (Hull, W.)
Wilson, Henry Joseph (Yorks, W.R., Holmfirth)
Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Wilson, John William (Worcestershire, N.)
Wilson, P. Whitwell (St. Pancras, S.)
Wilson, W. T. (Lancashire, S.E., Westhoughton)
Winfrey, R. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Winterton, Earl (Sussex, Horsham)
Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)
Wolff, Gustavus Wilhelm (Belfast, E.)
Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow, St. Rollox)
Wortley, Rt. Hon. Charles B. Stewart, K. C. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George (Dover)
Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
|
S5CV0001P0_735cab916ef990b0
| null |
W
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 274}
|
For Taunton, in the room of Sir E. Boyle (Manor of Northstead).—( Sir A. Hood .)
For Forfarshire, in the room of the Right Hon. John Sinclair (Chiltern Hundreds).—( Mr. J. A. Pease .)
|
S5CV0001P0_913a286e0818b0fe
| null |
NEW WRITS.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 34}
|
MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following letter from the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland relating to the Imprisonment of Mr. James Farrell, a Member of this House:— In the High Court of Justice in Ireland, King's Bench Division, Crown Side. 23rd December, 1908. Sir, I have to inform you that at a Court of this Division held yesterday, Tuesday, the 22nd day of December inst. (the Right Honourable the Lord Chief Baron presiding), James P. Farrell, Esq., Member of Parliament for the County of Longford, was, in default of entering into sureties to be of good behaviour and keep the peace, committed to prison for the period of six months, or until he should sooner enter into such recognisance for that purpose with sureties. I am, Sir Your obedient servant, JAMES O'BRIEN, Clerk of the Crown. To the Right Honourable the Speaker, House of Commons.
|
S5CV0001P0_e7a65972b9eab1f3
| null |
IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 151}
|
Ordered, That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the return for that place; and if anything shall come in question touching the Return or Election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and that all Members returned upon double Returns do withdraw till their Returns are determined.
Resolved, That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
Motion made, and Question proposed— "That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such elections in Great Britain respectively, where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord-Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL : I oppose the renewal of this Sessional Order on the grounds that since its first institution it has been the merest dead letter, that it has been repeatedly abrogated and violated, and that no steps of an earnest character have ever been taken to enforce it. This is not a party question, Members on both sides—Mr. James Lowther on the one, and Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Bradlaugh on the other—having repeatedly moved the rejection of this Sessional Order. Such a motion was on one occasion made by no less an authority than Lord Randolph Churchill. I have not intervened in a debate on this subject before, and I would not now, but for the fact that circumstances have widely changed We have heard, and we believe, 4 that the question of the House of Lords is now the predominant issue before the country. That issue has been joined, and I base my opposition to this Sessional Order on the great authority of Mr. Gladstone, who, on August 16th, 1886, when the continuance of the Order was under discussion, said:— "Looking to the fact that the hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) distinctly admitted that he did so because he was prepared to support the abolition of the House of Lords, it appears to me that the abolition of the Sessional Order and the broad adoption of the principle that Peers may be equally concerned in the popular election of Commoners, is in the nature of laying the first parallel in the siege which is at some time or in some circumstances to be laid against the House of Lords and its present exclusive privileges." The siege is now begun. Surely I am justified in asking the House to lay the first parallel, and to accept Mr. Gladstone's advice. He said, further:—# "That is a question on which at the present moment I do not give any opinion beyond this: Anything that is to be done in the matter ought to be done by us with our eyes open, and with a view of the purpose to which it is really intended to be directed, and not as a matter of mere form, as if it were of little importance." That is what I wish the House to do now—with its eyes open, to adopt Mr. Gladstone's tactic, and, now that the question has become the predominant issue, abolish this Resolution. Moreover, on the occasion to which I have referred, amongst those who voted against the renewal of this Sessional Order I find the name "H. H. Asquith." It was the first division in which the present Prime Minister took part, and, as he has never withdrawn from a position he has once seriously adopted, I would ask him—as this is not a matter of high politics—if he would refrain from putting on the Government tellers, for it is a question which should be left to the discretion of the House. He need not be in any difficulty in this connection so far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, for the right hon. Gentleman has voted both for and against the motion. I have fortified myself by reading the advice given by him when out of office in 1894, Lord Rosebery in that year having made an electioneering speech at Edinburgh. The question of Lord Rosebery's interference was raised in the discussion which took place on the motion of Lord Randolph Churchill. The Leader of the Opposition, of course, backed up Lord Randolph Churchill on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said that the action of Lord Rosebery "has now convinced us 5 finally that this Sessional Order which we pass every time we assemble must be acknowledged to be a farce." That was the manner of the Leader of the Opposition when in Opposition, but when we come to one short year afterwards we find out that in 1895 he was a great stickler for the rigidness of the rule. He said the House could not censure the noble lord, and, if it did, he would probably treat the censure with ridicule. We are asked to stultify ourselves every year by passing this Sessional Order while taking no steps to enforce it. Is that a course which anyone would care to adopt now when the siege of the House of Lords has begun? Let them come out into the open and show themselves, and vote if they chose like men. This rule is very curious and interesting. It is a rule which has always been unsuccessful. It had its foundation when it was passed by the Long Parliament in 1640. The Long Parliament saw that the rule did not work, and then they advanced the proposal to abolish the House of Lords for the time. Then the rule was in abeyance until the Act of Settlement. It has been consistently violated from that time to this. I have not the precedents with me, but anyone interested in the subject will find that there was an interesting debate on the subject in 1847. Sir John Jervis, the then Attorney-General, said he had looked up all the precedents, and stated that in no case except one did the House ever act. In that case a noble duke had sent letters and employed his agent in regard to votes in an election, and his conduct was brought before Parliament as a breach of privilege. A Committee was appointed to investigate the case. The Committee sat, but the House of Commons declined to take any action. In the same year another noble lord committed a similar offence, but no action was taken. In another case Sir Frederick Thesiger disowned that the Duke of Marlborough had exercised influence at an election. Sir Frederick was at that time the representative of a pocket borough, and he was not anxious to bring the Duke of Marl- 6 borough under the lash. In 1886 some twenty Peers were said to have interfered in elections. Of all the offenders in this way, the late Lord Salisbury was one of the worst. The conduct of the Duke of Marlborough in interfering in elections was brought four times before this House. If this Sessional Order is to be real and not merely passed to be allowed to remain a dead letter, this House should take action when a Peer interferes in an election; but if the Order is not to be enforced it should not be passed. I beg to move that the Order be not agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith) : I think this Sessional Order has now been discussed twenty times year after year. I cannot agree that it raises the large and grave issue which my hon. friend suggests. I can speak with perfect impartiality on the matter because, like the Leader of the Opposition, I have voted both ways in the course of my not very long Parliamentary career. I think my hon. friend is quite right in saying that the first vote I gave in this House was in opposition to this Order, but since then I have taken a different view. I think the arguments are evenly balanced one way and the other. It may be said of this Sessional Order, as has been said by my hon. friend, that it is nugatory and academic, that it is without sanction, that it is disregarded from time to time, and that nobody is made amenable. On the other hand, it may be said in its favour that it is the assertion of a principle coming down to us from the time of the Long Parliament, that it has been passed Session after Session now for some 250 years, and that there is no sufficient reason why we should change to-day. On the whole, I am in favour of maintaining the Sessional Order, for, I think it is one of those matters of which it is pre-eminently important that the House of Commons ought to be free to exercise its independent judgment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 221; Noes, 142.
|
S5CV0001P0_4f64eda4a669d528
| null |
ELECTIONS.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 1640}
|
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices.
|
S5CV0001P0_fc31a2e2e5870f0b
| null |
CORRUPT PRACTICES.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 56}
|
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any witness in respect of his evidence to be given to this House or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime or misdemeanour, and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
|
S5CV0001P0_87ef5930e473d5a6
| null |
WITNESSES.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 104}
|
Ordered, That the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that 10 during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall or in the passage leading to this House during the sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts, and that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid.
|
S5CV0001P0_f8a3edc4459c82ea
| null |
METROPOLITAN POLICE.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 97}
|
"Bill for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.
|
S5CV0001P0_31d90eaee04b4ac2
| null |
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 18}
|
Ordered, That the Journal of this House from the end of the last Session to the end of the present Session, with an Index thereto, be printed.
Ordered, That the said Journal and Index be printed by the appointment and under the direction of Sir Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert, K.C.B., K.C.S.I., C.I.E., the Clerk of the House.
Ordered, That the said Journal and Index be printed by such person as shall be licensed by Mr. Speaker, and that no other person do presume to print the same.
|
S5CV0001P0_618d93d79903350d
| null |
JOURNAL.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 86}
|
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell) : I have to give notice that I shall on an early day introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, and for other purposes relating thereto.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns) : On an early date I shall ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, to provide for the making of Town Planning Schemes, and to make further provision with respect to the appointment of duties of County Medical Officers of Health, and to provide for the establishment of Public Health and Housing Committees.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith) : On an early day I shall ask leave to introduce a Bill to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in Wales and for making provision with respect to the temporalities thereof.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill) : On an early day I shall ask leave to introduce a Bill for the establishment of a system of Labour Exchanges.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure) : To introduce a Bill to prevent the Landing and Selling in the United Kingdom of fish caught in the prohibited areas of the sea adjoining Scotland.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE : Would ask leave to introduce a Bill for the establishment of Trade Boards in certain trades.
|
S5CV0001P0_c13874fa993da6b6
| null |
MINISTERIAL NOTICES.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 242}
|
My Lords and Gentlemen,
I was much impressed and gratified by the warmth of the public reception given to the Queen and myself during our recent visit to the German Emperor and Empress at Berlin by all classes of the community. It afforded us great pleasure to meet their Majesties again, and I feel confident that the expression of cordial welcome which there greeted us will tend to strengthen those amicable feelings between the two countries which are essential to their mutual welfare and to the maintenance of peace.
My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
Satisfactory progress has been made in the negotiation of outstanding questions with the United States of America. A treaty to regulate the use of the waterways adjacent to the international boundary between Canada and the United States has been arranged. The question being one of special Canadian interest, the advice of the Dominion Government was sought and followed throughout.
My Ambassador at Washington has also negotiated, with the co-operation of the Canadian and Newfoundland Ministers of Justice, an Agreement for the reference to arbitration of the North American Fisheries question. I trust that the Agreement will be the means of effecting a final and friendly settlement of matters which have been long under discussion between this country and the United States.
Arbitration Agreements concluded by my Government with those of France, Italy, and Spain, which were on the point of expiring, have been renewed for a further term of five years, and it is proposed to treat similar instruments in the same manner.
The situation in Persia continues to cause anxiety. My Government have no desire to depart from the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of that country. At the same time, they are of opinion that the state of affairs in Persia imperatively demands the introduction of representative institutions in a practical form, in order to assure the realisation of indispensable economic, financial, and administrative reforms, and to pacify the country. As the present troubles endanger numerous commercial and economic interests which Great Britain and Russia have in Persia, the two Governments are exchanging views on the subject.
I am happy to think that there is now an improved prospect of a solution of the difficulties which have arisen in the Balkans. It 13 is my earnest hope that a settlement may be arrived at which will be satisfactory to all the States whose interests are concerned.
The news of the disastrous earthquake which occurred recently in Sicily and Calabria called forth the deepest feelings of compassion for the afflicted population. Assistance was rendered by the officers and men of my Fleet, and the naval and military stores in the Mediterranean were utilised for the relief of the sufferers. I am glad that my people have shown their sympathy with the friendly nation of Italy in this terrible calamity.
An International Conference, which is now sitting in London, will, I trust, soon reach an agreement on certain questions of maritime law. The conclusions arrived at will be laid before you, that there may be due oppotunity of considering them when your assent is asked to such legislation as may be necessary to enable my Government to ratify the International Prtze Court Convention.
The reception of the measures designed by my Government for improving Indian administration has given me deep satisfaction. A Bill will at once be laid before you, dealing with matters in which your sanction is required; and it is my strong desire that the steps to be taken for giving effect to the policy announced in my Message of last November to the Princes and people of India may impartially protect the interests and advance the welfare of all races, classes, and communities in my Indian dominions.
The work accomplished by the Convention for closer Union, which concluded its sittings at Cape Town in the present month, in framing the plan of a South African Constitution for submission to the constituent Colonies marks the achievement of the first stage in the consolidation of that important part of my Empire.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
Estimates for the expenditure of the year will in due course be laid before you.
Owing to various causes, including the new provision which was made last year for old age, and an increase which has become necessary in the cost of my Navy, the expenditure of the year will be considerably in excess of that of the past twelve months. In these circumstances, the provision necessary for the services of the State in the ensuing year will require very serious consideration, and, in consequence, less time than usual will, I fear, be available for the consideration of other legislative measures.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
The Bills dealing with Irish Land and Housing and Town Planning, to the discussion of which time and labour were given in your last Session, will be re-introduced.
A Bill will be laid before you for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales.
I have now received the Report of the Commission, which I appointed more than three years ago, to inquire into the working of the Poor Law, and into the provision for meeting distress arising from want of employment. The recommendations of the Commission are engaging the careful attention of my Government.
A measure will be proposed for the better organisation of the labour market through a system of co-ordinated labour exchanges, with which other schemes for dealing with unemployment may subsequently be associated.
A Bill will be introduced for the constitution of Trade Boards in certain branches of industry in which the evils known as "sweating" prevail.
A measure will be laid before you to alter the law affecting Parliamentary Elections and Registration in London.
In connection with the financial arrangements of the year, proposals will be brought forward for amending the Old-Age Pensions Act in certain particulars where, in practice, inequalities of treatment have been found to arise.
A Bill prohibiting the landing and selling in the United Kingdom of fish caught in prohibited areas of the sea adjoining Scotland will also be introduced.
Bills will be presented to amend the law in regard to inebriates, to the supply of milk, and to the hours of work in shops.
Your labours upon these and all other matters I humbly commend to the blessing of Almighty God.
|
S5CV0001P0_a9b9c348fdf8fb03
| null |
HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 1065}
|
Mr. F. E. N. ROGERS ( wearing Court dress ) said: In rising to move that a humble address of thanks be presented to His Majesty for his most gracious Speech from the Throne, I am very conscious of the difficulty the task entails, and I would venture to throw myself frankly on the indulgence of this House, at once the most critical, but at the same time the most generous of all assembles. Sir, the characteristic note of His Majesty's Speech, 15 in so far at it relates to the international situation, is one of peace and goodwill. The relations of His Majesty's Government with those of all foreign countries continue to be friendly, and I am profoundly thankful that that is the case. I am persuaded that His Majesty's recent visit to Berlin and his cordial welcome in that city will tend to dispel any misunderstandings or misconception of motive which may have existed in some quarters in recent years on both sides of the North Sea. For the great mass of both nations I am convinced that a frank understanding and agreement is what they most of all desire. There are no outstanding causes of dispute between England and Germany; all that seems to be required is for each nation to credit the other with what it claims for itself—honesty of purpose and sincerity of profession. I am glad to think that the turn of events in the Near East gives promise of a peaceful ending to a situation which has from time to time looked rather threatening. In this House—the oldest Parliament in the world—I feel I am on sure ground if I say that all our sympathies go out to the Constitutionalists in Turkey, engaged in their arduous task of guiding the first uncertain footsteps of an infant Parliament. The reference in His Majesty's gracious Speech to South Africa is of a character which must provoke heartfelt thankfulness and pride. I rejoice at the approaching unity of the South African Colonies. There are some chapters in South African history which I can only look back upon with feelings of profound sadness and regret. She is not one of those countries of which it can be said that her people owe any part of their happiness to the fact that they have had no history. But these events are passing into the category "Of old unhappy far-off things, And battles long ago." Now a brighter day is dawning. The twin stocks of British and Dutch are on the fair high road, I believe, to fuse together under the British flag into a common Africander nation. And I think their union will be none the less real and lasting, because it is based on mutual respect, because behind it there lies the common memory of many stricken fields. Sir, I am glad to welcome the successive paragraphs in the Speech which refer to arbitration treaties with several foreign countries. Not only has a complex problem, of long standing, such as the North 16 American Fisheries question, been successfully referred to this method of adjudication, but I think I am entitled to claim that the prominence given to the subject indicates a growing sense of the value of international arbitration as a method of solving international disputes. In the case of the agreement arrived at with the United States on more than one subject, I recognise with gratitude the services rendered by one, who was for many years a member of this House, some time a member of this Government, and at all times a friend of peace, and now His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington. There is an interesting reference in the Speech to the disastrous calamity in Sicily and Calabria, which has evoked such profound sympathy from the whole civilised world. We in this country have been for years united to the people of Italy by ties of friendship and goodwill. The districts afflicted are some of those most famous in history as the cradle of art and early commerce and ancient civilisation. For these reasons, as well as on general grounds, the House will, I think, be glad to remember that in the time of their sore trouble the Italian people received such timely and substantial assistance from the British Navy and the British mercantile marine. I am very glad to see it stated in the Speech that the programme of reform in India has met with a good reception. The task of ruling our Indian Empire is a gigantic one. It tests, as in a furnace, the highest governing capacity of our race. But the most signal proof of our capacity to rule India will be given, and our greatest victory won, if we can gradually, prudently and yet courageously associate the people of India in the task of Indian government. Such a measure of reform as Lord Morley outlined last Session in another place may well be expected to enlist on our side the spirit of law-abiding and constitutional reform, and to dissipate the forces which make for anarchy and outrage. I turn now, Sir, to the programme of legislation foreshadowed. The Irish Land Bill is the same Bill which was read a second time last Session. There is no subject which has been more continuously before Parliament than that of Irish land, or one in which anything approaching finality seems more difficult to attain. It would be too much to hope that legislation on this subject could be anything but controversial, but as a well-wisher to Ireland, I trust it may be found possible this Session 17 to advance by legislation the cause of land purchase, and so to allay in Ireland the unrest and agitation, in so far as that unrest is caused by the bitterness of hopes deferred. All parties are irrevocably committed to a policy of land purchase. For my part, I shall be glad to co-operate in any attempt to make land purchase a reality. The Welsh Bill I regard as an effort to redeem a pledge given to Wales many years ago to bring about a system of religious equality. It has been asked for at every election in Wales for over twenty years by overwhelming majorities. Today I believe it is supported by every Member from the Principality. I would disclaim with emphasis any attitude of hostility, any feeling of rancour, directed against the Church, but I would express with equal emphasis my conviction that the connection between Church and State belongs rather to yesterday than to to-day. Where such a connection does not exist as a matter of history and tradition, I can hardly imagine anyone desiring to create it. I would add that in my view the vitality of every Church depends not on its State privileges or State patronage, but on the place it holds in the affections of the people. And that place will best be assured to the Church by her sympathy with great causes, by her support of all social movements which aim at uplifting and enlarging the status of human life. I notice with much interest the suggested amendment of the Pensions Act, intended, I suppose, to remove some anomalies which have come to light in its administration. May I assure the House, as a Chairman of a Pension Committee, which has dealt with nearly 5,000 claims, that these anomalies are very few. It is right that they should be removed, but the great bulk of the cases have been simple and straightforward. The House may rest assured that the pensions have gone into the homes of those for whom they were primarily intended—viz., the industrious and frugal poor, who, by the exercise of a life-long thrift, of the character of which few of us have any conception, have reached the age of 70 years without coming to the Poor Law. But I would like, Sir, to express an earnest hope that before long the relations which are to exist between the Pension Scheme and the Poor Law should be clearly and accurately defined in order to remove what is to-day by far the commonest cause of hardship, the exclusion without exception of all in receipt of relief. I would 18 also take this opportunity, Sir, of paying a tribute to the admirable work done in administering the Act by the Government Departments concerned, by the local pension Committees, and by the Pension Officers. The case which came under my notice of a pension officer, who spent the best part of his Christmas Day distributing pension books in his district and declared that the blessings showered on his head rendered it the happiest Christmas he had known, illustrates very well the spirit in which all concerned have worked to make the Act a success. Perhaps the House will allow me to say, as essentially a rural member, that my main interest in the Housing and Town Planning Bill is a concern for the housing difficulty in the rural districts. I am not in the least over-stating the case when I say that in many villages things are steadily going from bad to worse. Houses are pulled down and are not rebuilt, they are burned down and are not replaced. Those that exist are frequently neither sanitary nor sufficient in accommodation. I am not imputing blame to any class. Many causes are at work—social, economic, and political. The facts remains. The villages steadily shrink in population, and men leave for the larger centres, not always because they want to, but because they cannot make a home in a place where no home for them exists. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the best of fortune in this his second attempt to pass his Bill. The measure foreshadowed in the Speech to attempt to deal with sweating in certain trades has my cordial sympathy. It must be a task of some difficulty to create a Trades Board, representing employers and employed, in industries where little organisation of the latter class exists. But I have no doubt that the time is ripe for action, and that the public conscience has been deeply stirred by the revelations of successive enquiries. The existence in our midst of a class of workers, more particularly women, underpaid, underfed and overworked, unable by incessant toil to achieve even the most modest standard of subsistence, that central undeniable fact, Sir, I say, is now more and more coming to be regarded as a danger to national efficiency, a blot on our national escutcheon, and an offence to our common humanity. In conclusion there is a rather ominous reference in the Speech to the increased expenditure of the country, and the increased revenue thereby rendered necessary. I will not attempt to anticipate pro- 19 posals not yet divulged nor embark on any speculations as to where new sources of revenue are to be found. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has many advisers. But, Sir, I would say this: In common with other countries we find ourselves under the necessity of raising fresh revenue for national purposes, mainly in our case for the proper maintenance of the Navy and the better treatment of old age. Shall we not console ourselves with this reflection—that whatever sacrifices are required they will at any rate be made to fulfil the two chief functions of a modern State, the security of its existence and the happiness of its people? I beg to move: "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—Most Gracious Sovereign,—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN, who also wore Court dress, in seconding the Motion, said: It is not merely a desire to conform with custom which moves me to ask for the very fullest indulgence of the House in the task which I have to perform, but the knowledge that to me it is one of overwhelming difficulty. But although I recognise its difficulty, I am grateful that it has been imposed upon me, because I recognise that it is an honour done to the constituency I represent, and because it gives me an opportunity of thanking the Government for including in the King's Speech a reference to some reforms dealing with problems with which London is closely concerned. I refer more particularly to that reference to the reform of Parliamentary and registration areas in London. I hope that may mean the intention of the Government to make London one Parliamentary area. At present, as we know, London consists of an agglomeration of some twenty-nine cities and boroughs, and how distinct and how divided they are is clearly shown by the fact that merely by moving from one street to the next a man may lose for nearly two years the elementary right of citizenship. We shall welcome a Bill which shall remove this disability. We shall welcome it because it would be good in itself and we shall welcome it more because it is a step in the direction of making London one city. We 20 are face to face with what some of us regard as a very alarming fact. We have rich areas growing richer and poor areas less and less able to support the burden put upon them. What we look forward to is to see London one city, with the privileges and burdens of citizenship equitably distributed. I should like to refer also to another Bill which touches the interests of London and other large urban areas—I mean the Housing and Town Planning Bill. This Bill was very fully discussed in its preliminary stages last year, and, I believe, no one who has watched the growth of slums on the outskirts of our great cities can doubt the wisdom of putting into the hands of our local authorities some powers of preventing a repetition of those mistakes in existing areas which lie at the root of so many of our social problems. I would like to refer also to the re-introduction of the Bill dealing with Irish land. This adds another to the list of measures by which this Parliament has attempted to do something for the benefit of Ireland. For my part, and speaking only for myself, I should like to say that I look forward to the day, which I hope may not be distant, when a thorough solution of the Irish problem may be sought in restoring to the Irish nation the right to manage their own affairs. The gracious speech also refers to Welsh Disestablishment. It is hoped by a measure freeing the Church in Wales from State control, alike to quicken her beneficient activities and to promote among the religious bodies of the Principality that unity of spirit which fosters the growth of true religion. I turn and I am sure the House turns with gratitude and interest to those portions of the gracious Speech which deal with the insistent problems of the age, poverty and unemployment. These social disorders arise from causes so numerous and so diverse that it would be idle to suppose that we could find one single remedy for them all. It is a hydra-headed evil, and we have to grapple with every one of its ugly aspects. But we rejoice to know that the Report of the Poor Law Commission has been prepared. Some of us have been impatient to receive it, but the delay will not be regretted if the Bill presents in true perspective a proportionate view of the whole problem, so that the Government will be able on the one hand to propose measures avoiding emergency or panic legislation and, on the other hand, they can go forward confident in the knowledge that every step taken is in reality a step towards the desired goal. It 21 seems to me that it would be necessary to do something to divide into various groups those who make application for Poor Law relief, and to deal with each group in a manner appropriate to their needs and deserts. We have on the one hand that large class of poor people who after a strenuous life and an honourable life find their old age overcast by the shadow of the workhouse. I am sure it is a source of gratification to all classes to know that the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act of last year has shed on their declining years the warm comfort of a cheerful day. Amended and extended I hope that Act may increasingly relieve this branch of Poor Law administration. Then there is another totally different class—that of habitual vagrants. The sternness of perish relief does deter many of a self-respecting type, and perhaps deserving, but it has no terrors for the tramp, to whom it is merely a case of exercising an ingenuity by which he tries to live in more or less comfort on communal charity. It is quite clear that that class must be dealt with in a more drastic fashion. Then I turn to the problem of underemployment. We have a great unskilled labour market which is not able to provide enough work for the strong and active men who fill it, but is crowded also with weak and infirm, with old men and boys, whose competition there tends to lower the standard of life and to debase the labour currency. Then we have a great demoralised army of casual labour, apathetic and aimless, with no pride in the present and no hope in the future. This is indeed the most difficult and baffling phase of the whole problem, but I think we may say that a great step in advance has been taken—an immense step—by dealing with it on a national basis. It may be hoped that the new network of agencies which are to be set up may do something to diminish the dimensions of the evil, both by confining the supply to those districts where the demand exists and, perhaps, by training the boys to a higher point, so as to divert them to higher ranks of employment, and perhaps by absorbing some of the surplus and unskilled labour in works of real national utility. The King's Speech refers also to another phase of the poverty problem—that touching sweated industries. As a general rule wages and conditions of labour are matters which can be adjusted with a fair measure of success between employer and employed. But in 22 some trades the conditions are such and the workpeople—often women and children—are so weak and unable to combine, that they cannot protect themselves. A well-considered measure for setting up boards to regulate these employments will not only do something to help those who are unable to fight their own battle, but something which in the long run will be of benefit also to the industries concerned. So far, Mr. Speaker, I have referred only to those portions of the Speech which touch home affairs, but I desire to associate myself with everything the mover has so eloquently said as to the friendly relations subsisting between us and foreign nations. It is on such friendships that the prosperity of our commerce and the well-being of our workers are ultimately based. Moreover, the records of this House show that those periods in which we have been compelled to expend our energy in wars abroad have been sterile of reform at home. Peace is the first interests of social reform, and we are fortunate in that for so long the wisdom of Parliament has been able, unharassed by foreign complications, to be concentrated on these pressing problems. Perhaps in no previous Parliament has so much interest and sympathy been shown on all sides in the "condition of the people " question. If we accept the dictum of a famous Member of this House, that "a nation lives in its cottages," new Members like me may feel some pride to have sat in a Parliament which has attempted so much for the national welfare. Much of the coming Session is to be devoted to kindred endeavours, and though I recognise the complexity of the problem, the elusiveness, yet persistency of the evils, I for one have not lost confidence either in the sympathy of this House or in its power to find adequate remedies. I must apologise if I seem to have dwelt too long on the references to social reform. I can only say that these questions continually confront those who represent, as I do, the very poor. To give a new turn to an old phrase, the appeal of poverty, once it has been listened to, never ceases to be heard. It is with a feeling of great gratitude to this House for their patient hearing, not untouched by a sense of personal relief, that I conclude by begging leave to second the motion. Motion made and question proposed, "That a humble address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne."
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR : I think I rightly gather from the reception which has greeted the two speeches which we have just listened to that the whole House is unanimous in applauding the tact and ability the two hon. Gentlemen have shown in moving and seconding the Address. I, who have a very long experience of such speeches, have to admit that I never heard speeches more successful in their general arrangement, in their compression, in the fulness of the matter which they contained, in the clear enunciation of the opinions of their authors, without anything which would wound those who happened to differ from them in respect of the matters dealt with—that I never heard speeches more successful in carrying out those objects, and conscious as I am and we all must be of the great difficulty of the task thrown upon the hon. Gentlemen on this occasion, I think we may all most heartily agree in giving as explicit utterance as we can to feelings of complete approval. It is my duty, my traditional duty, to go through such topics in the Speech from the Throne as would seem suitable to the occasion, and to touch gently upon such other topics as may seem to require some special notice. With regard to foreign affairs which, in this, as in all other speeches, take precedence of other matters, I have really nothing to add, and I am sure I cannot improve the statement made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the motion. He referred to our relations with foreign powers in terms with which I most heartily agree, and I do not think I can add anything to them. I think the House will admit that during this Parliament, and in the years preceding this Parliament, there has been a steady resolve, as far as possible, to withdraw foreign affairs from the arena of controversial politics. It is quite impossible, of course, for any universal principle on this subject to be laid down. The right of criticism which Members of the House possess must under certain circumstances become the duty of criticism, but when there is, as there happily is now, so clear a case of continuity of foreign policy between two administrations differing in so many and in such important matters, I should regard with great dislike any necessity which were thrown upon me of dealing in too critical a spirit with very difficult matters which the Foreign Ministers of this country have perpetually before them in the complex relations of this great Empire. I am glad to think no such necessity arises on the present occasion, 24 and I have no comment of a hostile character to offer to any steps which, so far as I understand them, have been taken by the Government and by the right hon. Gentleman who presides over the Foreign Office. I confess there is one paragraph which I do not criticise, but which I read with some slight surprise and misgiving, which is that in relation to Persia. That the democratic constitution, which I understand by the paragraph is to be introduced under the pressure and interest or the joint pressure and interest of England and Russia, upon an Oriental State, is to be a cure for all the economic and commercial difficulties from which we suffer in the country, seems to be rather a sanguine view of the situation. I do not know that the remedy will be found in effect very easy to apply, and I am not sure, when it is applied that it will be found altogether effectual. But I admit that the problem of Persia is one of enormous difficulty. It produces such perplexing questions that if His Majesty's present advisers see a way by which the interests of Great Britain, the interests of Russia, and interests of Persia can all be combined in one harmonious policy, I shall be delighted to hear of it. It my turn out that the description given in this paragraph does not entirely accurately delineate the character of the ultimate solution of the Persian Question. However, I do not really criticise it. If the right hon. Gentleman really does see his way to carrying it out, he has my good wishes, and I hope he will be successful. As I read the paragraph about India my only comment is that when the Government advises His Majesty to say that "the reception of measures designed by my Government for improving Indian administration has given me deep satisfaction," we really do not yet know in detail, as far as I am aware, what those proposals are. We should all be glad to see any real well-thought-out scheme by which the best Indian opinion can be brought to the assistance of the best European opinion in order to cope with the enormously complex problem of Indian administration. But I do not understand either in the speech of the Secretary for India or in the Blue Books which have been presented to and possibly read by the House on that subject, that we really do know in detail what the plans of the Government are. As I read the statement of the Secretary of State for India, an immense amount 25 is to be left to regulations of which we know nothing, and everything may turn on the nature and character of those regulations. I hope the Prime Minister will tell us what opportunity he proposes to give us for discussing not merely what is described in the Speech as the Bill which deals with matters to which the sanction of Parliament is asked, but will deal with the whole policy of which the Bill only represents a part. It certainly would be desirable to have the complete policy before us, and if we are to judge of part of that policy it must be in the light of the policy as a whole, and I do not see how we can possibly judge of the Bill which is to be laid before us for discussion unless some latitude is given in debate for dealing with the whole proposal of the Government at home and the Government of India. The other point in connection with external affairs relates to the happy events which have recently taken place in South Africa, and there again, though I probably should not agree with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Address, if we were to discuss the whole of South African history for the last ten or twenty years, I agree most heartily with the conclusion at which he has arrived, that conclusion being one which has ever been before Gentlemen on this side of the House when they were responsible. I do not think that what has occurred could be better described than in words which fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, who prophetically told people of the country what it was to which he looked forward. It was five years ago he said:— "We may confidently anticipate, for the first time in the history of modern South Africa, Dutch and English will work together for a common purpose and for the good of their common country. But I go further, and I expect more than that. It is my hope that in the near future provincial feeling will give way before a wider conception of national destiny, and our Dutch fellow-subjects will share with us our sense of responsibility in our possessions, and petty differences which have hitherto divided us will be lost in the wider circle of Imperial interests and obligations."
Mr. J. REDMOND : On the basis of Home Rule.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR : I think the admirable manner in which the leading statesmen—Dutch and English—in South Africa, men who have been in the sharpest conflict in times not long gone by, have combined in a common interest to carry out a great national and Imperial object, is worthy of 26 all admiration, and is producing, and is likely to produce, most admirable fruit. I now have said all I think it necessary to say with regard to that part of the Speech from the Throne which touches on foreign and Colonial questions, and I come to the second part of the Speech, not, indeed, more important, but which comes more closely home to the habitual controversies which go on within these walls. I notice that the paragraph addressed especially to this House is couched in terms. which have no precedent, as far as I know, in all the history of Speeches from the Throne dealing with finance. It must be a matter of the deepest disappointment to those who, when they constituted the independent Members of an Opposition, were never tired of denouncing expenditure on the Navy, that they have been compelled by necessity to put in a paragraph which states that the expenditure this year will be considerably in excess of the expenditure in the last twelve months, especially when you remember that the expenditure of the last twelve months is in excess of anything which was spent by the late Government. It is not merely that the Government have now got to deal with the cost of old age pensions in a full measure, but much of the work which they propose to do in strengthening the Fleet ought to have been done in the preceding years, even in the year in which old age pensions were but a portion of the burden which was going to fall on the country, when the Naval Estimates were by the confession of the Government themselves being starved—even in that year the expenditure of the country was in excess of the expenditure of any Government which preceded the present one in time of peace. I am sure the Government regret it, and I am sure every taxpayer regrets it. But I am not going into detail on a subject like that, especially as the Government themselves point out in this paragraph that much of the energy of Parliament in the next six months will be directed to financial questions of necessity. But it is significant that whereas the last year, under the circumstances which I have described, exceeded all its predecessors in the strain thrown upon the taxpayer, this year the strain is so great that the programme of legislation has necessarily been cut down in order that the House may have ample time, which I hope will be given it, for dealing with the finan- 27 cial proposals of the Government. I do not ask any questions at the present moment with regard to the first of the two causes mentioned in this particular paragraph for the exceptional strain upon our finances in the course of the coming year—namely, the additions to the Fleet, and the Government must be aware of the great anxiety which all these naval problems are now exciting in the country, and I suppose we shall have ample opportunity in the next few weeks of raising them in detail. The question is not merely connected with the two-Power standard and with what I may call the broad issues of national defence, but also with questions having reference to the constitution and arrangement of the Fleet and other matters to which public attention has been actively addressed, and in which it is greatly interested; but I shall defer further criticisms on these matters until we come to the Naval Estimates, which, I presume, shall not be long delayed. On the subject of old age pensions I may say a little more. The Government passed their Bill in July. Six months have since elapsed, and they find it necessary to amend it. The question is complicated under any circumstances, and I don't wish to press that too strongly. But may I remind the House of the circumstances under which it was discussed? Under the excuse that it was necessary to save Parliamentary time the Government pressed the measure through by methods which are very familiar.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL : Familiar to you.
Mr. BALFOUR : They are, indeed. I need not go into the merits or demerits of the proposals made or the question of the amount of time, but the fact remains that this Bill, which, after having been in existence for six months, has now to be amended, was pressed through the House, and never did get adequate discussion, and it was sent up to another place at a time when discussion in that place could not adequately be carried on owing to the near approach of the recess, and owing to the necessity of giving time in the Autumn Session for the preparation of the regulations without which the Bill would necessarily have been ineffective. Not only that, but the deliberate determination of the Government was to refuse on grounds of privilege every amendment, even though it was a good one, which had been put in in another place. Well, I think that is a very poor way of saving 28 Parliamentary time; and I do not think, even taking the Bill as it is, that this House has any reason to pride itself upon the excellence of its legislative methods. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the address to the Throne told us that his experience in Wiltshire as chairman of a Committee proved that practically the money went into the right pockets. I am delighted to hear that that is so in Wiltshire, and I hope that it is so in other parts of the kingdom. Rumours have reached me that in one part of the kingdom, at all events, the numbers in receipt of this money, whether they are right or wrong, have staggered the statisticians, and that in Ireland, at all events, the number of people who have proved that they have reached the age of over seventy years and have never received Poor Law relief is of an abnormal and extraordinary character. Nobody who has studied the population statistics of that country can reconcile the number of pensions given with the number of pensions owed. We have not had statistics on the subject, and I don't know whether statistics have been prepared, but I am sure it is a matter which must deeply interest the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for finance, and, perhaps, either he or the Prime Minister will tell us how that matter stands, and whether there is any difference betwen Ireland and Scotland in the matter, which cannot be accounted for in other ways, as regards the number of pensions respectively given in those two countries. The matter is one of great importance. If in an important portion of the United Kingdom there is not a really rigid examination of the claims of those who ask for these pensions then the abuse is immense and the unfairness to other parts of the country is immense, and I think that the general public corruption which would follow would be incalculable. I have a much stronger criticism to make upon the policy of the Government in this matter than the mere existence of anomalies which might be referred to if I had time to discuss them, or defects of machinery which it is possible to remedy. I really think it is deplorable—and the more I have considered it during the last few weeks the more deplorable I think it is—that with these tremendous problems before them of dealing with the sick poor and the aged poor in this country, they should have rashly gone into this particular form of dealing with the pensions, before they had in their hands the report of the Com- 29 mission to which reference is made in the Speech. If only on financial grounds, it is impossible, or ought to be impossible, to divide one part of the problem from another. The right hon. Gentleman rejoices, and everybody rejoices—I don't think there is a dissentient voice—that the deserving poor over 70 should be singled out. But everybody is equally aware that persons over 70 who really deserve pensions, and who are obliged to seek for medical relief under our Poor Law system are excluded from the benefits of the Act. The infirmary to which they have to resort is the workhouse infirmary, or the Poor Law infirmary. The Poor Law machinery for dealing with the sick poor is absolutely the only machinery in large portions of the country to which the aged poor can have recourse. Therefore, you cannot separate the problems of the aged poor, to whom medical assistance can be given only through the machinery of the Poor Law. The whole thing is together; and I think that the limitations of your scheme, limitations of age, and limitations as regards health, are so unfair, that it showed the clearest want of breadth of view to try, without reference to these matters, to deal with one fraction of this problem until you knew what your whole problem was. I don't say that the Government should have deferred dealing with any part of the problem until they could deal with the whole of it, because in this world, even in questions of such importance, I admit that if you are never to deal with any problem until you can deal with the whole of it at once, you would probably be prevented from dealing with it at all. Surely, that is common sense. It is also common sense when the resources with which you have got to deal with these problems are in the nature of the case not unlimited, and when you have not the least notion how you are going to deal with these other parts of the problem, or how the particular solution you have adopted for the part you have dealt with is going to dovetail into the parts you have not dealt with then you are not acting the part of these wise men who take on great problems in parts and deal with them in parts with a view of the whole. You are rash men who are using in one respect, which may not be the wisest, the resources which ought to be used to carry out some great scheme, which will embrace not merely the aged poor over 70, but those who, through no fault of their 30 own, though under 70, cannot work. You should deal with the workman suffering from sickness, the man who, though under 70 years of age, is incapable physically of earning a livelihood. You should deal with him as well as with that narrow and arbitrarily marked-off class to which alone the Bill of last year can bring relief. I deeply regret the course that the Government have taken, but, they have taken it, and I am very glad they make no promise this year of any law dealing with the Poor Law. We have had too much of this hand-to-mouth legislation. The question of the Poor Law is so complex, and I am convinced will require so much care and thought on the part of the Government that attempts to deal with it, that I should regard it as an absolute calamity if the Government even if they could absorb all the learning in the reports which they have got already in their possession, were to say that they would be in a position in the course of this Session to offer a solution of the most important of all the questions with which this House is likely to be called on to deal as regards purely internal policy. I go on now to another paragraph in the speech which is also couched in language for which, so far as I know, there is no parallel in our history. The paragraph is this:—"A measure will be proposed for the better organisation of the labour market through a system of co-ordinated labour exchanges with which other schemes for dealing with unemployment may subsequently be associated." When the Government puts into His Majesty's mouth a paragraph like that, I want to ask the Government what effect it has on the course of debates in this House. It is a well established principle that no amendment is moved to the Address upon any subject which is to be dealt with by legislation. If the Government has promised legislation dealing with unemployment it would, therefore, be out of order, I suppose, to move an amendment to the Address on that subject. Does this constitute a promise of legislation. Does it constitute a promise within the meaning of the Standing Order, or of the traditional practice of the House? When the time comes I may perhaps put a question, but I will not do so at present, although it must be evient that this is a question of great and pressing importance. For my own part, I look forward with the deepest interest to that thought-out scheme which I think the Prime Minister 31 promised us, and which was to go to the root of the unemployed question. Last Session we passed a measure—
The PRIME MINISTER : It was rejected.
Mr. BALFOUR : Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not denying that he sought to deal with the problem of unemployment last year.
The PRIME MINISTER : Certainly I did not. I made a speech on a Bill—I think that is what he has referred to, for it has been quoted—which was rejected by the House.
Mr. BALFOUR : Really there is no difference between us. The Government last year brought forward palliatives. They not only provided money, but established a department to tide over the time of distress. The Prime Minister promised a scheme which would go to the root of the matter. I do not know whether he promised it this Session—at the moment I thought he did; but, if he denies it, I do not mean to press him on the point. At any rate, he promised it in the course of this Parliament. He said that before this Parliament came to an end, some thought-out scheme would be brought forward which would go to the root of the unemployed question. I have tried to find out what kind of scheme the Government have in view, from the utterances of their members, that is going to the root of the unemployed problem. I do no tbelieve so far they have any scheme at all before them, and none of the schemes that I have heard suggested seem to bear a moment's examination. I do not profess, on my part, to have a scheme that will go to the root of this problem, but I am certain that no plan which does not try to increase the amount of employment for skilled labourers can be really effective. You do not deal with the unemployed question by asking skilled artisans to plant trees, because they do no not know how to plant trees, and it is wasting their time to ask them to do it. Then there is coast erosion. How are you going to deal with the unemployment problem by coast erosion? (An HON. MEMBER: "Why not put a tax on corn?") There are two things, at all events, which every Government ought to try to do, but this Government has tried to do neither of them. The first thing is that they ought to do their best to increase the confidence of the investing public in works in 32 their own country; and the second thing is that they ought to try to obtain every information they can possibly get in regard to extending our foreign markets and our external markets, in which the skilled workmen of this country are so much interested. I do not see that the Government have done either the one or the other of these two things. Rightly or wrongly, the Government are accused of having shaken confidence—(Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh.")—of having by rash speeches and perhaps by rash actions driven capital abroad and with having made the investor believe that this country is the last place in which he ought to invest his money, and that the last workmen who ought to be provided with employment are his own countrymen. As for our external markets, it seems to me an act of folly to reject any method by which you can bargain with other nations; and when you can obtain a preference in your own Colonies for your own products it is folly to adopt a policy which deliberately rejects every expedient of that kind. The folly of this policy has become more and more obvious to everybody who is not hidebound in formulæ which have no foundation whatever in any sound political economy, but are merely an inheritance from ancient speeches and writings appropriate to an utterly different condition of things to that which exists in this great industrial country to-day. Of course, I do not pretend for a moment that even if the Government had been wiser than they have been both in respect of maintaining the confidence of the investor, and in meeting our Colonies in regard to preference and obtaining means of bargains with foreign nations, there would be no unemployed within our shores. I do not mean that even then there would be a complete solution of this question. A complete solution is not to be obtained by those or any other methods, but, at all events, those are methods which have some prospect of really ameliorating the state of things which now exists. I do not think as regards the promises made in the King's Speech I need say anything more, but I still have a duty thrown upon me by the traditions of this House to make some criticisms upon the administrative action of the Government. I shall confine myself to a few points, and make them as shortly as I can. I think it was my ill-fortune last year to have to refer to the extraordinary action of the Education Department with regard to a school at Swansea. I thought it a great scandal then, but the scandal then 33 is absolutely nothing to the scandal now, and I appeal on this subject, with some confidence, to every man in this House who cares for education, whatever his views may be on the religious question, upon voluntary schools, rate-aid, and all those other controversies which have torn us asunder for so many years. The case can be put into a very few words. There was a voluntary Church school at Swansea, and the Education Department tried to squeeze that school out of existence by administrative methods by insisting upon an amount of expenditure upon buildings and playgrounds which could only have for its object that of destroying the school to meet the prejudices and views of the local authority. The money burden thrown upon the managers was enormous, but the money was found, and that was the condition of things last year. In addition, the local authority refused to pay the salaries of the teachers, and for many months the salaries had to be advanced by the managers admittedly contrary to the law, and the Education Department did not seem able to sum up courage enough to have the money refunded. Time went on, and the next thing that happened was that the local authority insisted that the salaries given in this school, for the maintenance of which they were responsible, should be on a lower scale than the salaries in the neighbouring schools giving the same kind of education and ministering to the same type of population under the same local authority. That was absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Act which governs education in this country, and clearly and avowedly it is so. The managers protested; they asked for an inquiry, but the matter dragged on, and the Education Board were as slow as if they had been in a Court of Chancery under Lord Eldon. The thing hung fire for two or three years, and finally they had an inquiry into this gross abuse. They sent down a man admirably fitted for the task, and the Government must have thought he was fitted for the task, because they subsequently made him a judge. He went down and reported, as everybody knew an impartial judge must report, that the local authority were violating the spirit of the Act, and that they ought not have cut down the salaries below the level of the district. His report and judicial inquiry was made in public and under an Act of Parliament, and yet the Government deliberately set it aside. That briefly is the story. What are the inevitable comments we are driven to make? 34 That the Government having failed to carry through any of their Education plans, they are determined to revenge themselves upon the voluntary schools. I remember the Prime Minister coming down to this House on the day upon which it became clear that the Bill of last year would not pass, and in words of deep emotion telling how deeply he felt his inability to settle, peaceably, this long-standing controversy. I certainly did not doubt his sincerity then, neither do I doubt it now. He has allowed his subordinates—or perhaps he knew nothing about it, I suppose, for a Prime Minister cannot look into the details of the administration of every department—or at all events his subordinates, very undoubtedly committed a gross act of administrative injustice against a Church school because it was a Church school; and because it was denominational, in order to appease an undenominational local authority. They have done so against the spirit of the Act of Parliament, against the inquiry of a man sent down by themselves, and whom they have since made a judge. I think that a lamentable performance. The consequences did not end, and cannot end, with the act itself. This House has been accustomed to entrust departments with quasi - official functions, believing, and hitherto believing with justice, that when you entrusted them with quasi - official functions, the Department of State, no matter who was the Parliamentary head of that department, or to what party he belonged—those quasi-official functions would be administered judicially. Is that ever going to be thought of the Education Department again after this gross miscarriage of justice? Who can doubt that politics and vindictive politics had an influence? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech the other day in which he protested against the absolute unreason of supposing that he was ever going to be responsible for a vindictive Budget. He has no right, and his colleagues have no right, to complain of such a suspicion when their action is on the face of it vindictive in dealing with a case like the Swansea schools. There is, no man will deny, who knows or cares anything of education, that having in a district two schools with a different scale of emoluments for the teachers must be bad. Everybody admits that and that is what the Government perpetuates, and means to perpetuate, because the school 35 was a Church school, and for no other reason. There is only one other administrative point, the last topic on which I shall touch—Ireland. Nothing is said about Ireland in the King's Speech—except that the Government means to press forward a Bill—upon which I may make any comments now. But I do not think the Bill is likely to do much in the direction of carrying out that policy of land purchase which I think the mover expressed so warm an interest. What is the condition of Ireland under the government, or non-government, of the right hon. Gentleman? The subject will doubtless be discussed more in detail before we finish this Session, but it may not be out of place to very briefly indicate to the House the kind of change that has gone on in Ireland since the right hon. Gentleman became the manager of Ireland according to Irish ideals. I find that agrarian outrages have more than doubled since the present Government came into office. There were 234 in 1906; there were 537 for 11 months of 1908. Agrarian outrages done by firearms rose from 20 to 128, while Gentlemen opposite have been controlling Irish policy—well, not controlling it, but responsible for it! Indictable offences on property have risen from 20 to 85 for 11 months. The number of boycotted persons increased more than fivefold. At the end of 1905 there were 162; at the end of 1908 there were 840. The persons under constant police protection have risen from 41 to 79—practically double. The persons protected by patrols of police have risen from 167 to 272. The amount of compensation for injuries—of course, we have not got the latest statistics—has enormously risen. Cattle-driving cases, which were bad enough in 1907, being 390, rose in 1908 to 660. The offence was remember, unknown before the hon. Gentlemen came into office. The cost of extra police in 1906 was £500; for the year ending March 31st, 1908, it was £10,000. These are bare statistics, and bare statistics cannot, of course, to those who do not know the country, be clothed in flesh and blood. It is difficult for those who do not know the place to see in imagination all that has gone on, is going on, and, if the present Government retains office, will go on. I am utterly unable to understand the principles on which the Government are acting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that 36 happy air that he possesses in so eminent a degree of increasing the general confidence in home investments, told a Liverpool audience that no man who had a stocking would invest a shilling in Irish land. I am afraid it may be true. It is not, perhaps, a good preface, a good motto for the speech of a member of the Government that is introducing a Bill for—how much is it?—£180,000,000, primarily on the security of that Irish land which no one who had a stocking would invest in.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George) : They bear the Government guarantee.
Mr. BALFOUR : Has the right hon. Gentleman at all thought that the Government are in any way responsible for the condition which makes it so absurd for a citizen of the United Kingdom to buy any land in a portion of the United Kingdom? I quite agree that there are many things for which this Government, and no Government within historic memory, is responsible. I quite agree that the difficulties connected with Irish land are rooted in the far, far past. It would be unreasonable for any Government to be expected to cure these at once and by a stroke. But I am bound to say that I think part of the difficulty is due directly to the utterly lax administration of the present Government. How can anyone invest in Irish land when they know that after they had got the land they would not be allowed to cultivate it in the manner in which they want, and that they will be compelled to cultivate it according to the view of the noble landlord! Who is going to invest in Irish land with a view of working it, or of superintending the working of it, when the present Government, for some reason which no one has ever been able to explain, allowed the Arms Act, which Lord Morley so sedulously preserved when he was Chief Secretary, to lapse; so that, as I am told, it is now firearms which are imported in immense numbers in all the disturbed portions of Ireland. (An HON. MEMBER: No.) Well, that is the story. (The HON. MEMBER: It is a story.) I believe it to be true. We know by the statistics that outrages caused by firearms have largely increased in recent years. Who is going to invest money in Irish land? Who would not prefer the traditional stocking when he knows that if he does invest in Irish land that his cattle will be driven, har- 37 ried from field to field, from district to district, and that the only consolation that he will have will be some almost scoffing reference by the representatives of the Government in their place at the misfortunes which have befallen him. There were some thousand cases of cattle-driving in 1907–8. I do not say that one thousand persons engaged in cattle-driving. I believe the exact number of the cases to be 1,050. Proceedings were instituted in, I think, 162 out of the 1,050 cases. And have the Government, even in these cases, or in any of the cases, used all the machinery at their disposal? We have heard Lord Morley praised in all journals, at all events in all Unionist journals, for the vigour with which the Indian Government are putting into force in these days regulations made in 1818. This Government have had an Act of Parliament in force, passed within the Parliamentary career of many gentlemen sitting here who strongly objected to it being placed on the Statute Book. I say it is plain, elementary, axiomatic, that a Government is bound to use the powers it has at its disposal for the protection of life and property. I do not see how the thing is arguable. I have never heard it argued; I have heard an excuse. What is the excuse? The excuse, as far as I understand it, is this: that the Chief Secretary and his friends resisted the Crimes Act of 1887, that they have always denounced it subsequently, and that they refused to use an Act which they resisted in this House, which they have attacked. I do not call that an argument; I do not think it is even an excuse. Are we seriously to be told that people are to lose their lives and their property, that a man is to drive six miles to get a loaf of bread to keep himself alive, simply because the Chief Secretary formerly made imprudent speeches? Are we to be informed, not merely by a Radical Government, but by a Radical publication office, that this cult of consistency, which I do not see in all their actions, is to be carried so far that, because they made certain speeches, took part in certain divisions, and resisted certain measures, they are, therefore, not to carry out the elementary duties thrown upon them by the legislation of this country for the protection of the elementary rights of citizens? The thing is really unarguable. If they are so fond of consistency, let them go back to some of their other speeches. I daresay they have made violent speeches against the Crimes Act since 1887; but they made 38 violent speeches in favour of a similar Crimes Act in 1885. Let us go back to Sir George Trevelyan's speeches in 1885; let us go back to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's speeches when he was Chief Secretary in 1885. If they are so fond of consistency, if they are determined to "Hansardise" themselves, if they are so determined to live up to their old utterances on this subject, let them go back to a happier time, when they will find speeches as strong or stronger in favour, not merely of the general principles of law and order, but in favour of very precise provisions which are absolutely adequate, or, at any rate, largely adequate to deal with this situation, which they could put in force tomorrow, but which they refuse to put in force for reasons never yet explained, I confess that, of all the administrative laches and other which I attribute to the present Government, their administration of the Government of Ireland in the last few years is the worst; it is the worst and the greatest of all their lathes. They have never defended it. The statistics I have quoted are the statistics drawn from answers given by the Chief Secretary himself. He knows the truth of every statement I have made, because every statement I have made has been drawn from his own replies. He knows, therefore, what the condition of Ireland is; he knows perfectly well that there are parts of Ireland where one set of courts have any power or can command any section, and these are the Courts of the Land League.
Mr. W. REDMOND : What about the Courts of the Confederates?
Mr. BALFOUR : I do not envy the wit—if it is wit—which finds a topic of amusement when a serious indictment is being made against the Government, who, refusing to protect those who have a right to claim their protection, who withhold the machine of the law from the weak, truckle to the strong.
Mr. W. REDMOND : Tariff reform. Jumping on poor Cecil.
Mr. BALFOUR : I have discussed the question of Irish crime in much more disorderly Houses, and against much more violent but not more preposterous or unseemly interruption than that which the hon. Gentleman has just made, but the strength of my case I do not think has been injured thereby. However that may be, 39 I have put the case before the House as far as seems necessary on the present occasion, and my accusation against the Government with regard to the administration of Ireland is that by their lathes they have been deliberately allowing the law to fall into disrepute, rights to be violated with impunity, in many cases life to be destroyed, and in still more cases life to be made intolerable. That being so, they are guilty of the greatest of all crimes a Government can commit—the crime of not carrying out the elementary duties for which Governments exist.
The PRIME MINISTER : The right hon. Gentleman has covered a wide area of ground in the course of his observations, and he is entitled and perhaps bound to do so on the first night of the Session, when the misdoings of the Government, which have been accumulating on this occasion for about six weeks, naturally require somewhat extensive treatment to do justice to them. I shall endeavour to deal seriatim, but I hope with greater brevity, with the points which the right hon. Gentleman has made; but in the first instance let me have the satisfaction of associating myself most heartily with him in the very graceful and most well-deserved congratulation which he made to my two hon. friends who discharged so ably and tactfully perhaps the most difficult duty that can fall to any Member of this House. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in a Parliamentary experience which, though not so long as his, is now somewhat protracted, I have never heard that responsible duty more admirably performed than it has been upon this occasion. My hon. friend who moved the Address is a man trained by graduating in the school of local administration. My hon. friend who seconded the Address is the son of a very respected and highly esteemed colleague of ours, and we are delighted to find that he is carrying on into the second generation that combination of mature sagacity of judgment with the spirit as well as the aspect of perpetual youth. The right hon. Gentleman devoted the earlier part of his speech to what was a dispassionate and not a controversial treatment of those topics of external interest with which the earlier paragraphs of the Speech from the Throne are mainly concerned. With regard to Persia, I should like to say this: The state of things in that country is exceedingly unsatisfactory, and goes, I regret to say, almost 40 week by week, certainly month by month, from bad to worse. There is throughout Persia general unrest and unsettlement. In some districts the authority of the Shah and of the central Government is set at open defiance. (An HON. MEMBER: "Ireland.") I will come to Ireland presently if the right hon. Gentleman will restrain his impatience. Trade is everywhere hampered, in many parts almost altogether paralysed. We are not seeking proprio motu to import into the East, for the troubles there, Western remedies; we have no original responsibility in the matter; but in our view there is no hope of improvement until the Shah keeps the promise he has made to his own people to establish representative institutions on a firm basis. Our desire continues to be, as it always has been, to follow a policy of non-intervention in Persian affairs, but it is impossible to ignore the danger that the continuance of the existing chaos and disorder might provoke in some form or another outside interference. We have, therefore, in conjunction with the Russian Government, more than once given advice to the Shah to fulfil the pledges he has given to his own subjects to set up a Constitution. We cannot go beyond giving that advice without becoming involved in the more direct intervention which it is our wish to avoid. The House may be assured that we shall not become party to making any loans, or in any other way giving support to the Shah, so long as he continues his present disastrous policy. We are, and have been, in frequent communication with the Russian Government, whose interests are closely and directly involved, for their frontier borders on one of the most disturbed parts of Persia. We are glad to find their general views of the situation are in agreement with ours. Although the right hon. Gentleman, for reasons I thoroughly appreciate, did not himself refer to the topic, I do not think I should be doing right if I did not say one word on the development of matters in the Near East of Europe. We have been doing our utmost to secure a peaceful solution of the difficulties which have arisen, and we shall continue to do so. I am not using the language of flattery or of exaggeration when I say that no man in Europe has worked more assiduously at that difficult and beneficent task than the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. And here I should be wanting in my duty if I did not acknowledge on behalf of His 41 Majesty's Government the statesmanship and moderation with which Kiamil Pasha, the late Grand Vizier, has conducted the negotiations of Turkey with foreign countries during these months of difficulty and danger. We hope that his successors will continue his policy, which appeared to be on the eve of securing a settlement, so far as Turkey is concerned, with both Austria and Bulgaria, by a compromise honourable to all concerned and not disadvantageous to Turkey herself. There are still what I may call outlying problems less formidable in their apparent magnitude, but calling none the less for prudent and sympathetic handling in regard to Servia, Montenegro, and Crete. The agreement as to the principles of settlement between Turkey and Austria, and Turkey and Bulgaria on the other hand, is of good omen, and has materially improved the prospects of peace. I made allusion a moment ago to Persia, and we are not fully aware of the circumstances which during the last few days have led to a change in the position of the Government in Constantinople. Even if we were it is not within our province to comment on them. As far as the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire are concerned we have but one constant and consistent desire, which I am certain is shared by men and parties of all shades of opinion throughout this country, to see Turkey strengthened and re-invigorated by the reform of her administration and the development of her future on the basis of liberty and equality. Whatever Government adopts that policy will continue to have the cordial sympathy of this country, and we shall always be ready to give them any help which it is within our power to render in the working out of the difficult task of administrative reform. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the paragraph in the Speech which deals with India. He asked what are the legislative proposals as a whole which the Government propose to make and what opportunity will there be as a whole to consider them. I think that the scheme of the Government was not only outlined, but outlined and very carefully filled out in the speech which was delivered by the Secretary of State in another place shortly before Christmas. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman legislation being as it is necessary for the carrying out of the integral portions of the scheme outlined by the Secretary for India, there is certainly no disposition to withhold any possible facili- 42 ties for the discussion of the whole subject when that scheme comes to be considered. Sir, I was much gratified to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to the prospects in South Africa. I do not want to rekindle dying, perhaps extinct embers, nor controversy, but I could not possibly let the opportunity pass without saying that the condition precedent, the essential and fundamental condition for the attainment of the settlement which is now happily in sight, was the free, full and generous grant of self-government to the new Colonies. We are now happy to believe by the avowal of their own most distinguished leader of our one-time gallant foes in the field that they are now our loyal coadjutors in council and in policy. And in that way, and;n that way only, came peace, and thus as we believe consolidation and unity of South Africa will come. Sir, coming nearer home, the right hon. Gentleman made reference to the unusual character of the phraseology of the paragraph of the King's Speech which is specially addressed to the Members of this House, and which deals with the financial year. I do not quite understand what was the gravamen of this charge made against us. He says we spent more money last year than was spent in the last year of his own Administration. That is only a very partial statement. If it be the fact—I have not had the time to refresh my memory — if the figures bring out that result, look at the fact that we have paid our way. I don't know to what item of the expenditure of the last financial year the right hon. Gentleman points—if as would seem his charge is intended to be a charge of wanton or unwarranted extravagance. The expenditure on the Army and Navy was reduced, and very substantially reduced, compared with the last year of the right hon. Gentleman's Administration. There were automatic increases, as there always must be, in other directions; but I am prepared to maintain, and I hope we shall have an opportunity of going into this matter in detail during the course of the Session. I am prepared to maintain that it was by our prudent and cautious finance, the reduction of expenditure, the remission of taxation, and in the paying off of debt—it is by those methods we were able to approach the practical grappling with the problem of Old Age Pensions. Now, Sir, the right hon. 43 Gentleman's comments on that measure are singularly difficult to follow. What is his charge against us? He says all this is part of one great problem, and I thought he was going to say you have no right to deal piecemeal and in a hand-to-mouth fashion with one part of a problem which can only properly be dealt with as a whole, but just when the right hon. Gentleman's barque seemed to be sailing full speed in that direction he suddenly tacked, and said "Oh, no!" I do not say these problems must always be dealt with as a whole. Sometimes it is imperative to deal with things step by step and piece by piece; but what is the case made against us in regard to Old Age Pensions—what ought we to have done? Ought we to have delayed Old Age Pensions to five or six hundred thousand poor people that have been promised Old Age Pensions for twenty years? But now, thank Heaven, they have been in the actual enjoyment of them for the best part of two months. Ought they to have been put off for another twelve months or two years, until this gigantic report of the Poor Law Commission had been analysed, digested, and reduced into something in the nature of a complete legislative Act? That is not the view of His Majesty's Government. We thought it was our duty to deal with this perfectly separate part of the problem, as experience has shown—to deal with it first without any prejudice to the subsequent dealing with the other and more complicated branches which are most intimately connected with the administration of the Poor Law itself. The right hon. Gentleman made a curious error with regard to the relation between the Old Age Pensions Act as it stands and the Poor Law. In order to preserve complete liberty of action for the future we very unwillingly, from another point of view, introduced a disqualification—a temporary disqualification—arising from the receipt of Poor Law relief. The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in his estimate of the extent and character of that disqualification. He seems to think a poor man or poor woman who is relieved by the parish doctor or even goes into the infirmary is necessarily disqualified from the receipt of an old-age pension. That is not the case. I will tell the House exactly how the matter stands on the authority of the Local Government Board. It is only chronic cases—the people who are workhouse paupers—who are disqualified. Ordinary 44 ailments or accidents—a broken leg or an attack of typhoid fever, to take two common typical cases—if treated in the infirmary do not disqualify, nor does outdoor medical relief of any kind. The House will see we have been most careful to limit the area of disqualification to those who, in the full sense of the word, in the present state of the law belong to the pauper classes. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has called attention—I confess, not without reason—to the extraordinary figures—for such they are—set forth with regard to the grant of old-age pensions in Ireland. I don't profess to understand them at all. Even making every allowance for every possible contingency, they seem to me, at any rate, to require investigation, and I can assure the House hon. Gentlemen from Ireland are quite as eager for investigation as we are. I am sure they do not want to be treated in a different respect in this matter from other parts of the United Kingdom. The matter is one which is engaging the serious attention of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he is conducting an examination by the most skilful experts into a number of test cases in order to ascertain if there be any maladministration, or, come to what is its source, at any rate to bring the whole thing out into the light of day, so that the people may clearly understand what is being done. Now, Sir, I do not think I need apologise to the House for the necessity of introducing an Amending Bill. In New Zealand, where old-age pensions have been the law for more than ten years, I am sorry to say an Amending Bill was introduced every two years. When the House remembers the enormous complexity of the conditions with which we had to deal in this country, the total novelty of the experiment, the impossibility, as I have pointed out, of procuring in advance anything in the nature of actual data, really I do not think it is to be wondered at that some defects in the phraseology and even in the actual working of the Act should be discovered, and I am certain the House will with alacrity settle those defects and enable us to deal with remedial cases. Now, Sir, the next point of criticism taken up by the right hon. Gentleman was in regard to what is no more than adumbrated on the subject of unemployment. It is quite true, and he was perfectly correct in saying, I last Session expressed the hope that we should be able this year, 45 partly fortified by the advice of the recommendations of the Poor-Law Commission which, through no fault of theirs, had not then reached us; we should this Session attempt to deal not merely by way of palliatives for passing symptoms, but to begin to go to the root of the question of unemployment. That is our intention. The phraseology of the Speech the right hon. Gentleman criticised was adopted expressly to indicate that intention to the House and the country. I am not now going to anticipate the provisions of the Bill which will be introduced. But when the right hon. Gentleman tells us we shall never get to the root of this matter until by some means or other we prevent British capital from going into foreign markets, I begin to think he has made some progress in that long, difficult, and untractable process of self-education, which the House and the country have now witnessed with so much interest for the last five years. British capital goes abroad, and thereby apparently unemployment is caused in this country. What is the British capital that goes to foreign countries? Where does it come from? By whom was it produced? What form does it take? It is not in the shape of gold or of paper, as the right hon. Gentleman used to know, and as I think he knows still. It goes in the shape of materials for the railways and docks of Argentina and other countries, which again, in their turn, employ British labour as well as foreign labour, and add enormously to the international trade between the different countries, and create reciprocal and additional employment in this country. But the right hon. Gentleman is really too kind to us. I do not claim for this Administration that it is in consequence of its policy that British capital has for the first time been exported to other countries. It was going on under his own Administration. If he will look at the figures he will see that during the last year of his Administration there was an enormous exportation of British capital to foreign countries—and a very healthy symptom it was; long may it continue. Then with regard to "crochets about coast erosion." Has anyone on this side of the House put forward coast erosion, or even the prevention of coast erosion, as a specific against unemployment in this country? If I am not mistaken, the Commission on this subject, which, so far as this branch of the case is concerned, has not yet reported, was the result of action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman's 46 own supporters, who were alarmed at finding some parts of the coasts of this country slipping into the sea. Without any arrière pensée of Tariff Reform, we might reasonably hope that some practical steps might be taken in the matter. The next topic was the administration of the Education Act, and there the right hon. Gentleman confined himself to a single case—Swansea. He criticised the administration of the Department, but I do not quite know what the suggestion is. At one time it seemed almost to amount to this—that His Majesty's Government, disgusted and resentful at the failure of their efforts to settle, either by legislation or by compromise, the education difficulty, had determined in a spirit of vindictiveness to visit their disappointment and wrath upon a particular school in Swansea, and that my right hon. friend, who carried the olive branch to all the churches last autumn, set himself deliberately, spontaneously, and of his own initiative to work what the right hon. Gentleman described as a "gross and flagrant injustice" upon the Church of England school. Is that the suggestion which is going to be levelled against us? There is no response. I want to know what the accusation is. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what are the facts. They are these: In this particular school a lower scale of salaries was fixed than in the Council schools in the same district. Is that peculiar to Swansea? Is that a state of things which did not exist prior to the passing of the right hon. Gentleman's own Act? I go further. Is it a state of things which does not exist now under the law as passed and amended by the right hon. Gentleman? Will anyone tell me that there is a legal obligation, under the right hon. Gentleman's Act or any other, upon the local authorities of the country to make the salaries in all the schools under their control the same and identical?
An HON. MEMBER : They are being raised.
The PRIME MINISTER : I daresay they are, and a very excellent thing, too. I am not speaking in favour of starving salaries; I am speaking of the law. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, and he knows very well that this is purely a legal question. The Board of Education had no initiative in the matter at all. It was a quarrel between the managers on the one hand and the local authority on the other, and the Board of Education was simply in- 47 voked as a Court of Appeal. To speak of my right hon. friend as though he had deliberately stirred this matter up for some purpose of his own is a complete travesty of the facts. Acting as a court of appeal, he sent down a commissioner—a very able man—to make an investigation and present a statement of the facts. I do not know that there was any dispute as to that statement. My right hon. friend did as he was bound to do—he took the highest advice he could get on the point at issue. The principal law officer of the Crown dealt with the legal question, and my right hon. friend, as anyone in his position was bound to do, followed the advice of his legal adviser and gave his award accordingly. That is the whole story. If anyone can discover in it a trace of animus or of vindictiveness, or of a desire on the part of the Board of Education to do injustice, he must have much keener eyes or a much more inventive mind than I can claim to possess. I come now to the final passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he attacked the administration of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I am glad to hear that we are to have an opportunity—I suppose on an Amendment to the Address—of dealing with that matter in detail. I am sure no one will welcome that opportunity more heartily than my right hon. friend himself, and therefore I will not go into the matter in detail at this moment. But I was struck by one observation of the right hon. Gentleman. He said: "Can you wonder, when you allow this terrible state of things to go on unchecked in Ireland, that no one is found ready to invest in Irish land?" Are they not ready to invest in Irish land? Who are the people who are investing in Irish land? Not British capitalists. British capital is not being exported to Ireland. The people who are tumbling over one another in their eagerness to invest in Irish land are the Irish people themselves. It is just because there is this eagerness to invest in Irish land that we are obliged to come to Parliament and ask for an extension of the facilities which have hitherto existed. Therefore. I do not think that part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument very forcible. But to come to the "chaotic" and "disorderly" state of things. I am not going to palliate or minimise the deplorable state of things which exists in some parts of Ireland. I and my colleagues would be false to our duty and false to our 48 real opinions if we did anything of the kind. I quite admit that there are going on in some parts of Ireland things which are reprehensible, which ought to be put down, which public opinion ought to condemn, and which, so far as the arm of the law is strong enough to reach them, the arm of the law ought never to be slack in reaching and preventing. So far, I agree. But it is no good indulging in the language of exaggeration in these matters. Let us take the case of cattle-driving. What are the figures? .Last year, 681 cases of cattle-driving were reported. According to the police authorities not more than 100 of those cases were committed by an organised crowd, the cattle-driving being carried out secretly, for the most part in the night, by one or very few persons. In 84 of those 100 cases proceedings were taken; 1,027 persons were arrested and taken before resident magistrates; 989 were ordered to find sureties to keep the peace; 873 gave the required sureties, and the remaining 116 were committed to prison in default. That does not show slack administration of the law, because, out of the total number of cases which the police regarded as really serious, in something like nine out of ten proceedings were taken, and this very large number of persons were made amenable and subjected to penalties for their acts. But the right hon. Gentleman says, as regards cattle-driving, and what I think is much more serious, the prevalence of boycotting and intimidation in some parts of Ireland, "Why do you not resort to coercion? There is a weapon ready to your hand; why not make use of it?" The answer is not far to seek. What power is there in the Coercion Act, even if it were resorted to, which would be of any use whatsoever to deal with the state of things which at present exists? Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that boycotting is not one of the offences which through the operation of proclamation can be made triable by a pair of resident magistrates instead of a jury. That section is confined to riots and unlawful assembly.
An HON. MEMBER : Conspiracy.
The PRIME MINISTER : The noble lord opposite says conspiracy—of all crimes the most illusive—and that brings me to the real point. The real difficulty now, as often before in Ireland, with which you have to contend in the administration of the law is the difficulty of finding evidence. 49 You cannot convict without evidence—not even a pair of resident magistrates—
Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL : Oh, yes, they could.
The PRIME MINISTER : They ought not without evidence. No tribunal in the world, not even a drumhead court-martial, ought without evidence to convict any man of any crime with which he may be charged. I agree that the responsibility is very great which rests upon those who are responsible for the administration of the law in Ireland, but I fail to see in the Crimes Act or out of it any provision which would put within their reach and at their disposal the power of getting such evidence as is necessary to secure convictions in the most serious of these cases. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the past. As I have said, I am not going to minimise or palliate the lawlessness which undoubtedly prevails in some parts of Ireland. But when he refers to speeches made by Sir George Trevelyan and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman in 1885, let us just see what was the state of things then, in what is called the happier time. Let me give the House the figures. I will take the three great coercion years. I take agrarian offences alone. 1880, 2,585; 1881—the year of the Forster procedure—4,439; 1886—just about the time when the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman refers to were made—1,056; 1908, 576. I am not saying that 576 is a thing to boast of, or that it is not a thing to be deplored, but I say that in the experience of every man in this House, and I include the oldest member, no Chief Secretary has ever come down and said that he could make out a case for a Coercion Act when he could not produce a very much blacker record than exists in Ireland at the present time. No one has ever attempted it. The ordinary law in those days was considered good enough, strong enough and well enough to deal with a state of things like that. These are the general considerations which actuate the Government in the policy they pursue. Having answered every point which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I earnestly trust that this House will find time and opportunity within the limits of an ordinary session for a full discussion of the programme which is outlined in the gracious Speech from the Throne. Finance must, of necessity, be the main and principal topic of our debates this Session. You cannot indulge in the luxuries of social reform without paying for it, and it is the business of this House, as 50 guardians of the public purse and zealous promoters of social reform, to see money is provided in adequate amount, and also by methods and resources which are consistent with justice and sound public policy. That, of necessity, limits the ambition of our legislative programme. As to the other measures outlined in the King's Speech, I may say there is not one of them which is not introduced either in fulfilment of a definite pledge given by the Government, or as a necessary complement or stage in the prosecution of a programme of social reform of which the Old Age Pensions Act of last year was the first, but only the first, instalment. I invite for them, when presented, as they soon will be, sympathetic consideration from the House in all its quarters, and if we can succeed in carrying them through and making adequate provision for the financial necessities of the year, we shall not pass a fruitless or inglorious Session.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON : I wish to make a few observations on the Address which has just been proposed from the particular point of view of the Labour party, and I shall endeavour to do so as briefly as I possibly can. We rejoice that the Government are able once more, as they very properly point out in the opening paragraphs of the gracious Speech, to state that they have continued to maintain friendly relationships with the other Powers in the world. This gives great satisfaction to my colleagues on these benches, for we believe, and, I think, rightly believe, that the democracies of the world have nothing to gain from an aggressive military policy. The common people, as they are very frequently described, have everything to gain from a policy of peace, and I should like to say, especially having regard to the motion we proposed during last Session against certain visits that were being projected by His Majesty, how much we to-day rejoice in the visit which His Majesty has paid to Germany. I think if we can maintain friendly relations between His Majesty and the Emperor of Germany, in addition to the friendly relations which I believe exist to-day, and which I hope will continue to exist between the democracies of Germany and this country, I strongly hold the opinion that there is no likelihood of that disastrous state of affairs occurring that certain people have been prophesying for the last few months. I believe that the democracy of the great Empire of Germany have no desire to get into entanglements or into a great inter- 51 national war with this country. Those of us who at home come into contact closely with the workers are also of opinion that, whoever may be desirous of having war between these two great countries, it is not those who are called the working classes of these islands of ours. Therefore, we rejoice at the characteristic note with which this Address opens—the expression of hearty goodwill which is maintained between the great nations and ourselves, and we sincerely hope that they will be continued. I notice that in most of the speeches delivered, and especially in those, excellent though they were in tone and temper, of the mover and seconder of the Address, very little reference was made to the first paragraph, with Which this House is so much concerned. The paragraph dealing with expenditure, both past and future, is, in my judgment, one of the most important in the whole Address. We are told that the expenditure of the year will be considerably in excess of that of the past twelve months. We know that that is inevitable, in view of the effect that must be made on the Exchequer in connection with Old Age Pensions. But I think there is in this paragraph a reference which has altogether escaped notice during the debate. I refer to the increase which has become necessary in consequence of the cost of the Navy. Now, taking this paragraph, not so much for what it says as for what it infers, taking it also in the light of certain remarks that have been freely published in the Press, I think I am justified in coming to the conclusion that this House is going to be asked again to vote increased expenditure for Navy purposes. We on these benches view with considerable alarm any suggested increase for that purpose. In fact, we are really astonished that it ever should have been suggested, and we have noticed that not only is it claimed through the Press that it has been suggested, but it has really been hinted that there has been a serious crisis in the Cabinet in consequence of division on this point. I hope that there may not have been anything in the nature of an actual crisis, but I also hope that there have been those present who still have some regard for the old Liberal watchword of "retrenchment." We do not hear it so much spoken of in connection with Liberal platforms as we did a few years ago, and many of us began to ask whether, after all, there is any difference between the two orthodox political parties so far as 52 expenditure for Navy purposes is concerned. Some time ago the Prime Minister made the following statement:— "The Army and Navy present fields of possible extravagance, and certainly not of possible but of practicable reduction." There is no man in this House who entertains that sentiment more profoundly than I do myself, and let me point out that there are only two practical ways in which you can reduce expenditure on the Army and Navy. What are they? In the case of the Army by reducing the number of your permanent fighting force. There is no other way of doing it. In, the case of the Navy by contracting your shipbuilding programme. Now, what are the remarks to which we have been treated? I hope in a later stage of the debate we may be told from the Government bench that the remarks about a large increase in Navy expenditure are absolutely without foundation. If we are told so, many of us will believe that there are still left a strong force in the Cabinet who believe in the old-fashioned idea of retrenchment. But I want to ask whether the proposed increase is to be £6,000,000, as has been freely canvassed, or the more moderate sum of £3,000,000. May I ask whether this House is to be requested to vote once more £3,000,000 additional for this purpose? May I ask also—where are we going to stop in connection with our military expenditure. During the past two decades our expenditure has risen for this purpose from £12,325,357 to £34,061,280. May I remind the House and the Government that in ten years we have spent for this purpose£318,000,000, and the country that has been so much quoted in connection with what has been described as the German war scare, and which is so often held up to us in this respect has spent £108,000,000. May I remind the House—may I remind the Prime Minister—that we are now spending £32,000,000 on the Fleet, as compared with £17,000,000 by Germany on hers. No doubt the whole Navy vote is £34,000,000, but that includes naval works, and I am endeavouring to separate the cost of the actual Fleet from docking and other works. If these figures are correct they demonstrate that we are making very rapid progress in the extent of the amount we are spending on the Navy. If the paragraph in the gracious Speech means that we are to be asked to vote a sum of £3,000,000 in addition to the present expenditure on the Navy, many of us on these benches will be fully justified in doing everything we possibly can to pre- 53 vent that Vote being carried. May I now turn to the legislative proposals of the Government? We rejoice at many of the Government proposals, such as the Irish Land Bill and that dealing with Town Planning. We on these benches sincerely hope that the House and Town Planning scheme will be so strengthened during its progress in Committee that it will be made as effective as the house reformers have in view. We welcome the intimation that the hours of shop assistants will be dealt with. In many instances they are too long, and if a Bill on the subject, without doing any injustice to the shopkeeper, can be placed on the Statute Book it would be a splendid boon to hardworking assistants. We rejoice, too, that Wages Boards are going to be introduced. The Labour Party in the first Session of this Parliament introduced a Bill for this purpose, and a Bill was also introduced in the second Session. It would be a great mistake if provisions against sweating were applied only to those engaged in home work. I believe there are many evils in factories, and we want to see the whole of the industries brought under the regulations and protections of the Wages Board. We are also delighted to learn that the Government propose to amend the Old Age Pensions Act of last year. I think that the mover of the Address was a little too kindly disposed to the Act as it stands when he suggests that the numbers of cases of inequality and injustice under the Act had been comparatively few. What numbers of cases there have been have been exceedingly painful. I myself had to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to one of many cases where men had been deprived of the benefits of the Act because a single payment had been made through a relieving officer, although the payment had been refunded. That had been the cause of disqualifying persons of 70, 75, or 80 years of age. So long as such cases exist—and there are far too many of them—it is urgent that there should be an amendment of the Act. Having congratulated the Government on several measures which they are to introduce, I must offer one or two words of criticism. It seems to me, as the Speech tells us, that there is not going to be the usual time this Session for the consideration of legislative proposals, and, therefore, we doubt the wisdom of introducing into the programme of the Government for this Session the very knotty and difficult question of Welsh Establishment. I will yield to no one in my conviction that the principle of the Bill 54 is right, but with the acute, menacing,. grave social problems before us it seems to me that if the time for legislation is going to be restricted the Government would have been justified in allowing this question to remain over a little longer. The references in the Speech to the great problem of unemployment are very disappointing to the members on these benches. We admit that the Government have taken a step in the right direction by proposing to set up a co-ordinate system of labour exchanges. But that comes very far short of what the Government led us to expect. We on these benches are delighted that the Government propose to associate the labour exchanges with the Board of Trade. But are these exchanges going to provide work? No. Therefore, to that extent the announcement is very disappointing. That was not what we were led to expect. May I remind the House exactly what the Prime Minister said in regard to this question? He made a definite statement in reply to, a question I submitted to him on the 21st of last October. He said that the Government intended to make legislative proposals "at the beginning of next Session dealing with the permanent causes and conditions of unemployment." In the speech which he has just delivered he suggests that he had expressed "the hope" that he would be able to deal with the question during the present Session I want to know the difference between the expression of a "hope" and the actual language which the right hon. Gentleman used in reply to my question on the 21st of last October. when he said that "the Government intend to make proposals at the beginning of the next Session to deal with the permanent causes and conditions of unemployment." May I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised the point still further. He said that proposals might "produce only temporary relief," but he hoped that before Parliament ended its labours a blow would be struck "at the effective causes of unemployment." May I ask where "the effective blow" of the Prime Minister is to be found in the King's Speech? I want to remind the House that on several occasions during the discussion of this question the President of the Board of Trade has especially invited the House to wait until we had had before us the report of the Commission on Afforestation. How remarkable it is that having been invited to wait for three years for the report the Government, when they make reference to the question of unemployment,give not the slightest indication that they seriously in- 55 tend to deal with the report on afforestation. We have been told to-night that the report of the Poor Law Commission has reached the hands of the Government, and that is the excuse, I suppose, for not having made any definite reference to the Commission on the Poor Law. No such excuse exists, so far as the report and recommendations on the question of afforestation are concerned. Therefore we must express our bitter disappointment that after the Government had created expectations they have doomed these expectations to disappointment, and I have no hesitation in saying that there are many thousands of people connected with the working classes who last Session accepted the temporary proposals of the Government. believing in the speech of the Prime Minister that when this Session arrived the question then would be first and foremost in the King's Speech, and that what would be most definitely dealt with would be the acute and menacing question of unemployment. I admit there has not been the agitation in the last month or two that existed in the country during the latter part of last Session, but I hold that that was largely due to the expectation created by the Government themselves. Now these expectations both in this House and in the country have been disappointed, and it need not surprise us if once more there is a recurrence of that form of agitation which we, on these benches, so strongly disapprove, so long as there is any hope of getting the permanent remedies of which we approve. It is impossible to control such agitation if the Government will continue to disappoint hopes and expectations persistently built up by them as they have been built up in the four Sessions of this Parliament. In their first King's Speech this Government declared they were prepared to bring in an amending Bill—they had criticised the Bill brought in by their predecessors on almost every platform during the General Election—and they made reference to this problem in the King's Speech, and promised to introduce an amending Bill. For four Sessions they have continued to create these hopes and expectations, and now the permanent remedies we were told of last Session take the form of a system of labour exchanges, which are to be set up and other measures that "may be" introduced. Why are we not told that a Disestablishment Bill "may be" passed? Why this change in the form of the language used? We on these benches hope for 56 another opportunity before this gracious Speech is disposed of to lay this question before the House. We shall by an amendment of our own try to convince the House that the promises made have not been fulfilled, and we shall want to know how long the starving people of this country are going to be fooled with the statement that certain things "may be" done this Session when we were told months ago that it was the definite intention of the Government they should be done. We feel that our patience and the patience of those we represent have been sufficiently strained, and unless we get more definite assurance as to this "may-be" relief, and unless we get a definite assurance that that "may" will be struck out and "shall" put in its place we will do everything we can in this Session to keep this question before the House, believing there is no more important problem to be dealt with by the House of Commons to-day than the question of finding an effective and permanent remedy for the unemployment of starving, workless people that in tens of thousands are walking about the streets of this country to-day.
Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS : There is one great inconvenience in a debate of this kind, and that is that a man has to make a quick transition from one subject to another if he has to follow previous speakers. I feel some relief, however, from the onus because I do not feel called upon to reply to the strong attack made upon His Majesty's Government by the hon. Member who has just spoken, whose support they might have hoped to secure. I desire to speak upon another subject—one with which I had a good deal of connection some time ago—that is, the condition of Turkey. I am aware that Ministers and ex-Ministers, and those who expect to be Ministers, are called upon to exercise a due reserve in speaking of foreign affairs. I think that reserve may well be exercised even by people who do not fall within any of these three categories—except perhaps when an unofficial Member can testify to the sympathy that exists in this country with the great movement congenial to the spirit of our race—which is in progress for the purpose of introducing reform into Turkey. The introduction of constitutional methods and reform into Turkey was really one of the most remarkable events that occurred in the history of any nation. The Turks are an Oriental people, and it has come to be a theory in this country that Parliamentary institutions were not suited to such people. That may be so in many 57 cases, but, at the same time, it is a theory that should not be translated into universal acceptance. To my mind it depends really upon the character of the people in question, and it is with regard to the character of the Turkish people that I desire to say a few words. With all the sympathy that has been extended to the Turks, based often upon political and self-interested motives, but sometimes upon humanitarian grounds, I don't think the Turkish character is rightly understood in this country. I am not speaking of the Pasha class, but of the real people, who now have voted at the polls. They are a brave and virile people; and putting aside their fighting qualities, which require no comment, they are an industrious, peaceful and temperate people to a degree. They never touch anything in the shape of liquor, they love their children and their homes, and they are loyal to their country and Sovereign, and, above all, to their faith. It is not our faith, but we must always remember that the same flag we live under floats over 300 million Mahomedan subjects of the British Crown. Speaking of what I saw with my own eyes, the contrast of the Mahomedan peasants of Rumelia and Bulgaria with the Christian peoples, side by side with whom they lived—the contrast in temperance, self-restraint, and in all those qualities which go to make up good citizens—I shall never speak disrespectfully of the Mohamedan faith, as a rule of life to those who profess it. I saw these people in the throes of a terrible war, perhaps the most terrible war so far as it affected the inhabitants of the country, in the records of modern history—a war which brought cruelty and rapine and slaughter within their very doors, and which turned them out by hundreds of thousands on the frozen territory to find their way, men, women, and children, without food or shelter, down to Constantinople. I saw them six weeks later lying in the streets of Stamboul, frozen and starving, without a hand being raised to rob the stores that were open, or the ships in the Golden Horn, or the palaces of the bosphorus, patient as they had been up the country. Well, the mosques were opened, and the people poured in, and there, by the noble generosity of the English people, I was enabled to feed some fifty thousand of them a day, and all that time I practically lived with these people, spending twelve or fourteen hours a day amongst them. It seems to me that the same qualities which these people displayed in these terrible times of war and 58 suffering were also displayed to a greater extent in the peaceful revolution which has taken place in the Government of their country. There were no doubt many old and deep-seated prejudices to be got rid of. They had been trained throughout their history to look solely to a despotic form of Government for their national safety, and they had rendered that Government unbroken loyalty, receiving little in return, always ready to give up their lives in the name of the Padishah. But long ago the seeds of reform had really been sown among them by the poetry of Kemal and the actions of Midhat, and the writings and work of others. They were not, moreover, like a far-off Oriental people. They had around them the spectacle of the Christian peoples of the Balkans, to whom they held themselves superior as a nation and as individuals, receiving parliamentary rights. Therefore during this time the popular mind was preparing for the emancipation of the people, so that when it came, as all such changes must come in these countries by an organised movement—not only must come, but very often be nursed and guarded afterwards by organised movement—which cannot be fully communicated to the people, it was received with enthusiasm, and found itself based upon the popular will. This, and the qualities I have already mentioned as belonging to the Turkish people and also the attitude of His Majesty the Sultan, to whom I think too little credit has been given in this matter—these are the reasons why a great revolutionary change like this has been accomplished peacefully and temperately in Turkey. That, I think, alone should excite our admiration and our sympathy in favour of our old allies, but when we add to it the remarkable exhibition of statesmanship, the qualities of prudence, the wisdom and the self-restraint which have been exhibited by the present Government, at a time of great and unexpected external difficulty, I think we have additional ground of congratulating the Turkish people and feeling some confidence in the perpetuity of the reform. There is no reason to withhold these congratulations or the expression of that confidence on the ground that it is premature. There are many in this country, and I count myself among the number, who wish to help on this movement, and who are willing to help it at the time when help, in the form of public opinion, is required and useful, rather than to wait until the whole thing is accomplished. The measure of 59 its prematurity, so to speak, is the measure of the encouragement it will give to those who are struggling to set Turkey on the path of progress and reform, and to bind its different parts together under a free constitution. I do not wish to discuss any more closely what lies more strictly in the province of the Turkish Government, or to refer to immediately recent events, except that I feel permitted to point out that the path from a despotism to a constitutional form of self-government, which has been so rapidly entered upon, cannot long be trodden without mistakes being made. The Turkish Parliament is entirely untrained in parliamentary and constitutional usage. Anything which bears the complexion of a return to a despotic form of authority is certain to be met with a perhaps too hasty and drastic action on the part of those whose struggle has been to get rid of despotic authority. I think in those recent events we do not find any further cause for distrust than that the first attempt to return to anything like the exercise of despotic power, whether it be by a Sovereign or by a Minister, will necessarily meet with the strongest opposition from the majority of the Turkish Parliament. It would be a misfortune if such action were to deprive the Turkish Parliament and the Turkish people of any one of their wisest councillors, but I think it would be still more unfortunate if there were to be any attempt to limit the measure of Parliamentary self-government that has been granted to the country, and I believe myself that it would alienate the sympathies which have been reawakened in this country with Turkey if such action were to be taken by either Sovereign or Minister, or were to be consented to by the Turkish Parliament. I have spoken these few words which I hope I have put in a sufficiently measured form, with the intention, even in a very humble and limited way, of conveying some measure of encouragement and good will to those in Turkey who, having just emerged from a despotism, are, perhaps, struggling in a still, dim light, and by what some may think devious paths, towards the great goal of parliamentary self-government, which it took this country not one year but centuries to obtain.
Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEY : The subject of unemployment has already been referred to by previous speakers, although this debate has not long pursued its 60 course, and, indeed, it would be strange if it were not so. Since I have been sitting here I learn that a deputation from my own constituency awaits me outside to speak to me on this all-important subject; and, indeed, I have the unhappiness to represent a constituency which, whilst it is situated in the West End of London, which is associated, I am afraid, in the popular mind with luxury and wealth, also includes a large number of unemployed men, and I think I may also say women. We are in this unfortunate position, that while we in the Borough of Paddington have raised voluntarily thousands of pounds for the relief of the unemployed, while there are hundreds of unemployed men admitted to be able and efficient workers in my constituency, we have no machinery by which properly to apply these thousands of pounds to the succour of the men who are unemployed. Thus, within the confines of a constituency such as mine it is not possible, economically, to make work with that money. While such a condition of things as that is possible I cannot help expressing my regret that the subject of unemployment figures for so little in the Speech of His Gracious Majesty. Before I proceed with the subject in its graver aspects, I should like to address one or two remarks to the observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I confess that until to-day I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a good Free Trader struggling with adversity, but I confess also that I had never hoped to hear fall from his lips what I can only describe as the common places of Tariff Reform. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that while he did not believe that Tariff Reform contained a complete solution of the problem of unemployment, he implied by the very accent he gave to the word "complete" that he did think it was a considerable contribution to a solution. [Hear, hear.] I gather from those cheers that it is accepted by the party opposite that Tariff Reform, while it cannot pretend to be a complete solution, is still some solution. I do not wish to spend very much time upon that subject, but so far as I understood the three main heads of the right hon. Gentleman they are first Colonial preference, second the using of duties as a means of retaliation to secure more open markets and third as a means of preventing the export of capital from this country. I should like to address a few observations to each of 61 these, to show that Tariff Reform cannot be claimed even as a partial remedy for unemployment. If Colonial preference has anything to offer to the workman of this country, I presume it is by the hope that a freer market will be gained for the products of his work in the other portions of tips Empire, or in the Colonies; but is it not becoming more and more apparent that in the Colonial preference phase of protection—it has always been a phase of protection—what counts is the minimum duty. I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman and others opposite can hope while they preach here the acceptance of Protection, while they tell the British workmen that his Government hopes to obtain work and employment for him by shutting out goods which come to this country from abroad—I cannot understand how, while preaching that dogma, they can hope to inoculate the Colonies with the idea that if they lower their tariffs and so let in more of our goods they will benefit; because by their remarks they are instructing our Colonial brethren that imports spell unemployment, and, therefore, that by their agreeing to lower their import duties they are leading to distress and unemployment in their own ranks. It is, of course, the minimum that counts to the adherents of Colonial preference. Canada, for example, chose a minimum scale of duties which is to be an effective scale, and I gather that on this side those who favour the doctrine of preference are also determined to set up a minimum scale of duties. It has not been sufficiently remarked that the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Birmingham, made as recently as 1903 have been entirely amended, in so far as preference is concerned, by the Tariff Commission, which he himself set up. The argument in 1903 and the year or two which succeeded it was that we need not fear dear food because there were free Colonial food supplies which were to come in to counterbalance the shortage, if any, in the foreign supply, and so keep down the price. But what has become of that argument? The agricultural committee of the Tariff Commission has thrown overboard the idea of free food from the Colonies, and their suggestion is for a minimum duty on Colonial produce and a rather higher duty on foreign produce, which is an entirely different proposition, because it suggests, as the Canadian preference suggests, the existence of a minimum, and it is, of course, upon that minimum that the protective mind will be fixed. 62 Every effort will be made from year to year and from time to time to raise that minimum in the knowledge that it is the minimum that tells in connection with protective tariffs. Therefore, I cannot hope that the Colonial preference has anything to offer the British workman by way of increasing his employment. If we are doing anything by preaching Tariff Reform we are telling the Colonies—we are inoculating them, if they are not already inoculated, with the doctrine that it is necessary to keep up our tariffs if they are to retain their employment, and I cannot see any hope for increased employment for the British workman there. On the next question, that of retaliation, I would simply ask whether any hon. Gentleman can point to any instance in the world in which the country which possesses the means of retaliation has gained, in regard to manufactured goods, an advantage which we do not possess. Is it not a fact that Germany has to meet the Dingley tariff which we have to meet, that the American exporter has to meet the French tariff that we have to meet, in fact, higher duties than we do, because they have not favoured nation treatment?
Sir F. BANBURY : They have their home trade.
Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEY : The American manufacturers before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States have been saying they want lower duties in order to reach the markets of the world, which shows that they are not content with their home markets, as indeed why should they be? Then I come to the third point, the export of capital. What relevance has Tariff Reform to the export of capital? Can hon. Gentlemen point to a great Protectionist, industrial nation which does not export its capital? Is it not the case that the French have invested in foreign countries certainly more than £1,000,000,000; that Germany is rapidly increasing her investments in Russia and Italy and in other places; that America is investing in South America, Mexico and Canada? As far as I am acquainted with figures on that head, they show that Germany and France at least have certainly as much capital invested abroad in proportion to their total wealth as this country. On the face of it, where is there any evidence to show that Tariff Reform or Protection is a cure for the export of capital? The Prime Minister was able very effectively to reply to the Leader of 63 the Opposition by pointing out that when we export capital we export work or the results of work. We do not export gold for the simple reason that we have none to export, and it can easily be shown—in fact, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite admitted—that we do not export securities. His argument is that we are increasing the world's indebtedness to ourselves and not decreasing it. We export goods, or we neglect to take up from the world at large the whole of the indebtedness of the world at large to ourselves in any particular year. The Prime Minister had there, of course, a most effective and conclusive reply to the Leader of the Opposition, but I should be very sorry to leave it at that. Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
Mr. CHIOZZA-MONEY : As I understood, my right hon. friend has seemed rather to think that it was an excellent sign of the progress of the country that it should be investing capital abroad, and up to a point I should be the first to agree with him, but surely that is not the whole question. It seems to me that here we are touching a subject which goes a great deal deeper than the fiscal issue. The motive underlying the investment of capital abroad is, of course, an individual one. It has nothing whatever to do with the welfare of the country or the person who makes the investment. The only question which the investor asks himself is whether the investment is a reasonably safe one and whether it yields him a certain rate of interest, and the reason why capital flows from the old countries of the world to the new countries is, of course, that higher rates of interest are to be obtained in the newer countries. The investor, with his limited knowledge of securities, is very often tempted to put his money into an investment in foreign countries, generally a new country, merely because of the higher rate of interest which it offers. The hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, will remember that not many years ago thousands of people in this country were induced to put their money into American breweries because the rate of interest was so high. I do not know where those investments stand to-day. Perhaps the hon. Baronet can tell us. But there is an instance where the wealth of people in this country was 64 wasted by the individuals who invested it abroad, not in pursuit of the gain of the country at large, but simply in pursuit of a high rate of interest, and that is, of course, the guiding motive in every great industrial nation in the world, and that is why I rather sweep away the fiscal issue in that connection, and do not really admit, except in a small degree, its relevance to the issue, except to point out that in those countries which have adopted every remedy which the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition appears to favour, they have certainly, in proportion to their wealth, as large or larger investments abroad than we have. I pass from that which is really the least interesting part of the question to me to the question of unemployment on its merits and I notice that the reference to unemployment in the gracious Speech is one specifically to labour exchanges. Labour exchanges are a very useful industrial instrument. They have been referred to as a means of organising industry. That I deny. They do not amount to an organisation of industry. What they amount to is an organisation of labour to meet the vicissitudes of unorganised industry. That is to say, the captains of industry are either incapable of organising or refuse to organise their industries for themselves. The industries of the country are largely unorganised, and the result is, on any given day of any given year, a variable amount of unemployment, which simply means that a certain number of loose ends exist in the labour market. Nobody who is aware of the constitution of industries in this country is really surprised at the existence of unemployment. His surprise is rather that, for instance, to-day, February 16th, 1909, there is not more unemployment than there is. It is more surprising that only about 9 per cent. of the trade unionists are unemployed—that the number is so small than that it is so large. That is the real truth about unemployment. What have labour bureaux to offer in that connection? It must be remembered that unemployment is a varying thing. It is not one thing but several things. There is normal unemployment, which simply is the expression of the fringe of partly employed or wholly unemployed men hanging round the skirts of every industry in the country. That always exists, and, as all those who have studied the question agree, it must occur in competitive Society. It is a condition of 65 competitive industry. But that is not the only form of unemployment. The second form arises from the variations of the seasons. As between summer and winter, spring and autumn, the call for labour of various trades alters, and so men are thrown out of work, according to the stringency of the season, in greater or fewer numbers. There is another form of unemployment which is more serious still, and that arises from the alternation of good years and bad years of trade. That, of course, in itself, is a consequence of competitive industry. In cannot be avoided under present circumstances. All we know is that it may be expected. We know to-night, being in February, 1909, it is probable that unemployment will improve a little this year. The next year it may probably—I am only speaking from general information—be rather better than this year, and then the year after we shall probably find unemployment considerably diminished. If anybody was speaking in this House then he would have probably to express the opinion that unemployment would get worse again, and within a year or two it might be as bad as it is now. Again, anybody acquainted with the history of industries in this country, or other modern States, knows that these periods of cyclical unemployment are to be expected. I ask the House to consider what have labour exchanges to offer in connection with these established and well-known facts? A labour exchange may conceivably render more decent and more tolerable the conditions of life and the character of labour. That is to say, for the man whom I have described as hanging around the fringe of industry under modern conditions, it may ease the conditions of his life and render easier the passage from one job to another, and so render him a more decent and self-respecting citizen than would be the case if the labour exchange had not been established. If we took the trouble to make these exchanges such institutions as could be respected by the men who use them, that is to say, if we inspired confidence in them, and if upon their management were represented both masters and men in, say, equal proportions; if we saw that these institutions are provided with decent, comfortable waiting rooms, and that the men who went to them for aid were treated as if they were men and not as dogs; if we do those things we can hope for a great deal from labour 66 exchanges in that way. We might do something more. We might hope, by means of them, that the fringe of casual labourers hovering around the outskirts of many industries might be contracted, and we should do something perhaps to abolish to some extent even the existence of the casual labourers, although it is too much to hope that it will abolish them altogether. When you are asked with regard to seasonal unemployment what have labour exchanges to offer them, the answer is very little, but in the case of cyclical unemployment labour exchanges can do absolutely nothing. Thousands of men may register themselves in a labour exchange, but the labour exchange cannot make one single hour's more work than exists without them. In view of all those considerations which might conceivably be enlarged, it is a disappointing thing that with unemployment as bad as we know it to be at this moment, the only reference in His Majesty's Speech to unemployment is a reference to labour exchanges, and other things which may conceivably be built upon labour exchanges. It does not seem to me that this is what we were led to expect from the debates which took place in this House last year. I have not forgotten those debates. They were not raised on the initiative of His Majesty's Government. They were raised on the initiative of private Members of this House. We reached those debates only with very great difficulty, and they took place only for a few hours. Many of those in this House who have studied this question for years find it quite impossible to raise this question as they would like. We did get these debates with difficulty. In connection with them we were led to believe that the Government were going to put their hands seriously to this important task this year. I don't think they are putting their hands to the task with sufficient seriousness. I don't think they are even quite sufficiently alive to the situation which exists this winter. We are in a bad year of trade. Though we might hope conceivably that next winter may be rather better with regard to unemployment than this winter, I don't think we are entitled to hope that next winter will see us without a very considerable degree of unemployment in this country. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government would be well advised—and I hope that many opportunities may arise in the near future of debating this question of unemployment 67 —to consider whether something more than the mere establishment of labour exchanges cannot be brought about. I know very well the difficulties of the subject. I glady admit that the labour exchanges can be useful not only to the men I have pointed out, but may possibly be useful as a basis for the extension of insurance against unemployment in the time to come; but when all that is said and done, and when all that can be reasonably hoped for from those reforms have been brought about there will undoubtedly remain in this country in any year, particularly in some years, a great amount of surplus labour with which the Government will be continuously called upon to deal. That calls for permanent machinery, and I suggest, as our society is likely to remain on a competitive basis, during at least the life time of those who are listening to me, that it is necessary for us to recognise that that system must be accompanied by unemployment, and to set up permanent machinery to deal with it, permanent machinery which will enable all the different forms of effort with regard to unemployment to be coordinated and brought to bear on the matter. I was glad to note in the speech of one of the Members of the present Administration a reference to the good that might be done by way of the extension of the prosecution of public utilities. The right hon. Gentleman referred to mentioned specifically the question of afforestation. I am not one of those who hope for a great deal from afforestation with regard to the unemployed question. It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is a very large solution of the problem. I only mention it as typical of a number of activities in which the central Government and the local government might usefully engage, which are capable of expansion and contraction to suit the dimensions of the labour market. Here we have got to deal with this always pressing but always variable and fluctuating factor of unemployment, as we know of its existence. Let us at all events so arrange our public works as to call for this varying measure of the surplus of the labour market. If we are to do that wisely, and so far as it may be economic, it will be necessary to set up proper machinery throughout the country, machinery which would be capable at least of dealing with such sad cases as I referred to in my own constituency, where we have unemployed and money to provide work for them, and no 68 machinery to set the men at useful labour, if unemployment is to be dealt with by this or any other Government as it deserves to be dealt with. There is of course the question of ways and means. As I conceive it this Session will be taken up largely with the question of ways and means. It is, of course, impossible to-night to anticipate the debate on the matter. There have been various vague references to what is to come in the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen. I have not been able to gather a great deal of definite satisfaction from these utterances, but I can only hope that in the measures shadowed forth in the speech now under discussion, in connection with those measures, the right hon. Gentlemen who are now responsible for the safeguarding of our finances will have regard to what regard has never yet been had in this country—the means of those who find Imperial revenue. There should be some scientific, some proper regard to the incomes of those who are called on to pay taxes. This is a question to which I have called attention before, and I do not propose now to go into it at any length, especially as the right hon. Gentleman chiefly concerned is not in his place to listen to what I have got to say, but for my own part I do most devoutly hope that this year we may see the old rule of thumb methods by which the national finance has been raised at last put aside, and that we may have, instead of that rough arrangement of direct and indirect taxation—direct taxation to be taken from the classes and indirect taxation to press upon the masses—some procedure with some scientific regard to the means of those who have to bear the taxation. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked about broadening the basis of taxation. I believe myself in endeavouring to broaden the backs of those who have to bear taxation. I believe in having regard to the width of the backs of those who have to bear taxation. If we are to do that properly we shall require to have proper information. In that connection I very deeply regret myself that better regard has not been had by the Somerset House authorities to the colleciton of information with regard to income. It will be within the recollection of this House that recently a differentiation was made between earned and unearned income. One should imagine that those who are responsible for the collection of information with regard to taxation would 69 have taken the trouble to find out how many people at the different rates of income are in the various classes. I have inquired, and to my astonishment find that that information is not available. It has actually not been collected. The information is not given in the Blue Books, and if you go to Somerset House they actually cannot tell you in the different classes of the income tax how many people there are at the ninepenny and how many at the shilling, or how many people precisely are at the different levels of income. If that information were collected it would be a most valuable guide to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would have been of the greatest assistance to him in the task which he has now to face. But it is really typical of our methods of taxation. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year is faced with a task as great as any Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever had to face in this country he has not got full information to deal with it. Yet I do hope myself that he has information which will enable him at any rate to adjust taxation very much more fairly than it is now adjusted. I am not one of those who believe that differentiation should be carried very much further. I believe that if you graduate income tax you have no necessity to differentiate. As you raise in the scale of income you reach more and more the unearned element of income, and therefore as you graduate income tax you also differentiate it and save all those complexities and anomalies which arise from endeavouring to distinguish what is earned and what is unearned income. I will not carry my observation on this question any further except to say that in the financial machinery to be established this year regard should be paid not only to the necessities of to-day but also to the needs of the future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to provide the revenue not only for the machinery to be set up this year, but he has also got to show that under Free Trade we can provide in the future the ways and means for all those social reforms which we believe to be necessary.
Mr. CARLILE : There are many temptations to follow the hon. Member for St. Pancras in his somewhat superficial criticisms upon tariff reform, but I desire to deal with another important subject—namely, the proposed disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales. Why has this subject been introduced into the King's Speech? Why has it been intro- 70 duced now? Does the report of the Royal Commission of the Church in Wales warrant any such proposal? Nothing of the kind. I refer to this proposal of the Government with much regret, not only because it finds a place in the Speech from the Throne, but because I believe I am right in saying that it is generally acknowledged that the House of Commons is seen at its worst when it is called upon to consider religious subjects, more especially in connection with education. This has proved to be the case during the last three Sessions of Parliament. I venture to say that the Report of the Royal Commission gave no authority at all either in the evidence or in its Report for any proposal to disendow and disestablish the Church in Wales. Why is it suggested that only four of the dioceses within the province of Canterbury which happen to lie in the Principality of Wales should be disestablished and disendowed? Why have the Government not brought in a Bill to disestablish the whole of the Church in England? Simply because the Government know that such a proposal would be laughed out of the House of Commons, and ridiculed by the people of this country. It is fully realised in every part of the country that the Church of England is doing her work efficiently, and that she has never done it more efficiently than she is doing it at the present time. That is quite true of the work of the Church of England in the four dioceses of Wales. Can the Solicitor-General give any reason for disestablishing the Church of Wales under these circumstances? No doubt there was a time when the Bishops in the Principality could not speak the Welsh language, but that is not the case now. All that has been altered, and the Bishops are to-day in close touch with the people of their dioceses, which are well organised to carry on the work of God in connection with the Church of England. The Church is carrying on her work efficiently to the immense welfare and benefit of the people of Wales. It is at such a time as this, and under those circumstances, that the Government insert in the King's Speech a proposal to disestablish and disendow the Church in Wales. The spirit underlying this proposition does not reflect much credit upon those who have made it. It is claimed that because Wales in this House does not happen to be represented by Unionist members, the Welsh people are not interested in this subject. It is true that the figures at the last general election show a large majority of the representatives of the Principality in favour 71 of the present administration, but that is not likely to obtain for any great length of time. We happen to know the spirit which underlies this proposal. We know the source from which it comes, and we attach to it its right value. It is largely a question of social jealousy, and it is merely because the ministers of one Church in the Principality, by their association with the Establishment, are supposed by the ministers and adherents of other denominations within the Principality to have some sort of social kudos which is not to be found in those denominations which are associated with the Establishment. That is why this proposal has been made on this occasion. But there is another reason, and it is that there exists a religious bigotry in Wales which is also unparalleled in any other part of the United Kingdom. That bigotry is not only present in Wales but it also exists on the Treasury Bench. What is the treatment which has been meted out to the Church of England schools in Swansea? Contrary to the law, an attempt has been made by those whose business it is to administer the Education Acts to starve out the voluntary schools in Swansea. Their object is to destroy the educational welfare of the children, and they strike at the children in order to deal a back-blow at the Church of England. They do this because they are animated by a spirit of hostility, hatred, and jealousy towards the Church in Wales. The reason why such a proposal is made at the present time is that the opponents of the Church of England in Wales are beginning to realise that the Establishment is daily growing in strength. Consequently they desire to strike at the Church at the present time when she is not so strong as she is likely to be later on. The opponents of the Church of England in Wales know that if they allow her more time to extend her beneficent and Godly work they will not be able to carry out their plans, and so they have resolved to strike a blow at her while she is weak. That attack will fail. What a laudable courage the Government is showing by attacking the Church of England at her weakest spot when they really desire to attack the whole of the Church in this country! I cannot help feeling very strongly upon this subject, not because I wish to maintain an Established Church in the midst of a population who dislike it, but because I cannot 72 ignore the fact that our Church has been efficiently doing the work of God in Wales for many years past. I can understand a proposal to disestablish the Church in Wales coming from those persons who make it on this occasion, but I cannot understand why disendowment has been suggested as well. Why disendow the Church in Wales? What is it proposed to do with the money? Are you going to build washhouses and things of that sort with the money? There is no information before us as to how the money is to be employed. The endowments of the Church in Wales are the gifts of pious ancestors intended for the use of the Church, and surely you do not propose to take those gifts and use them for any other purpose. That would not be merely robbery, but it would be sacrilegious plundering, and I do not know how you can find language strong enough to use across the floor of the House of Commons to properly describe much action as that. We can do it a little better outside, and it requires some plain speaking in order that the people may realise fully what it is now proposed to do. I agree that the funds necessary for carrying on the work of the Church in Wales will be forthcoming even after disestablishment, and after she has been robbed and plundered as is now proposed, but what about the responsibilities of those who propose to rob the Church in this way. Has it relieved them of the responsibility? Would not the curse lie upon those who carried out this proposal? I believe the curse would lie upon them, and probably it would be one of the severest blows that the little Principality has ever had. Shall the hand be put to sacrilegious robbery and plunder regardless of the spiritual welfare of a vast number of the population? Well, not only would this be the result. We would see to it that the Church in Wales had funds. But what would be the effect upon the Church of England and the Nonconformists in that country. At the present time they are able to grip the hand over the moral and spiritual difficulties that lie around their work. They can co-operate for the good of the people of the Principality. But if the Church of England in Wales once had to acknowledge that to the Nonconformists of Wales they owed this spoliation of the funds of their Church then there would be an end for ever to any co-operation between them. Would the social jealousy disappear? Not a bit of it. The social jealousy would be greater than ever, because those who were adherents 73 of the Church of England in Wales would see to it that their clergy were constituted almost a caste, a class; and would be responsible to see that they lost no kind, either of social or spiritual position in that Principality. All these things would make for the destruction of the Church of God in Wales. Therefore on all these grounds it is a deplorable thing, I venture to say, that the present Government should have inserted this proposal in the gracious Speech. There is higher ground still. The higher ground, I take it is this: That so far as the legislature are concerned, that by maintaining the Establishment, either in Wales or in England, we are making a public and official recognition of the fact that there is the interposition of Almighty God in our daily affairs. Divorce that recognition from our legislature, separate this legislature from any such recognition, and—one does not want to prophesy—one knows as a matter of fact that it would be the case—this country in her spiritual and her moral life, in her whole tone, would receive a blow which perhaps we could not recover from for many generations. I would rather, far rather, see the Primitive Methodist Church established, recognised as the official body in this country, or almost any other sound religious Church associated with the Government of the country, than see what I should look upon personally, and I believe many others would look upon in the same light, as one of the greatest disasters that could befall this community.
The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Samuel T. Evans) : I do not propose to argue the question of the rights or wrongs of the Church either in England or in Wales. But as pointed reference has been made to me by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I desire to offer a very few words in reply. I hope my very short interposition will not raise a debate upon this topic which would be more properly relegated to the time when the Disestablishment Bill will be before the House. I am going to give a few very short reasons why at this time the promise should be made that is now made in the King's Speech. The hon. Member made a very serious speech. He said it is necessary to have an established church in order that there should be the recognition of the interposition of Divine Providence in the affairs of the world.
Mr. CARLILE : Official, I said.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL : I think official recognition is the worst recognition 74 we can have. The hon. Member surely remembers the case of Ireland. Does he say there is no recognition of Divine interposition in human affairs in the whole of Ireland since the disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1869? The hon. Gentleman went further. He used language which I have no doubt will be repeated when we come to the debates on the Bill. He says that those who wish the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church will be guilty of the crime of sacrilege and robbery, forgetting that action on Welsh disestablishment will lie on exactly the same footing as that in the Irish Church. Members will not forget, I am sure, two things in connection with that: First of all, that it was Mr. Gladstone himself, who was as good a member of the Church of England as ever existed, who carried the disestablishment of the Irish Church through with great advantage to the adherents of the Disestablished Church of Ireland. Also he forgets that in '94, in Mr. Gladstone's own Government, the present Prime Minister, who was then Home Secretary, introduced a Bill for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales.
Mr. CARLILE : I remember it quite well.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL : I am not going into the question of the sub-division of the province of Canterbury into the four dioceses.,I think it is now admitted that the Welsh Church existed before Canterbury was formed into a province. The reason why any Bill had been promised, and why this Parliament ought to adopt it, can be stated in a very few words. In the first place, the nation, practically speaking, is altogether. [Mr. CARLILE:"No, no."] In the second place, as far back as fifteen years ago, the nation having made up its mind, that wish of the nation was recognised by the Government of the day, and a Bill received the assent of the House of Commons to its second reading, and was carried to a large extent through Committee. I forget the number of sections now, but we discussed it for many days in Committee in the Session of 1895. That Parliament came to an end, and, of course, the Bill could not be proceeded with any further; but so far as it was proceeded with it received the assent of the House of Commons at that time. The hon. Member says that the Church has been more active. He says give her time. I am not going to discuss the question one way or another, but—
Mr. CARLILE : I am sorry to interrupt 75 the hon. Member. I did not say "Give her time." What I said was that the Nonconformists say, "If we do give the Church time she will strengthen herself all along the line, and be strong to resist all our attacks. Therefore we are going for her now."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL : You are entirely mistaken about the feelings of the Nonconformists upon that matter. They have no hostility to the Church. There is no jealousy existing between them, and the hon. Member has already said that they now join hands with all denominations for the welfare of the people of the country. The reason for the Bill is that Parliament has sanctioned the principle of disestablishment and disendowment in the Session of 1895, and it has been found that the representation of Wales continuously from that time forward has been increasing so far as the majority is concerned in favour of this measure. The Welsh people have been very patient since this Government came into power. They have been promised, and a pledge has been given by the Prime Minister, that this measure should be introduced. At the present time the whole of the representatives of Wales and Monmouthshire are unanimously in favour of this measure. Is there any measure of the kind about which you can say that you have the complete unanimous wish of the representatives of any portion of the United Kingdom? If there were any such measure of unanimity among the representatives it would be unreasonable to withhold the measure from them. I hope I am not introducing discussion upon a question which will be more properly and more fully discussed when we come to the various stages of the measure, but these are some of the grounds why I think it is imperatively necessary that the Government of the day should fulfil their pledges in pursuance of the demands of the representatives of the people.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY : The hon. and learned Gentleman carried our memories back to the Parliament of 1895. Those memories, I think, are a little analogous to the history of the present Bill. He told us that the whole country desired in 1895 the passing of a Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. He probably well remembers what took place in 1895. It is quite true that that Radical Government brought in a Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and he said that Parliament passed the Bill. Parliament 76 did not. The House of Commons passed. the Bill, but it went no further.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL : The hon. Baronet is wrong. The House was not allowed to go quite so far. It passed the second reading, and we went into Committee, and got to Clause 9. It is a fact that a new Parliament came in before the whole Bill could be passed through the House of Commons. That put an end to it.
Sir F. BANBURY : In those days the guillotine was not so freely used, even by hon. Members opposite, as it is now. That is the reason we got no further than Clause 9 in Committee. And what happened when Parliament terminated? Did the country that desired Disestablishment of the Church in Wales return the party Opposite? Did they return that party empowered to carry the Bill they so much desired? Now, the greatest defeat the Radical party ever sustained was in the year 1895. My hon. friend informs me that they lost seats in Wales. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is predicting what is going to take place shortly. I have heard remarks in the Lobby this evening that the Government intend to go to the second reading, and, having carried it that far, do not intend to go any further. I do not myself pay much attention to these remarks, for, after the very fluent, energetic, and fighting speech of the hon. Gentleman, I am inclined to believe that the Government intend to really press this Bill. I give the Government greater credit for sincerity than my hon. friend below. I don't believe that they would put a Bill of this character in the Speech almost third or fourth in order, and not intend to pass it this Session. The hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that the whole country of Wales has been pining for this measure for fifteen years—for fourteen years at all events gallant little Wales has been pining for it—and yet for three years the hon. and learned Gentleman has been in power with a majority which has never been equalled since the days of the Reform Act, and all we hope to have is a Bill which may possibly be proceeded with as far as the Committee stage, and then will be dropped. I hope the result will be as in 1895 and in 1880. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that things were going to be as they were in 1880. I hope that they will be, and that things will be as they were in 1895, and that the introduction of the Welsh Bill will show us that the good times are at last about to come. I had pleasure 77 in listening to the hon. Member opposite, who told us that he had just left a meal, and that a deputation of his constituents were waiting to see him upon the question of unemployment. It struck me that I would follow the example of the hon. Gentleman, at any rate so far as getting a meal was concerned, and therefore I did not hear the whole of the hon. Member's observations. The hon. Gentleman said that the deputation were not satisfied with the promises of the Government. I rather agree with the deputation. I do not see why they should be satisfied. They have been led to think that as soon as the Liberal party came into power all sorts of extraordinary events would happen, and that they would get thirty shillings a week and nothing to do. But the reverse has occurred. The hon. Gentleman says that money was raised by voluntary effort in his constituency, and yet they could not find any work in Paddington to give to the unemployed. I believe that the remedy proposed by the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway for unemployment is coast erosion and afforestation. In my ignorance I cannot see how it would be possible to deal with either of these remedies, which, as far as I know, are the only remedies proposed to hon. Gentlemen opposite representing constituencies such as that of St. Pancras. Afforestation, I believe, is a favourite remedy with hon. Gentlemen below the gangway; but the planting of trees is a very precarious experiment. I have tried it myself, and the result is that my trees do not grow, though my cheque book is emptied of a good number of cheques. Even if the trees do grow it would be about forty years at the earliest, I believe, before they would make any return to the person who had planted them. Forty years is a long time to wait, and the remedy of hon. Gentlemen apparently is that the present generation are to pay out of their pockets for something which may possibly make a return in forty years to somebody who may be living at that time. The hon. Member for Paddington then proceeded to discuss tariff reform, and said that he understood hon. Members on this side of the House do not say that tariff reform is a complete solution so far as concerns the question of unemployment. The hon. Gentlemen had entirely misunderstood the aim of Tariff Reformers. As far as I know no Tariff Reformer is a Protectionist. I am a very humble follower of the right hon. Member for Birmingham in his policy of tariff reform, but Mr. Chamberlain has never said that he is a Protectionist. All 78 we ask for is that manufacturers in England should be put on the same footing as manufacturers abroad. I fail to see why Colonial preference should interfere at all. Tariff Reform is directed against those countries who put such a tariff upon our goods that we cannot compete with them on equal terms. What we want to do is to either make an arrangement with France or Russia or any other European country whereby if they like to admit our goods free we will admit theirs free. That is what I call Free Trade. But if they will not do that, then we will put on a duty to enable our manufacturers in England to compete with theirs in France or whatever country it might be. That seems to be a simple business proposition. I cannot conceive how anybody who has had a business training can find any difficulty in supporting such a self-evident proposition. A sovereign made in the country and spent in the country is of more value to the country than a sovereign made in the country and spent abroad. That seems to me another self-evident proposition which I should say that it would be needless to advance in a much less intelligent assembly than the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the investment of English capital abroad. That is a question on which I have some little knowledge. During the last four years the investments of English capitalists in foreign securities had been much larger than they had been in any previous period of English history. I cannot believe that the countries named by the hon. Gentleman, certainly France, have invested any very large amount of money out of their respective lands, except France in Russia. What money France did invest abroad—I have some knowledge of that—arose from the same feeling which has induced English people to invest their money abroad now, that is to say, want of confidence. It had nothing whatever to do with the question of rate of interest, it had to do with this: At one period during the last twenty-five years, to my knowledge, a large number of wealthy people in France were not sure what their Government were going to do, and they sent large quantities of money over to England to be employed here. They did so because of the safety that was supposed to accrue to capital when it was used in England. What is going on? I believe that a compact has been entered into during the last two years between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and one of the French Ministers 79 that details shall be given, when a man dies, of the amount of money which he holds abroad, and that similar details should be furnished from this country when a person dies here. The result of that has been to prevent French money from coming over. I am far from saying that there are not other circumstances; but, for the last two or three years, French money has not been coming over because the people are afraid that they would be subject to death duties. Capital during the last three or four years has been going out of England in a greater proportion than it has ever done before. Then at the present moment the interest abroad is smaller than ever before—that is to say, you can get a larger rate of interest for your money in England than you could have any time within the last twenty years, whereas a smaller rate prevails abroad than for the same period. That statement I am prepared to verify for any hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. Then there was reference to failures abroad, but I fail to see what that has got to do with the question. Nobody has ever supposed that there are not bad investments abroad in the same way that there are bad investments in England. Now as to the Speech from the Throne. I do not want to say anything about the portion referring to foreign affairs, because as my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition stated, on the whole hon. Gentlemen opposite have done well. They have followed the traditions of the Tory Party, and they cannot do better than do that. As to the Bills to be introduced, I see that we are to have the misfortune to deal again with Irish Land Law, and also to have a Housing and Town Planning Bill. Before I refer further to these questions I should like to mention the matter of the Swansea Education Commission. I heard my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition and also the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who, with the talent for which he is so justly celebrated, always skates over a difficulty. Listening to his speech at one time I almost thought my right hon. friend (Mr. Balfour) was wrong, and that for once in their lives the Radical Party had not committed any great error. The right hon. Gentleman (the Prime Minister) went on to say that he sent down a Special Commissioner, and I believe I am correct in saying that he has since been made a judge. I am quite certain the Radical Party would not make a person a judge 80 unless they were satisfied he was a proper person to give a judicial position to. They sent him down to decide a question, and immediately after made him a judge, and they overthrew his decision because the Law Officers of the Crown said that that discussion was wrong. Why did they make this gentleman a judge if the Law Officers of the Crown had not any confidence in his decision? Why did they send him down unless they were prepared to accept his decision? It seems to me that the fact that they sent this Commissioner down and then did not accept his finding shows that the real object was—although I do not like to say unkind things in the House of Commons—I really cannot help saying I believe it was a little vindictiveness on the part of the hon. Gentlemen opposite on the defeat of the Education Bill of last Session of Parliament. Now I would like to say a few words upon the Irish question, because that seems to me the most important question at the present moment. I was reading a short time ago in North Wiltshire a letter written by a former Member of this House (Mr. Ian Malcolm), in which he described the condition in which a gentleman named Carr was living. He told us that in the man's house there were five policemen, and in some other cottage on the estate he counted a district inspector and seven policemen. And I think he said that as the man slept he heard the patrol of armed men—a patrol passing a gravel path round the house. He told us also that the offence which this gentleman had committed was that he had sold his land to his tenants—as far as I could gather, the sale had not been completed—and he kept a thousand acres of demesne, which he was farming himself. He informed us also this man was spending a thousand pounds per year in wages. The only error he committed was that certain gentlemen—Irish members of the Land League—desired possession of that land.
Mr. DILLON : Irish Members?
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY : Members of the Land League. I do not attribute membership of the Land League to every Irish Member, and I do not know whether they are members of the Land League or not. That was the offence; and he had to send to Dublin for his bread, and to open a shop in his house to supply the workmen who were loyal to him. When he went to the county town to give evidence something like two hundred police were required to line the streets of the town to protect him from being assaulted. Is that 81 a position in which any part of the United Kingdom at present under the beneficent rule of the Radical party should allow themselves to be put? It seems to me the sooner we leave off governing Ireland according to Irish ideas the better for Ireland and the better for the country. I see a measure will be laid before you to alter the law affecting Parliamentary elections and registration in London. That affects me personally, because I have the honour to represent the City of London. I do not quite know what all that means, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Burns), who is also a Member for London, can inform me what it does mean, because if it means a little jerrymandering with the plural voting, and I hope that it does not, all I can say is that it is extremely foolish on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to introduce that Bill because I think the result will be that it will meet the fate that it so well merited when it was brought in before. I presume when that happens we shall have a banquet at the Liberal Club or Whitehall. I remember I was speaking here on the previous occasion and was asked not to do so at length because hon. Gentlemen opposite had to go to a dinner. I yielded to the request and read in the papers next day that the mention of "Down with the House of Lords" was received with waving of napkins or, as they were otherwise described, white flags. I am afraid if this means plural voting again the rejection of the measure in another place will possibly be followed by another banquet and declarations as to what they are going to do. I do not propose to say anything on the question of national expenditure, because I hope to have something to say on that when the Budget arises. There is one other subject, that of milk. I am rather interested in milk, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that he does not mean to impose any further burdens on farmers, through which they will be unable to continue the only prosperous branch left to them. Milk in the last ten years has been a very prosperous branch of agriculture, and especially in the country in which I live. I quite agree it is necessary that cleanliness should be observed, and that the milk should be delivered in proper vessels. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to insist on model buildings on every dairy farm all over the country. If he does, he will ruin the only remaining prosperous branch of agriculture.
Mr. LYNCH : I had put down an amend- 82 ment to the Address on the subject of Persia, but as I am given to understand it may not be reached, I prefer to take my chance in the general discussion. Let me say that I have already put the views which I am about to submit to the House before the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary in the form of a memorandum, and therefore I hope he will reply to my remarks to-night, and deal with them in a sufficiently thorough manner. Let me say at once that I heartily welcome the remarks in the gracious Speech on this subject. The people of that unhappy country are engaged in a desperate struggle. The Nationalist Party are fighting for their Constitution, and the people of Persia ask only this of the great Powers of Europe, and especially Great Britain and Russia, that they will not intervene in any way, but leave the people of Persia to fight out their own battle. We who are interested in this question cordially welcome also the energetic words used by the Prime Minister this afternoon, when he spoke of the disastrous policy which was being pursued by the Shah, and told us that His Majesty's Government, with the Government of Russia, had strongly urged the Shah to carry out his pledges to grant a Constitution. The only word in that phrase with which I should be inclined to differ is the word "a." It seems to me that the business of His Majesty's Government is to press upon the Shah not to grant a Constitution, but to restore the Constitution he has already granted. But leaving that point, the passage in the gracious Speech to which I wish particularly to refer is this: "The state of affairs in Persia imperatively demands the introduction of representative institutions in a practical form"; and it goes on to say that the Governments of Russia and Great Britain "are exchanging views on the subject." What is meant by "representative institutions in a practical form?" Is it meant that the Governments of Russia and Great Britain are exchanging views as to what is a practical form of representative government for the Persian people, and that they propose that the Persian people should adopt the result of their deliberations? Surely that would be a most unwise policy to adopt, because the Persian people already have a Constitution, and there is no need for two foreign Powers to elaborate one. They have a Constitution, and have taken up arms for it. The question then arises: Can the Constitution for which they have taken up arms be described as a practical 83 form of representative government? To anyone who wishes to study this part of the subject I would commend a little pamphlet just published by Professor Browne, of Cambridge, in which is given a very complete and accurate translation of that Constitution. It is about as practical a form of Constitution adaptable to an Oriental people as any Member of this House or anyone acquainted with Oriental countries could frame. A lesser form of representative government could not be given to any people. In the first place, who are the electors? Is it a large democratic franchise, something impractical, something entirely unsuited to the needs of an Oriental country? Nothing of the kind. The electors are divided into the following classes: (1) Princes and the Qájár tribe, which is the ruling tribe of Persia; (2) doctors of divinity and students; (3) nobles and notables; (4) merchants; (5) landed proprietors and peasants; and (6) trade guilds. The landed proprietors and peasants must be in possession of property of a value of not less than £200. The House will see that that Constitution is framed on the most conservative lines. Further, these electors do not elect the members of Parliament. They assemble in colleges—the six colleges such as I have described, in the individual towns of each province each class assembles and elects one representative; these representatives go to the chief town of the province, and there they elect the members of Parliament. Another safeguard for the maintenance of good conservative principle is that the Senate is composed of 60 members, one-half of whom are nominated by the Shah himself. Anything less than this Constitution could hardly be described as in any way representative government. It has been said that this Constitution, when in operation, worked very badly. I wish entirely to traverse that view. I do not think it worked at all badly. Let me tell the House what was accomplished under it. In the first place, before the Constitution was introduced, there was a large annual deficit in the finances of Persia. After the Constitution had been in force for one year the large deficit was converted into a substantial surplus. And this was done not by increasing taxation, but entirely by decreasing expenditure. The Persian Parliament said they could not increase the taxation of the country until they had made a cadastral survey, and they were engaged upon that cadastral sur- 84 vey, which everybody knows takes a long time, when the Parliament was abolished. I think it probable that had that Constitution remained in force Persia would not have had to approach either Russia or Great Britain for a loan. I have gone very closely into this matter during the last few weeks with certain representative Persians, who have informed me that in their view there is no reason why Persia should be obliged to have recourse to a loan at all. They say that, at all events, it is not at all certain. In addition to this work of finance, the Constitution established all over Persia provincial councils, which acted as a substantial check upon any malpractices on the part of the local governments. On that point it might be urged—of course, something might be said against any Parliament—that there were amongst the Members men who did not do justice to Parliamentary institutions. The answer to that is a very simple one. The Persian Constitution provides that an election shall take place every two years, and, therefore, if the original body, or some of its members, were not entirely up to the standard, we might expect—we should have every reason to believe—that in a future election their places would be taken by more competent people. Now we have to ask ourselves: Why was this Constitution abolished? Well, it was abolished in a very curious way. We do not yet know all the facts because the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has not seen his way—perhaps for good reasons, I do not know—to give us that information, but it was dispersed owing, I think, mainly to two causes. In the first place, about twenty days before the final coup d'état took place the Russian and British Ministers are reported to have gone to the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs at a time when the Shah was doing all he could to undermine Parliament. These two Ministers warned the Minister that if matters proceeded further Russia and England would be obliged to intervene. The Minister for Foreign Affairs reported this to the Assembly, and the Assembly came to the conclusion in the graphic Oriental phrase that it was better to be a sick patient than a dead one. Therefore, owing to the intervention of the British and Russian Ministers it was thought better not to resist by armed force. We come twenty days afterwards to the coup d'état. It was carried out by Persian soldiers organised by Russian officers. The guns were trained on the Parliament 85 House and on a place where there were 10,000 people assembled.
Mr. REES : The officers were in the service of the Shah.
Mr. LYNCH : They were in the service of the Shah, but they were lent by the Russian Government to the Shah. There has been some difference of opinion, I think, and, after all, it is difficult to get to the bottom of these things. I quite agree that no blame can be attached to the right hon. Gentleman for not knowing the details of complicated questions such as these when really reports of an entirely opposite nature are on the carpet. The right hon. Gentleman has said in answer to questions that the Russian officers had no relation to the Russian Government, that they were responsible to the Shah, that they took their orders from the Shah, and that they acted independently of the Russian Government. That, I think, has been disposed of by a statement quite recently made to a Russian newspaper correspondent by the late Russian Minister at Teheran, who was present at the
>coup d'état
>. He stated that the Russian officers undertook nothing without the knowledge of the Russian Minister at Teheran. I suppose that sets that question at rest. The question I have to ask is—If you are not going to counsel the Shah to revive the Constitution—the Constitution for which the Persian people are taking up arms—what are you going to do? Are you and the Russian Government going to frame a Constitution which you consider better suited to the Persian people than the one which they themselves consider suitable? I do not think that can be the attitude of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I put a question to him on 24th November, when there was talk about reviving the Constitution of Persia, I asked him whether the new Constitution was to be a revival of the old Constitution. The right hon. Baronet answered that "It was not for us to decide its character. I am not prepared to be responsible for the internal affairs of Persia." With that answer I cordially agreed at the time, and I agree with it now. Here, again, I fancy there must be some divergence of opinion between the late Russian Minister and ourselves. Speaking of the representations which he and his British colleague made jointly, the late Russian Minister to Persia said they pointed out to the Shah the necessity of creating a council, assembly, or conference of experienced persons attached to the 86 country who should help the Shah to create order in the land. That is a kind of nominated council which I daresay would be very agreeable to the Russians themselves, but certainly could not meet the views of the Persian nation, and could not restore the security of the country. I should like to know if representations have been made by His Majesty's Government and by the Government of Russia to the Shah asking him to restore the Persian Constitution. That is a very simple question, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey) : I answered that question last Session more than once. We have made representations.
Mr. LYNCH : A constitution?
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS : A constitution. We certainly shall not go beyond general representations. We shall not take upon ourselves the responsibility of dictating. Any representation we make will be purely of a general character. We want to see Persia pacified, and we shall ask the Shah to keep his word to his own people.
Mr. LYNCH : I think the last part of the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is extremely satisfactory. I think it covers the point I was raising, namely, to restore the Constitution which was abolished. Supposing the Shah refuses to restore the Constitution, what remedy have we in our power? I think the answer to that is sufficiently obvious. If the Shah refuses to restore the Constitution the remedy is to withdraw all assistance from the Shah. We know perfectly well that the Shah would be unable to resist the demand of his people for the Constitution were it not for the fact that he is supported by a body of troops drilled and trained by Russian officers. Therefore, these Russian officers will have to be withdrawn, and when they are withdrawn His Majesty will have to fulfil the pledges made to his own people. I do think that we ought to have in the form of papers some clear indication of what took place between the British and Russian Ministers before the coup d'état and also the contents of the Russian note delivered at the Foreign Office some few weeks ago.
Mr. REES : I put down an Amendment, but I will not move it now. I take excep- 87 tion to an expression used in the King's Speech. It is that of "the people of India." There is no "people of India." There are many "peoples in India," but no "people of India "; and it is all important that this elementary fact should be borne in mind in every document referring to the affairs of India. There is no more resemblance between the different peoples of India than there is between the different peoples of Europe. It is peculiarly unfortunate that such an expression should be used when various fictitious arguments are advanced that the peoples of India are ripe for constitutional government. The hon. Member for Ripon has been guilty of the fault which he deprecated in the case of the Foreign Secretary when he referred to some interference in the internal affairs of Persia. I deprecate the use of the expression "constitution." In point of fact, the constitution of Persia has been an absolute monarchy. If it was not absolutely perfect it was at least perfectly absolute. When the Prime Minister said that the Shah's writ does not run in Persia, it did not run everywhere years ago when I was in Persia, in the days of Nass-ud-din Shah. There is a great deal of delegation in that country, and I do not think that the affairs of Persia are so desperate as is represented, though I believe that the present position of affairs is disastrous. It is not our business to favour any particular class in the country, but to let them have a fair field and no favour and fight it out. I wish to express satisfaction that there was no proposal in the Speech to give a grant from the taxes of Great Britain to the sufferers from the earthquake in Italy, though I deeply sympathise with the sufferers. But there are sufferers from calamities in the territories of the Nizam of Hyderabad, a protected Prince in subordinate alliance with the Crown, and nothing has been voted to them from the taxes of Great Britain. It has been said that the democracy of this country objects to the high cost of the Navy. I ask the hon. Member for Barnard Castle to look at the democracies of the United States and France. They take entirely different views, and the President of the United States has said that battleships are the guarantees alone of peace. It amazed me that the hon. Member for Barnard Castle should object to anything in the shipbuilding Vote. 88 That Vote is a provision of money for the puchase of British material for the manufacture of British ships by British labour. No sooner do we get proposals for the reduction of dockyards or for any falling off in the Vote for the dockyards than the individual labour Member representing that particular dockyard gets up and says, "Oh ! yes, let us have reduction, but not in my constituency." I submit there is complete inconsistency in the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle upon this question, and that a large shipbuilding Vote not only makes us safe in our own house as nothing else can, but also provides employment for the British labourer, and is, from every possible point of view, to be regarded as beneficial in the highest degree to this country and above all to the labouring classes in the country. I should like to see the hon. Member get up and explain his opposition to a big shipbuilding Vote with that consideration in view, and also taking into account the anti-military and naval movement in France, which fortunately has utterly failed. The Prime Minister of that country is a Radical in the last degree. A schoolmaster in France, to my great satisfaction, was sentenced to a severe fine, or a term of imprisonment, because he debauched the mind of a youth to such a degree as to deter him from the patriotic course in regard to his military service, still regarded as becoming a Republican in France. I wish to say one word as to the disestablishment of the Welsh Church, which will be very gratifying to the Liberals in my constituency. I have no doubt the hon. Member for South Glamorgan who was to-day re-elected chairman of the Welsh Party has expressed his satisfaction on behalf of the party with regard to that measure. The hon. Member is head of a party which, unlike any other party, has all its Members precisely of the same spirit and exactly of the same mind, and I have no doubt that the Chairman expressed their satisfaction in a manner which I cannot. There is one other remark which I should like to make, and that is with regard to the Bill for amending the Old Age Pensions Act. I think I heard some doubt expressed in some quarters as to the necessity for this, but it appears to me to be extremely necessary. So far as I can gather from the reports of the Pension Committees it has happened, not once or twice, but many times, that old persons receive pensions because their incomes were within 89 the qualifying amount, whereas they were possessed of sufficient capital to enable them to buy annuities of far larger amount than the disqualifying income. In such cases it would appear there are not a few recipients of old age pensions—at any rate, some—who can well afford to maintain themselves, and who have been awarded old age pensions at the expense of the general taxpayer, the general taxpayer who is, as I think, by no means apoplectic with wealth, being drained from both pockets, the one with the rates and the one with the taxes. As a Member for a Welsh constituency I would add my voice to that of the hon. Member for the City of London, and beseech the President of the Local Govern- 90 ment Board not to make these milk regulations too severe because a great deal of the milk even in the City of London is supplied by Welshmen, who supply the best possible milk in the best possible circumstances, and the right hon. Gentleman would discourage a very useful trade if he makes the regulations so stringent that they cannot be complied with.
Mr. G. N. BARNES : I move that this debate be now adjourned.
Question put, "That this debate be now adjourned."
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes after Ten o'clock.
|
S5CV0001P0_037ef3f4b0bf95ba
| null |
DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 32310}
|
Sir CHARLES DILKE moved for a Return showing, with regard to each Parliamentary Constituency in the United Kingdom, the total number and, as far as possible, the number in each class of Electors on the register now in force; and also showing the population and inhabited houses in each Constituency (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 44, of Session 1908). Motion agreed to.
|
S5CV0001P0_c5280b574c1b48a7
| null |
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.).
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 63}
|
Mr. ATHERLEY JONES asked the Home Secretary whether he could give any later information as to the colliery disaster which took place yesterday at the Stanley Mine, Durham.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone) : The only telegram I have was received at half-past one, and is to the effect that 33 have been recovered alive, and that there are about 100 men in the pit. Several dead bodies have been seen. I am expecting another telegram every minute, and meanwhile the Chief Inspector of Mines has gone to the scene of the disaster. I will give my hon. Friend further information when I receive it.
|
S5CV0001P0_02d0b28351cff001
| null |
The Durham Colliery Disaster.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 110}
|
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns). —Bill to Amend the Law Relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, to provide for the making of Town Planning schemes, and to make further provision with respect to the appoint- 92 ment and duties of county Medical Officers of Health, and to provide for the establishment of Public Health and Housing Committees of County Councils. Bill read a first time.
|
S5CV0001P0_eb6c187be8dc6d40
| null |
HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 72}
|
Mr. J. A. PEASE moved the following motion of which the Prime Minister had given notice: That no Bills other than Government Bills, be introduced in anticipation of the ballot, and that all Members who desire to ballot, whether for Bills or for Motions for Tuesday, 23rd February, and Tuesday, 2nd March, and Wednesday, 24th February, and Wednesday, 3rd March, do hand in their names at the Table during the sitting of the House on Tuesday, 16th February, or Wednesday, 17th February, and that a copy of such Notices be handed in at the latest during the sitting of the House on Thursday, 18th February: That the ballot for the precedence of the said Bills and Motions be taken on Thursday, 18th February, at a convenient time and place, to be appointed by Mr. Speaker, and that the presentation of Bills on Friday, 19th February, be taken as soon after twelve o'clock as Mr. Speaker may deem convenient.
Mr. ROBERT PEARCE moved as an amendment to leave out from "That," in line 1 to end of Question, and add "a list be prepared of the subjects of such Private Members' Bills and Motions as have already been introduced and have not received Royal Assent in the preceding Session, and showing the names of the introducing Members of such business; that Members desiring to do so vote upon such list by the method of the single transferable vote, marking numerically up to the number 20, or other the number of days available for such business, preference for such subjects, so as to secure priority for them in the order of the number of votes given for the same; and that such list be prepared and published and such voting be conducted and the result thereof be ascertained and declared and the priorities for such Private Members' Bills and Motions be stated under the direction of Mr. Speaker, having regard in such statement to the support which each such subject has received; and that each introducing Member on such statement shall have the right in succession, according to the priorities so stated, of bringing forward his subject upon any day available for such business which he may select 93 and give notice of in writing to the principal Clerk of the House within a time to be prescribed by Mr. Speaker upon such statement: Provided that (1) where the votes for any two or more subjects are equal, the introducing Members thereof shall have priority amongst themselves in the order in which their Notices reach such principal clerk, and (2) any introducing Member may, by notice to the principal clerk, withdraw his subject from such list before it is published." He said: On this matter of private Members' Bills I submit the amendment for the consideration of the House. In last Session the matter was referred to, and a promise was given that the suggestions then made would not be overlooked. It was expected that the matter would be considered by the Government. It seems to me that this is a convenient moment for bringing the matter before the notice of the House. There is no disagreement of opinion. As I understand it, almost all the Members of the House wish for some better mode of dealing with private Members' Motions and Bills than the present chance and haphazard fashion of a ballot among Members for precedence after they have put their names down. That question arises on this Motion to ballot, which may be described as a race for precedence, in which the Prime Minister acts as starter. It is the fiction, figment, or fetish of equal opportunity which has brought this rule about. I do not wish to go into the history of it, but probably it was intended as an effort to secure for each Member an opportunity of bringing in his particular measure quite regardless of what had been done in past Sessions. I see that there are on the Paper 238 names of hon. Members who desire to ballot for precedence in regard to Bills and Motions, and it is manifest that only a very small proportion of them can receive consideration in the first four days on which the ballot takes place. It is a wholly haphazard system, and by the exercise of certain dexterity on the part of the Irish and Labour Members an effort has been made to get over the difficulty by putting down a considerable number of names against particular measures, so as to give a better chance of precedence being obtained in the ballot for the measures they wish to propound. That is really no better than the Monte Carlo system, and as matters now stand many measures which in previous Sessions have received much con- 94 sideration are left aside by chance owing to the caprice of the jade called Fortune, whom we must follow whether we like her or not. I think that a better plan may be devised. Take what has happened during the last three or four Parliaments. Everyone is aware how long the question of the ballot with respect to elections had to wait before it was passed by the House. The question of woman suffrage has been before the House a long time as a private Members' Bill. The Bill introduced by the late Sir Howard Vincent for establishing a Public Trustee was before the House for twenty-five years as a private Members' Bill before it was ultimately taken up by the Government. If we can devise a plan by which measures on which discussions have taken place in previous Sessions might have a better chance, I think it would be better than the present system. I have in my amendment outlined a scheme for that purpose. I would point out at once that there is already such a list as I propose in existence. At the beginning of each Session there should be a complete list of all the Private Members' Bills which had been introduced in the preceding Session, with the names of the introducing Members. I also propose that Members desiring to do so should, under Mr. Speaker's direction, vote upon such list by the single transfer of the vote, marking up to the number of 20. That would give an opportunity to members to fulfil their promises to constituents and associations. Take, for instance, the first four Bills of last Session. If we had the opportunity of marking those in sequence we should get those Bills taken up, on the private Members' nights, which were most acceptable to those Members who had taken pains to ballot. I need hardly labour the point. My proposals are mainly arrangements under the direction of Mr. Speaker. We should know at the beginning of the Session all the Bills that were coming forward on private Members' night. There would be no necessity for canvassing or lobbying, or for a Member trying to secure an opportunity for a Bill of his own fancy or giving way to one which might be to the fancy of somebody else. These arrangements are almost a matter of ridicule, not only to Members in the House but to people outside. My proposals might produce something like a system which would be consonant with the dignity of legislation, and not make a chance medley of private Members' Bills, which at present had their currents turned awry and lose the name of action.
Mr. SPEAKER : Does any hon. Member second the amendment?
Dr. RUTHERFORD : I beg to second the amendment. Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question."
Mr. J. A. PEASE : Perhaps I may be allowed to say with reference to the motion to which the hon. Member proposes his amendment that the usual practice, so far as the motion is concerned, has been adopted, and that it is a practice which meets with the approval of the majority of private Members. At any rate during the 17 years which I have been a Member the practice has been in operation, and I believe that it was in operation some two years before that. I think it would be a pity to depart from a practice which I believe has on the whole worked satisfactorily, and to the satisfaction of private Members. The better way than the amendment of ascertaining the views of private Members would be for the House to consider at some evening sitting the whole subject. I think in that way the opinion of the House would be ascertained, and subject to the approval of the Prime Minister, if there be a strong desire for a change, it would be quite possible to appoint a Committee, when the whole question might be taken into full consideration. I think that the House might reject the amendment and retain the usual practice.
Mr. BALFOUR : The amendment, Mr. Speaker, would, I think, make a very fundamental alteration in the traditional practice of this House. The object of the hon. Member's amendment is to give precedence for the rediscussion of a Bill in a new Session. What would be the result? No doubt we should have a repetition of old debates. I frankly tell the House that I do not think, broadly speaking, legislation in these modern days is conducted to the best advantage by private Members on the days given them by the Standing Orders. For instance, the Coal Mines Regulation Bill was read a second time on several occasions, but it did not pass until it was taken up by the responsible Government of the day and was drawn up by a skilled draughtsman of the Government. So far as I know a Government does not approve of the machinery by which private Members' Bills are dealt with. I do not say that the time of this House is wasted by private Members' Bills. Not at all. I believe that a great deal of advantage is derived from the introduction of Private 96 Bills. They are in effect discussions on resolutions. They often deal with very important points. But by the fact that they have to be brought up in the form of a Bill with clauses and sub-sections something is gained. What would be the effect of the hon. Member's amendment? The fact that we could discuss the old things over and over again. New things would not have a chance. Yet it is the new things which we want to have discussed. I do not say that we want them passed into law, unassisted by Government draughtsmen. But they are good material for discussion in this House, and as far as I can understand the amendment it would prevent any fresh debate on new ground, which after all is one of the great functions of the non-official Members of this House. If and when a more convenient opportunity is found for the discussion of this subject I may approach it in a more critical spirit, but I confess at present that I am in favour of the traditional practice of the House.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith) : This is a matter in which the Government are not directly or even indirectly concerned. It is a matter which respects the right of private Members and the apportionment of time to each individual concerned. I must confess, speaking for myself, that I sympathise very strongly with the view which has been laid down by the Leader of the Opposition, speaking, as he does, with a large amount of Parliamentary experience. The effect of this amendment would be, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that we should be practically confined on the day set apart for private Members' Bills to discuss measures which previously had already received a large amount of discussion. No new ideas would be thrashed out. I will give you one instance. There was a Bill called the Daylight Saving Bill. It contained an entirely new proposal. It would not possibly satisfy the test laid down. I do not pronounce any opinion upon it. It excited a great deal of public attention. It led to the appointment of a Select Committee, and I am not sure that the hon. Member himself was not interested in it. A new procedure like that, if put forward here as a part of the constitutional procedure of the House, would absolutely prevent its consideration to any large extent at all. The best use to which private Members' opportunities can be devoted is not, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, in furbishing up and repolishing old legislative proposals, but in bringing before the House new ideas and sugges- 97 tions, and without in any way attempting to dogmatise. I should be very sorry to see the innovation now proposed.
Mr. SPEAKER : Does the hon. Member insist?
Mr. PEARCE : With the leave of the House I withdraw.
Mr. SPEAKER : Amendment by leave withdrawn. Motion agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER : In accordance with the decision arrived at, I appoint Committee Room No. 10, at 12 noon, as a convenient time and place for the ballot for Private Bills.
|
S5CV0001P0_81836c73be7bdc2f
| null |
BALLOT FOR BILLS AND MOTIONS.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 2201}
|
The PRIME MINISTER moved : "That the Proceedings on the Address, in answer to His Majesty's Speech, shall, until concluded, have precedence of all other Orders of the Day, and of Notices of Motions, at all Sittings for which they are set down." Motion agreed to.
|
S5CV0001P0_e3d862e06821b02c
| null |
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 46}
|
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND : May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a question of order or of privilege, whether you intend to make any suggestion to the House with reference to the finding of the Select Committee last Session upon the question of the admission of strangers to the House?
Mr. SPEAKER : The Select Committee, having come to the unanimous decision that the Galleries should not be opened until a Bill imposing penalties upon those who created disorder was first passed, I do not think it would be competent for me to give the go-by to the decision of the Committee; and, therefore, things must remain as they are until the House thinks fit to pass the Bill, of which notice has been given.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND : May I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to act upon the findings of the Committee?
The PRIME MINISTER : My right hon. Friend, the Attorney-General, is about to introduce a Bill upon the subject.
|
S5CV0001P0_9c17757877460d36
| null |
Admission of Strangers.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 165}
|
Motion made, and Question proposed: "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth: Most Gracious Sovereign,—We, Your Majesty's most 98 dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[ Mr. Rogers. ]
Mr. G. N. BARNES : I rise to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name:—"And further we desire humbly to express our regret that, in view of the serious distress arising from the lack of work, the proposals for legislation which Your Majesty's advisers have thought fit to recommend are altogether inadequate for dealing effectively either with the root causes or the evils arising out of unemployment." My colleagues have been good enough to entrust this Amendment to me on their behalf, and I may say that in rising to move it I do so with a feeling of greater responsibility than has ever possessed me in addressing this House before. Sir, there is an army of workless workers all over this country; there is a sea of suffering surging round our very doors, and which, last night even, over flowed into our Lobby, and I am glad of it; and which ought to earn the serious attention of the Members of this House. I think it is a condition of things that constitutes, as far as I can see, a menace to public safety and public order. But I do not want to dwell upon that, because I want this afternoon rather to appeal to the sympathy and the reason of the House, and not to fear, even if that fear would have any effect, which I do not believe it would. Going home last night on top of a tramcar between 10 and 11 o'clock I accidentally came in contact with a friend of mine, who had witnessed the scenes around this House and in a hall not far from here last night. I may say the poor people had been collected from all over London. Thirteen hundred people came from Poplar, which is represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General; and here let me say that for my part I rather deprecate bringing people together like that from all parts of London. The lot of the poor is hard enough anywhere, but in London—a city of magnificent distances—the poor are hid away more than elsewhere, and it does seem to me that a great responsibility rests upon those who, on the promise of food to be supplied, bring people from great distances and then have these people scrambling for insufficient food when they get there. And I want to dissociate myself from anything of that sort. We had nothing to do with that, and will not have 99 anything to do with it; but it came off, and as I went home with that man he told me of the scene depicted within a mile of this place or therabout that made an impression upon my mind such as I cannot decribe. There were scenes of struggling and striving among women and children, and he told me of the wailing of those children and the moaning of the women and the cursing of the men folk. I could not help thinking that a great responsibility rests not only upon the Government but upon every Member of this House who is in a position to lend aid to those people such as could not be given by anybody else. I am one of those who has deprecated discrediting this House or its Members. It would ill become us of the Labour party, having regard to the kindness and consideration shown us here, to say anything of a character otherwise than kindly and courteous of everyone in this House. Moreover, I have tried to obey the rules of the House and its regulations and ways and customs, which, although I think they sometimes delay business, I know have their roots deep down in our history, and moreover I know that this House, with all its defects and anomalies, affords the only means by legislative and administrative acts of giving effect to the wishes of the great masses of the people. But I say this— and I want to say it with the greatest emphasis, and I am sure I say it with the concurrence of all my colleagues—that this House at the same time is on its trial. It is face to face with a problem increasing in urgency, it is face to face with a problem as compared with which matters mentioned yesterday in the Speech from the Throne, such as Church Disestablishment in Wales, Electoral Reform in London or even the Housing of the People, sink into absolute insignificance. The President of the Local Government Board said yesterday he was going to introduce a Bill shortly in respect to Housing and Town Planning. If we had this problem of unemployment dealt with as it ought to be the people of this country would house themselves without bothering the head of the President of the Local Government Board, or anyone else. We have done some little in the past year with regard to the school children; we have had at all events passed an enabling Act under which the local authorities, if they think proper, can now feed at the public expense, and in a public way, the children of the nation. Here again, if this matter of unemployment was settled as it 100 ought to be, and would be by the Bill we have already produced, or something like it, the children of the nation could be fed over the table-legs by their own parents, which, after all, is the best way they could be fed. I say this matter is of increasing urgency, and, for my part, I feel so strongly about it that I say here and now I will not sit here tamely to hear matters of comparative insignificance compared with this question, taking up the time of this House. I would rather be outside it. On the occasion last year that my hon. friend the Member for Leicester proposed an amendment similar to the one I now submit, he told the House there were at that time 6.1 of unemployment. He told the House further that the numbers had increased from 25 to 30 per cent. as compared with the year before, and since that time last year the unemployment has been up as far as 9.5, and to-day, according to the figures issued yesterday, we have 8.7 of the skilled mechanics—three-quarters of a million or thereabouts in respect of whom these reports are issued by the Board of Trade, out of employment. I do not want to attach a great deal of importance to those figures—they are merely illustrative. My hon. friend the Member for Merthyr dealt with some figures some time ago which he had from someone with whom he was associated, and which went to show that there are two millions of people in this country out of work. That may be an over-estimate, As a matter of fact, we have not yet grappled with this question even to the extent of finding out how many there are unemployed. But we have this small number, three-quarters of a million skilled mechanics, in respect to whom reports are made by the Board of Trade. From the point of view of the material wealth production of the country that is a very serious matter. Suppose I adopt the moderate figure of, say, one million as representing the unemployment—that is only half the figure of my hon. friend the Member for Merthyr —and assuming that each of these would produce £100 worth per annum, then there is a lessening of the national wealth to the extent of £100,000,000. But that is not the most important aspect. To my mind the most important aspect is not the waste of wealth. It is bad enough that men should go about offering their services and not be able to find an employer, but it is the human wastage that is going on all the time that appeals to one. Some of us who have had experience 101 in Labour organisations and in going about the country in Labour agitations, carrying help to our brethren in the best way we can, have seen this process of deterioration going on among unemployed workmen. We see a workman go out of work, we see him go down into meaner and meaner streets, and we know that he and his family come into contact with meaner and meaner conditions of life, and that each step downwards in the material and economic scale is also a step downwards in the moral and mental scale as well; therefore it is not only the question of the waste of wealth that we direct the attention of the House and of every Member present to, but to the waste of human life that is going on. The tragedy of unemployment can hardly be understood and realised except by those who have felt it by hard experience. Last week I read in the public Press that the Prime Minister said that "matters of grave and urgent importance" were to arise at once in this House. When I read that my mind went back to another statement of the right hon. Gentleman made on the 21st of October last year, in which he pledged in most unmistakable terms the Government to deal early this year with the permanent causes of unemployment. I do not want to deal with this matter in a recriminatory way, but I merely bring that up as leading to the consideration of what the permanent causes of unemployment are. First of all, let us be clear what the evil is, and it seems to me the evil is not the want of work, but the want of the fair and square distribution of the pleasure and treasure of life. It is not keeping the noses of men and women to the grindstone all their lives that I want; I want such a condition of things as will admit of a man or woman having a holiday when they want it, and I want such a condition of things as will get us away from this poverty, not only physical poverty, but poverty of the will and the poverty of outlook and of hope that we see all around in this country to-day as we travel about, and I have no hesitation in saying when we come to consider the causes of unemployment, or, rather, the causes of the evils underlying unemployment, and which are attended by unemployment—I have no hesitation in saying that the primary and underlying cause of those evils is the private ownership of land in the country. The land is the primary source of employment, and the people have been barred from the use of it except on those impossible terms 102 which have been laid down by the landlords of the country. From that other methods of industry have come along and supervened, and capitalism has proved, I think, even to be a worse enemy than landlordism of the people, because it is impersonal and more remorseless than landlordism is. It seems to me that these are the twin causes of the evils, together with the fact that we produce goods in this country not for the enjoyment of the people, but for profit, and in producing them for a profit in a speculative way we stuff them into the market irrespective of whether they are wanted or not, and stagnation and unemployment ensue. These are the principal causes of unemployment, but along with them we have the constant decrease of the use of labour, due to the competition of machinery and the subdivision of labour due to all those things which have so wonderfully increased our productive power. We have a great many of these things taking place, and instead of them easing the lot of labour, they only throw the men out into the street. The seconder of yesterday's Address expressed a hope and a wish that in consequence of something which was in the King's Speech, of which he appeared to see the advantage, but of which I did not, he expressed a hope that as the result of what was to be done in this House a great many of the casual forms of labour were to be lifted up into what he called higher forms of employment. That is a very fine phrase. I recollect the President of the Local Government Board, in dealing with this matter last year, made use of a similar phrase. The right hon. Gentleman ventured to twit the Labour Member for Jarrow with something he said about machinery, and he challenged him to go and state what he had said here at Jarrow, because he said engineers were not averse to machinery, as it had added to their employment, which he went on to point out eased the labour of others in other employments. I want to say that I would not mind going to Jarrow or anywhere else and quoting from the report of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, which was issued only a few days ago, on the 8th day of this month, to be absolutely accurate. I find that of the 107,000 members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers no less than 11,351 are on unemployment benefit, 2,800 on sick benefit, and nearly 6,000 on superannuation benefit, making over 20,000 men in these categories in that particular society alone. In view of these facts, it is idle to tell us 103 that machinery only displaces men in one place and gives them work in another. That is not borne out by these facts, nor is it borne out by the report which I have in my hands here which was prepared by the Board of Trade for the New Zealand Government a year or two ago with regard to our trade. What do I find, going back to the year 1861? I find that agriculture is losing the number engaged in it by over a million, that the textile industries of this country, which take in the cotton and the jute and the woollen trades, which we know as a matter of fact, so far as money from the carrying on of these industries is concerned, have produced immense wealth to the millowners and manufacturers—we find in the forty years from 1861 to 1901 that there was a drop in the people engaged in these industries from 1,500,000 to 1,320,000, and taking a group of trades, including tailoring and boot and shoe making, we find hundreds of thousands of people less employed in those trades at the beginning of the century than there had been forty years before. Therefore I say again, and I want to emphasise it, that machinery, although it has added to the wealth of the country, which concerns us but very little, has not increased the consumptive power of the people nor the opportunities of labour in the way of employment. On the other hand, as this book shows, it has simply increased the number of domestic servants and other servants of the well-to-do, and in some respects instead of making us a nation of productive workers—of free and independent men and women —is making us into a nation of flunkeys. The Labour party do not want this old nation to be converted into a nation of flunkeys, and therefore we appeal not only to the Government, but to every man in this House to aid us in getting some more satisfactory promise in regard to the question of unemployment being dealt with this Session, or, in other words, to vote for this Amendment. What do we find? In the Speech from the Throne there is no indication of the promise of the 21st of October last year being carried out. I find that the only item dealing directly with the question of unemployment is that concerning the matter of Labour Bureaux. Why it is throwing a bare bone to a dog. It is almost like giving hungry men a stone to tell them that something shall be done in regard to this question of unemployment by founding this co-ordinated 104 system of Labour Bureaux. That, I say again, is tantamount to throwing a stone to a hungry man, when it is set up in redemption of this particular promise. We are told that Labour Bureaux have been successful in Germany, and, therefore, they may be successful here as a partial solution of the unemployed problem. I know that they have done something in Germany to solve the unemployed problem, but I do not expect they will do a half-pennyworth of good in this country so far as a solution of the problem is concerned. We must remember that although there are less unemployed men in Germany, it is not a case of tariffs or anything of that sort. Germany is a new country in the industrial sense and has still twenty-five millions, or thereabouts, of agricultural population. Therefore, it seems to me, that in a country like that, with an agricultural population numbering nearly a third, in a country which is industrially new, and therefore in some place or another is always opening new industries, Labour Bureaux may be of some service, and that merely by keeping the fluidity of labour they will do something to solve the unemployed problem; but I want to say they will do nothing of the sort here, and, therefore, I decline to accept that not only as a redemption of the promise of last October, but as not containing any promise by which we can get down to the root and permanent causes of unemployment. Then we have one or two other items in the King's Speech. We are grateful for those little items, but, after all, they simply touch the mere outside fringe of this question of unemployment. I think it was John Stuart Mill who said that to apply small remedies to great evils was no remedy at all, because he said, rightly I think, that the evil grew at a more rapid rate than could be met by these small remedies, and I am inclined to think it is so in regard to this matter of unemployment. Therefore, we on these benches think it is time we proceeded to more fundamental and further remedies. I believe the land question is at the bottom of it primarily. For my own part, therefore, I want not only to tax, but to buy, if necessary. I believe there are two sections in this House at loggerheads as to whether to tax or to buy out landlords. For my part I am in favour of both. I should tax the landlords through land values, because I believe in proportion as you tax them you make it easier to buy. I do not fall out with the hon. Member for Preston, nor the Member for the North Wales constituency who has 105 made a special campaign for taxation of land values, but I urge the Government to give effect here again to the proclamations which have been made, not only last year but, as far as I remember, having taken an active and, I hope, intelligent, part in politics, for 20 years. I remember Liberal politicians expressing themselves at any time these last 20 years as in favour of the taxation of land values. I hope and trust this year something will be done to give effect to that principle. But I want the community at large to do something, not only to tax these sources of wealth after they have been taken up by private monopolists. I want the Government as representing the community to tap these sources for ourselves before the values get into the hands of private monopoly. I am glad to know a Report was issued the other day by the Afforestation Committee which does make a recommendation on these lines, and I think we are entitled to some more definite statement than we have had as yet as to what the Government propose to do in regard to that Report. We were told there were no fewer than 9,000,000 acres of land in this country suitable for afforestation purposes. We were told there would be 90,000 men put to work in the primary occupation and a large number of other people would be also employed later on in the wood industries which would arise out of them. May I quote a figure or two in regard to the area of land under wood in this country as compared with other countries. I find that in Ireland, for instance, which in this matter, as in most other matters, has had least attention given to it, only 1.5 per cent. of the land is under wood, 5.3 in England and 4.6 in Scotland. Then we go up an ascending scale, 7.8 in Denmark, Holland 7.9, France 17 per cent., Germany 25 per cent., Hungary 27.5 and Austria 32 per cent. It seems to me that we ought to have a great deal of imported wood being produced in our own country. We are told by the State Commission that £32,000,000 worth is imported into this country every year, and, in respect to £21,000,000, the wood comes from countries where the climatic and other conditions are exactly the same as here, and the wood could be grown here just the same as anywhere else, and the time has come when the Government ought to do something in regard to that matter. There is another thing I want to mention, and that is the nationalisation of our railways. I believe here, in regard to this matter, just as in re- 106 gard to the London docks, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with already, capitalism has absolutely broken down and failed to fulfil social requirements. It will be within the knowledge of those who go about the country that everywhere we find canals clogged up simply because it suits the interests of the railway companies that they should not be used. In Wales I recently saw a splendid harbour, built evidently at great expense, absolutely closed, and I was told those who had had it built were actually being subsidised by a railway company to suit their financial interests. That sort of thing has gone on long enough, and too long, and these railway companies ought to be dealt with in a similar fashion to the London dock companies. I want to say a word or two with regard to the local authorities of this country. It is time we had our local authorities more freed than they are now from the paralysing hand of the central authority. I was in Germany with the hon. Member for Barnard Castle a month or so ago, and we made a great many inquiries there in regard to the ownership of land by public authorities, and the measures they take in hand for dealing with this particular matter, and I find, for instance, taking the Borough of Frankfort, that it owns no less than 16½ square miles of land, whereas Manchester, which is twice as big, owns 1½ miles. Cologne owns 15½ square miles, exclusive of 564 acres of public gardens, and Breslau, with a population less than Manchester and about half as many as Glasgow, owns no less than 20 square miles. We went through the forests owned by the muncipality of Dusseldorf, where they employ large numbers of their unemployed workpeople and pay them a handsome wage, and derive a handsome profit in doing it. I compare that with my own unfortunate city of Glasgow, and I find, for instance, that Glasgow owns its own municipal buildings, and, of course, the site upon which they are. It sold the site 100 years ago for 2s. 8d. a square foot and bought it back a few years ago for no less than £35 per square foot. It had to pay no less than £175,000, every single halfpenny of which was accruing by virtue of the presence, the necesstiy, and the enterprise of the people of Glasgow, involving a permanent charge of £6,000 on the community. It is time these municipal authorities had more power in their own hands, not only to buy but to skim off these immense revenues that they 107 ought to have been able to skim off long ago, and thereby do something to deal effectively with this unemployed problem. Then there is the question of the shortening of the hours of labour. Having regard to the figures I have read in regard to the textile industries, it seems to me a good case is made out by that one fact alone, for the hours of labour being very much reduced as compared with what they are to-day. I should like to say a word or two in regard to the inadequate dealing with the evils arising out of unemployment. I came in contact recently with the women folk in London, and I find there are only three workrooms for these women, and, as the President of the Local Government Board knows, they are miserably inadequate. They involve walking long distances, or, on the other hand, the impossibility of walking these distances deprives them of the value of them. For a woman living in Streatham the nearest workroom is at Camberwell, three or four miles away at least. It might as well, as far as she is concerned, be in Timbuctoo for any good it is to her. We ought to be doing something far more for the women folk in London especially, but in the other industrial centres throughout the length and breadth of this country, who are even more than the men deserving of the sympathy and help of this House. Then we have also a right to complain of the unsympathetic, ungenerous, and costly treatment of the distress committees throughout the country, who are not getting that help to which they are entitled. We ought to regard Hollesley Bay and similar places as places to which men could go to be trained and used in conjunction with small holdings and things of that kind, instead of which, as my right hon. friend knows, they have simply been used as temporary relief works for men who have been given a few weeks' work and sometimes only a very few days. I was told this morning of a case in Wolverhampton, where there are 700 men signed on the unemployed register. How many there may be unemployed it is hard to say—probably three or four times as many. But, at all events, out of that 700 men only 280 are employed at all, and these 280 only get some five days per month, which is miserably inadequate for the conditions of the place. It will be said by the hon. Member for Preston that all these things cost money, but unemployment also costs money. After all, we are not so helpless in this House as he 108 would like to make out, and it is within the province of this House and the Government, at all events, to arrange for means whereby these works may be put into operation—afforestation works and coast reclamation—but more especially that we should have the necessary machinery whereby these things can be put into operation promptly, and brought down from the clouds, as it were, where they have been for so many years, and made a matter of practical everyday concern. I hope and trust I have said enough to open the ground, at all events. Let me return again where I started from and try to impress on the House the seriousness of the position and the serious aspect it now assumes to us upon these benches. We have been here three years. We have now started upon the fourth year. We may be said to have served our apprenticeship. We know somewhat now of the forms of this House, and if we are not going to deal with this surging mass of poverty, if we are going to use the time of this House in licensing, which, however important it may be, is of comparative insignificance compared with this, if we are going to use this House only in interminable wrangles about education and Tariff Reform—I believe there again we have simply got a red herring—I say with all the emphasis I can lay upon it that for my part I had just as soon be outside the House, because I believe we should be employing our time far better in going around the country and getting the country to take a serious view of the situation, and to make up its mind that this House, as the custodian of the interests of the people of the whole country, shall as speedily as possible deal with this question of unemployment, which, to my mind, overshadows all other questions, and until it is settled we of the Labour benches might as well be outside of the House as in it. I beg to move.
Mr. O'GRADY : My task will be a very difficult one to follow the Gentleman who has just spoken. I want to tell the House at once that I am not going to evolve any scheme. The reason I take up that position is this: that if the records of this House are searched it will be found that within the last few years more schemes have been submitted to it on this subject of unemployment than on any other subject that came before the House. I want to associate myself with every word of my hon. friend in reference to the demonstrations that are taking place. We are constantly associated, when the House 109 is not in Session and even when the House is in Session, with the men who are suffering from lack of employment. Not only are we associated with the Trades Unionists when they are suffering from unemployment, but also with the men who cannot join the unions; and I want to repeat and emphasise what my hon. friend has said in reference to the demonstrations that have taken pace. I know that we shall probably this afternoon listen to Piles of figures that have no meaning, and to tremendous resounding phrases from certain quarters of the House, and we shall be told that all our figures are wrong, although our sympathies may be along the right track, but I have been with an unemployed demonstration only the day before yesterday on the Thames Embankment. There were 4,000 decent, honest, industrious workmen in that demonstration, who would have accepted any class of work if it had been offered to them in order to get a crust. Many of those men were members of my own union. They included some of the most highly-skilled men that there are in this City of London to-day. I apprehend we shall be told in the old sweet way that the best thing we can do and the best solution of the problem of unemployment is to tell our men to be sober and to tell our men to emigrate, and to tell our men that they ought to be more highly skilled than they are. I want first to deal with the question of sobriety, and to declare for myself and my colleagues that there are no men in this House who stand more strongly for a sober democracy than we do. I would sooner be ruled by an oligarchy of devils than to be under the rule and control of a drunken democracy, but I want to say also emphatically that, in my judgment, unemployment does not arise from the lack of sobriety among the people. Year by year it has been stated to this House by hon. Gentlemen who are intimate with the temperance question that we are becoming a sober nation, and yet, although we are becoming a sober nation, we find that unemployment is increasing. So there can be no dispute that if all the people were sober to-morrow, if not a man in the nation drank a single drop of alcohol, unemployment would still exist and would still go on increasing. Higher technical instruction may be suggested. We are strongly in favour of our lads being taught trades; but we know that that would not cure the evil at all. I may point out to the House this simple fact: the most highly skilled men in our Unions to-day are the men who are walk- 110 ing about the streets of London, and during the last two years have been made absolute wastrels by the vicious conditions and circumstances of their every-day lives. I have seen a man of my own class walking along the pavements of London and suddenly dive down into the gutter for a crust that a dog would refuse to eat. And those men are highly skilled. I have seen their lads going about to the public-houses of this city selling matches. They have been arrested by the police and they have told their tale to the kindly hearted policeman. Take one case: the lad has been brought before the court next morning, and the Commissioner has been sent to investigate whether the lad's story is correct. It was found that the boy's father was a cabinet-maker, that he was honest and industrious, but had met with the misfortune of unemployment two years ago, that there was not a scrap of food in the cupboard, that the mother was dying of consumption, that two of the daughters were upon the street, and that of the three sons, one was selling matches and the others were living in an insanitary room without clothes or food. I would therefore impress on the House that it is not by having more highly skilled men that we are going to solve this problem at all, and I hope we shall not be met with that kind of statement again. With regard to the question of cause, I associate myself absolutely here and now with the statement made by my hon. Friend as to the cause of unemployment, and I want to go further and to point out that, in my judgment, so long as you have production solely for profit you must have unemployment. We ought to be able to face that matter in a proper manner. I suppose our friends above the gangway would tell us that Protection is going to bring benefits to the working man. Let me give you a few simple facts from my own experience. I was in the United States in 1903, and I took occasion to inquire into the question as to whether Protection in any shape or form brought benefit to the working men—did it give them high wages? Did it make the cost of living cheaper? Did it give them more work? And I found that from the time the M'Kinley tariff had been introduced until 1903 wages had only gone up by 5½per cent. and the cost of living had gone up by 20 per cent.; so that the American workmen was giving 20 cents in every 100 to get back 5½ cents in the shape of wages. And I want to say this, that in our judgment any form of Protection in this country will increase the cost of living at 111 least 10 or 15 per cent., and we are perfectly certain that wages will not go up in a corresponding manner. With the aid of the most powerful Unions we possess we can never increase wages to the tune of 10 per cent. without being prepared to undergo the most awful sufferings and anxiety of a strike. So Protection will not benefit us. With regard to Free Trade: If ever there was a stupid fallacy held by any man, it is to say—"Let Free Trade go on; something lucky will turn up in the meantime; trade will improve and unemployment will be obliterated." I want to repeat a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board before he occupied the position which he now fills. He warned the Liberal Government that if they do not take up some kind of positive policy of social reform, the centre of which would be the dealing with the unemployed problem, then the working man, in despair, will either turn to Protection or to Socialism. It is perfectly true that he may get three or five years of a Protectionist Government, but we know that he is going to give that Government short shrift at the end of the five years, and that he will then turn to Socialism as being the only remedy for this great problem of unemployment. We want a change in our fiscal system. Admitting, then, that Free Trade of itself is doing no good, is not attempting to solve the problem, and is taking us no further, and that Protection, as I have tried to show the House in a very simple form, will make even the present position worse, then the workman will turn to some other kind of fiscal reform, and that fiscal reform will be along the line indicated by my hon. Friend who has moved this motion. I think our Bill says that unless workmen can be found employment they shall be maintained. I may remind the House of a statement made in the engineering trade by employers some years ago—a very callous, very brutal statement, but I suppose a businesslike statement. The statement was that every works manager knows that it is absolutely essential for the prosperity of the engineering trade that there should be constantly 2½ per cent. of skilled workmen unemployed. If that is essential to modern industry in the engineering trade then I submit that the State or the trade should take upon itself its obligations and remove that evil. The burden which trade unions are going to bear in this year of grace will be no less 112 than £1,000,000 sterling in order to keep all their unemployed members in benefit. Take the case of my own union. We shall pay this year £2 per head of our membership in unemployed benefit. The percentage of unemployed in my union is now 12 per cent., whilst in the building trade generally it is 13 per cent. I submit that whatever you do, and whatever scheme you prepare to meet this problem of unemployment, you will never be able to reduce the amount of unskilled workers out of employment below 5 per cent. under the present system of trading. We used to think fifteen years ago that 3 per cent. was a heavy load, but we are bearing 13 per cent. to-day, and if trade improved to its utmost limit to-morrow we should still have to bear something like 6 per cent. Upon this subject there can be no doubt as to the temper of the country. At congress after congress this question has been discussed; it has been considered at public meetings throughout the country and resolutions have been carried in every branch of the trade union movement urging the Government to deal with this problem. The same action has been taken by temperance societies and friendly societies, and the question has been taken up on almost every platform and in the public press. The Government do not recognise the temper of the country in this matter or they would have made this question of unemployment the main point in the King's Speech, and they would have attempted to redeem the promise made by the Prime Minister in October last. The Government ought to have made some attempt to deal with the permanent causes of unemployment, and thus bring about a state of things whereby all honest industrious workmen can obtain work. The subject of afforestation has been mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I will leave that subject where he has left it. The subject of the reclamation of land and seacoast erosion has been alluded to, but I do not think sufficient emphasis has been laid upon the shortening of the hours of labour. Many men to-day are sweltering in front of furnaces and working in other dangerous employment who are undergoing toil of the most base description, and they are working hours which will shorten their lives. If we shorten the hours of labour of these men, as well as those who are working on our railways, if we insist that no man shall work more than eight hours in all dangerous occupations, I submit that a considerable number of men would be now employed who are to-day out of employment. It will be said 113 that we have not touched the question of the unfit or the unemployable, but I submit that if the Bill we brought forward last Session had been carried it would have dealt with the unemployable. Why are these men unemployable? In my study of economics I came across a significant phrase, which laid down that whatever was economically mischievous was morally vicious. We submit that unemployment is the result of a mischievous economic system. We cannot do as we desire; but that does not excuse the Government for not carrying out their promises. Repeatedly we have told them that in a spirit of panic they will have to carry legislation which will be very harmful, but I am sorry to say that now we are as far off as ever. I am not satisfied with what the Government has promised to do, and I wish to declare that I shall take every advantage allowed me by the Rules of the House to prevent business being done until this question of the unemployed is grappled with as it ought to be. The patience of the House has been strained by what was said on this subject last night. Our patience has got to the breaking point, and I feel certain that unless we press this matter forward, even to the obliteration of all other business, if necessary, we shall not be doing justice by the people we represent, and we shall not be doing that which is best in the interests of the country itself. I beg to second the motion.
Mr. BRACE : I am very much obliged to the President of the Board of Trade for allowing me to address the House before he replies, inasmuch as I want to address to him a question or two of some moment to a substantial portion of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. At Barry we have a large number of unemployed. We have been told time and again that the Local Government Board and all the necessary authorities will be used in order to give relief to those who are in distress. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend why he has refused to interpose at Barry in accordance with the promises he has made in this House from time to time? I understand that Barry desired to deal with the unemployed in a particular area, and instead of the Government giving permission to the urban council in that district to form a distress committee, they sent an inspector down, who made an inquiry in some quarters, with the result that the Local Government Board sent a reply to the urban council declining to allow them to create a distress committee, thereby 114 depriving them of the chance of obtaining any advantage from the unemployed grant. According to the information which I have received, the officer sent down by the Local Government Board never approaced the officials of the trade unions in the Barry district, neither did he consult the clerk of the urban council, nor any of those authorities which one would naturally think would be likely to know all the circumstances within the area. No one seemed to have any definite information as to what the Local Government Board would be likely to do until they actually received the reply from the Board. I will read to the House the reply of the Local Government Board:— "I am directed by the Local Government Board to advert to your letter of the 23rd ultimo on the subject of the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, and in reply to state that the Board would not be prepared to extend the provision in Section 2 (1) of the Act to an urban district unless it were shown that the constitution of a distress committee is necessary to cope with the distress from want of employment existing in the district. The information in the possession of the Board as to the state of unemployment in the Urban District of Barry causes them to doubt whether there is at present a case for the constitution of a distress committee." Surely those living in the locality are the best people to determine whether there is distress or not within any particular area, and to decide whether or not the Local Government Board ought to be moved in regard to the giving relief in cases of distress. Despite the fact that the Barry Urban Council made application to form a distress committee and made an appeal to the Local Government Board to interpose on behalf of the distressed workmen and their families who were suffering because of the want of employment, an inspector is sent down to that district who does not even go to the clerk of the urban council, and does not attempt to get into communication with the officials of the trade unions. The Local Government Board inspector, after an inquiry of that kind, reports that no case has been made out. So serious was the distress in that district that the local trade unions undertook to hold themselves a kind of inquiry, which they held in November, 1908, the reply from the Local Government Board refusing to reform the committee having been received on October 9th, 1908. The result of that inquiry was that they found that the number of men who had voluntarily registered themselves as being out of employment was 273. This total included 229 labourers, 10 fitters, 15 boilermakers, two masons, one milk salesman, one foundry dresser, one clerk, one driller, two drivers, two printers, three 115 painters, two smiths, one bricklayer, one coal tipper, and two whose occupation was not stated. If an inquiry had been undertaken on behalf of the urban council, or at the instance of the Local Government Board, I am sure a very much larger number of men would have registered in the Barry area who ought to have been relieved. I do not want to comment too strongly upon the matter, but it does seem to me that it is simply playing with words for the President of the Local Government Board to rise in his place and tell us that where there is need of help we shall have it, when he refuses permission to an urban council to form a distress committee because the distress is not sufficiently acute. Under these circumstances how can it be said that the President of the Local Government Board is doing everything that can be done under the present system? I can only say that I am far from satisfied. I am pressing this Motion because I think some explanation is required. The Barry Urban Council is a progressive council, not made up of workmen, but with a majority of tradespeople and professional gentlemen. If there had been little cause, depend upon it no appeal to the Local Government Board would have been made. Upon the general question of unemployment I desire to associate myself most heartily with the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Amendment. I came to this meeting of Parliament filled with hope. I confess that I thought we should be within close touch of an attempt at least on the part of the Government to deal with the question of unemployment from its root standpoint. In our own particular coalfield of Wales only last Monday our Executive Council had to vote £10,000 to assist our own employed, thrown out through no fault of their own, and in defiance of covenants and agreements. We therefore say that the time has more than come in our coalfield, to say nothing at all of the general distress in the country, for the Government to take some action, for which the nation will make themselves responsible by helping men who cannot help themselves. I have never hesitated to stand upon the demand for a man's right to work, or hesitated to declare that a citizen who is asking for that is simply asking for something which he has a reasonable right to expect the State to pay some attention to. If he were asking for a man's right to steal, or to loaf, I could understand some objection. But when we come here on 116 behalf of our people, and ask that the nation's resources should be used to give a man the right to work, by the sweat of his brow to maintain himself and his family, without loss of dignity or manhood, or the rights of citizenship, assuredly it is not too much to expect that the Government will respond handsomely and generously to that appeal. I would like to explain further that 10,000 miners have been thrown out of employment in Wales because the employers have not carried out loyally the agreement entered into by them. Our men are honourable workmen, and desire neither charity nor anything in the shape of it. All they want is the opportunity to work. It did occur to me, in face of the Report upon Afforestation, that the Government would have come here with some concrete proposition under which at least an effort would be made to give sanction to the spending of some money by way of afforestation. Take our district. You have the hillsides barren and bare. Climatically there is no reason why tree-growing should not be undertaken at the expense of the State. Afforestation is something that the ordinary speculator will not touch, because he has to wait too long for a return upon his capital. But 10 or 15 years is nothing in the life of a State or nation; and if they will spend money to plant trees on the hillsides of Wales there is a market at the bottom of the valley. The timber could be sent to the pit. It would be spending money to find employment for our people, and better than spending money in importing timber from abroad.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : And there would be the carrying of the pit props.
Mr. BRACE : I do not allow myself to be led into a side discussion. This I believe to be a practical proposition. It is a question of money for a time. I object seriously to the nation's resources being used for the purpose of manufacturing engines of war for the destruction of life without a thought for the protection of the nation's life. I do not differ with all who hold that we must have a Navy strong enough for all purposes. Unfortunately, I suppose it will be held with a great deal of justification, that we must have a strong Navy. But, at a time of peace, when through the interposition of His Majesty, there is no war cloud upon the horizon, surely this is not the time to come to this House and ask for enormous expenditure for the purpose of armaments, and to find excuses against the ability to provide 117 money to deal with this great problem of unemployment. I feel that this nation has a lesson to learn in this matter. The proposer of the Amendment did not place it too strongly at all when he said that the most valuable asset of this, or any nation, is its human life. When we come here Session after Session, without any certainty at all, when there are thousands upon thousands, aye, millions, of people, who do not know where to turn for the next meal, we think the time has come when this great, civilised nation should use its resources upon an attempt to deal with this great question that is waiting to be solved. It is not for me to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I may make a humble suggestion. I am bound to say that I do not see the difficulties in finding the money that some suggest. I take a letter written some time ago to the "Times" by the Member for the Mansfield Division of Nottingham. He made this remarkable statement:— "The colliery with which I am connected in England raised 846,642 tons of coal last year. The landlord received £17,453 in royalties. He paid in respect to this royalty income tax at 1s. in the £ of £872 13s.; yet my company paid for local taxation £5,613 14s. 5d." If I were asked to find the money or to suggest where it might be found I should say, "Try mining royalties as a taxable source." I find the royalties per ton paid to the ground landlords at Newport, Cardiff, Barry, and Penarth are over a halfpenny per ton on all coal, coke, iron ore, etc., and merchandise 10 per cent. of the dues received. Do not let it be said in this Parliament at least that there is a difficulty in finding the money when we have the opportunity here presented, not, mark you, to do any injustice, but to make a certain section of the community carry a fairer share of the burden of Imperial citizenship that they are so fond of talking about. I believe this problem of the unemployed to be the most important problem. I would not like the House to be under the impression that I am not vitally interested in other questions. As a Welshman and a Welsh Member of Parliament. I am deeply interested in the question of the State disestablishment and disendowment of the English Church in Wales, but I do say, and I see no reason, even if the Welsh question is to be dealt with—and it ought to be—why the same power that deals with the one should not deal with the other. The question of unemployment stands out as demanding immediate attention, and I believe this nation would be rendering a service to these people if it, either through the Finance Bill or Special 118 Bill, or any scheme the Government cared to adopt, arranged that our people could earn their livelihood during the times they can earn nothing, instead of depending upon the charity of friends or applying to the Poor Law. When people talk about rates and taxes it ought to be remembered that they will save very materially by helping our unemployed, because they would not have to pay in a dual sense—under the Unemployed Scheme and the Poor Law. The State has laid it down that people need not die of want of food if they are prepared to apply to the Poor Law, and so sacrifice their rights of citizenship. What we plead for is that, instead of waiting till the people have reached a state of demoralisation and despair before giving them aid, that we should give them help in time to enable them to maintain their manhood and dignity. I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that a promise will be no use. We must have this question carried a stage further than promises. We have been talking in the country, and have come in contact with the people we represent, and no question has raised more interest in the constituencies than the undertaking given by the Prime Minister that a Session will be devoted to finding a scheme for dealing with the problem. It is because I believe that there can be no insurmountable problem, given a desire on the part of the Government and the House to solve it, that I plead here for some scheme to be presented to us during the coming weeks, and in so far as the scheme carries hope into the homes of our people, the Government will have our most hearty support. It is because we know from our own experience what a terrible thing it is to allow people to go down to this stage of despair that we say above all other questions the question of unemployment demands, regardless of party, the immediate attention of this House. I speak for the Amendment, and I shall certainly vote for it unless the Government gives us some satisfactory assurance that the resources of the country will be devoted to dealing with this problem on practical lines. Too long has it been thought that Britain depends upon a few wealthy people, upon armies and navies, for its pre-eminence and greatness. I hope we shall now realise that the time has come, as it must come in the history of all nations, when we shall realise that the future greatness of the country is not determined so much by its material possessions as by the standard of comfort to be 119 found in the cottage homes of the people. It is because I am persuaded that under some scheme of unemployment we must carry into our cottage homes the hope that is not there now, that, without reservation, I appeal to the Government to address themselves to the question. Unless some scheme is forthcoming which gives promise of immediate and practical application, I shall vote for the Amendment.
Mr. HAROLD COX : Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House think that Members on this side have not appreciated the pathos of the facts of unemployment. We all appreciate the pathos of those facts. Where we join issue with them is in believing that the remedies that they propose would in the least degree diminish unemployment. On the contrary, I am myself convinced that the remedies which they propose, and equally the remedies proposed by the hon. Gentlemen above the gangway, will increase the evil of unemployment. Hon. Members opposite spoke of capitalism and landlordism, and an hon. Member used the phrase, which Socialists are fond of using, that all the troubles of mankind were due to the fact that we produced for profit and not for use. I think that if he will reflect for a moment he will see that profit means remuneration, and remuneration means pay. So that all the troubles in the world come from the fact that we are paid for the work we do. What is the capitalist's profit except remuneration or pay for work done! [An HON. MEMBER: "Good pay."] It may be good or bad pay, but the hon. Member seems to assume that people who put money into a business invariably make a profit on it. Everybody knows, who has any experience of business life, that millions of capital are lost every year, but meanwhile that capital has been providing not only for the utilities of the whole community, but has provided pay for particular members of the community who received their wages out of the pockets of the people who never got rewarded for the money which they put into the business. The whole phrase of producing for profit and not for use is a popular phrase, and has no meaning whatever, unless the hon. Members mean that it is the duty of everybody to work for nothing, or for the mere pleasure of working. Then landlordism is said to be the other great cause of the troubles of the world. The hon. Member opposite took the case of Glasgow, and said that some years ago the Corporation of Glasgow sold some land 120 for 2s. 8d. a square foot, and bought it back again at £35 a square foot. I do not know whether that is meant as an illustration of the superior intelligence of our municipal authorities.
Mr. BARNES : No, sir; I meant it as an instance of social robbery.
Mr. COX : Surely if I were to sell land to the hon. Member at a low price, and he should find it worth while later to sell it to me at a higher price, and it was worth my while to buy it at that higher price, where would the robbery be?
Mr. BARNES : The hon. Member wants an answer from me. I said that the owner of that particular site had never absolutely done anything in regard to the land, and he might have been in Australia all the time that it was improving in value.
Mr. COX : What he did was to risk his capital in a speculation. He bought the land at 2s. 8d. because he thought it was a good price. It might have been a corrupt transaction; I cannot tell. But I do not think it improves the case for municipalising all our industries. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was in the days before the Corporation."] I am glad to hear it. The hon. Member seems to think that our grandfathers who were on municipal bodies were all corrupt, and that their grandchildren are all perfectly right. The hon. Member gave one further illustration of the practical hardships of the disorganisation of industries which we all deplore. He gave the particular case of a woman who lived in Streatham, and said that there was no workshop nearer to her than Camberwell, three miles away. Is that a matter with which the House ought to deal? Does not that reduce the theories of hon. Members opposite to an absurdity? How is this House to deal with the particular concrete problem that this woman has no nearer workshop than one three miles away? Are we to spend the money of the taxpayers in bringing the workshop nearer to her, or in conveying her to and from the shop? It is useless to put forward these hard cases when you have no remedy to deal with them. The hon. Member for Leeds took the case of the cabinet-makers, in which industry he said there were 13 per cent. of the men out of work. That is a fact which ought to call for the sympathy of all of us. But what remedy does the hon. Gentleman suggest for dealing with it? The only remedy which has been put forward by any of the three Members who have spoken is that of 121 afforestation. You are to take skilled cabinet-makers and set them to dig holes in the ground. If we are to buy land for afforestation it would be much better to purchase it in Sweden than to buy it in Engand or Scotland. You would make a far better profit by buying timber land in Sweden than by buying it in this country. But we are not to-day considering the question of afforestation as a question of profitable investment of national capital. It is put forward as a solution of the problem of unemployment. Otherwise what is the good of the speeches which have been made in this House? [MR. CROOKS: "What is the good of the House?"] In what way will it contribute to solving the problem of unemployment by planting trees? It is admitted that you would get no return from your forests until about 30 or 40 years. During that time, therefore, you cannot possibly increase employment in this country by setting people to planting trees, for this reason, that you cannot increase the sum total of employment unless you increase the money or wealth available to pay the labour employed. In order to pay the labour there must be wealth with which to pay it. Unless you increase that wealth you cannot increase the sum total of employment. But wealth is already being used to employ people. The taxpayers every day, when they spend money, are virtually employing labour, and if you take the money which they are going to spend in employing their fellow-citizens, and use that to pay wages to people for digging holes, you will be merely bringing one set of people into employment and throwing out another set. The suggestion of afforestation for unemployment can have no possible effect for at least forty years; all it can do during that period is to throw some people out of employment and bring some other people into employment. Then this suggestion cannot possibly affect the skilled artisan; the only people who will be benefited will be the unskilled labourers employed in afforestation, and their benefit would be paid for by the loss sustained by other people who would be thrown out of work. The scheme of coast erosion is exactly on the same footing. The coast erosion schemes not only do not give you back anything, but you are losing capital all the time. We have had one example of that, where the Government spent £18,000 in reclaiming land which is now worth a thousand pounds. That is a successful example of State industry. Hon. Members opposite referred to the 122 point of the increased efficiency of labour. I am really surprised at hon. Members, who can quite clearly understand the trade position, having such a curious kink in their economic reasoning as to imagine that unemployment is increased by improving the efficiency of labour. It all comes from the habit of hon. Members above the gangway of looking upon one particular industry at a time instead of looking at the whole community. Exactly the same fallacy underlies the assumption that you can diminish unemployment by diminishing the hours of labour. Of course, if the hours are so long that they are actually uneconomic, that is to say that a man is kept working until his physical strength is exhausted, and he does not give the maximum of winch he is capable, then, undoubtedly, you could by reducing the hours of labour improve the efficiency of his labour, and therefore add to the wealth of the world. To suppose that you increase employment by decreasing the hours of labour to a rigid economic point is an absurdity. If by diminishing the hours of labour from ten to eight you make more work, you would make still more by diminishing them from eight to six, or from six to four, and so on, until you would have more work for everybody and you would not get anybody to do any work at all. Then the hon. Member rather sneered, I am sorry to say, at the suggestion put forward for labour exchanges?one of the most admirable suggestions contained in the King's Speech. One of the most serious troubles is that the employer is seeking for the man and the man is seeking for the employer, but they cannot be brought together without a great amount of trouble and a great waste of time. If we organised such a labour exchange as exists in Germany, by which men can go to the central bureau and at once ascertain what jobs are vacant, all the waste that now exists in bringing the man and the employer together would be diminished, and unemployment would be decreased. That, I think, is perfectly palpable. I am sorry they have not brought forward this very practical method of reducing unemployment. In the engineering trade somebody has said it was necessary that there should always be 2½ per cent. of the men unemployed. If that is the fact what is the conclusion? The conclusion is that the trade ought to be responsible for the maintenance of those 2½ per cent. Take the cabinet makers, and say they have 13 per cent. out of employment. They have got no right to go 123 to other trades which can keep all their men employed and say, "We are going to tax you with our people." It is the duty of each trade to be self-sufficient, and if a trade finds that they must have a margin of unemployed men it is the duty of that trade to organise it so that those men may receive an allowance. That brings me to another suggestion, and what I hope will be the proposal made by the Government—namely, that there should be introduced into this country some system of insurance of trades against unemployment. That is a very admirable scheme by which each trade is responsible for its own unemployment, and not only as it that effect, but it relieves the general community of the burden, and it has this further satisfactory effect that the trade itself for its own financial defence would organise and so distribute the work that there should be a minimum of unemployment in it. On the other hand, if you ask the whole community to be responsible for unemployment in particular trades, then the more dishonest trades will begin to sponge on the rest of the community. Finally, let me congratulate hon. Members opposite on the very clear way in which they have repudiated the idea that any addition to the cases of employment could be produced by Tariff Reform. Some Gentlemen opposite who speak of this question content themselves by merely saying that they are going to solve the question of unemployment or diminish the amount of it by Tariff Reform, but will they tell this House what they have refused to do in the country, namely, how they are going to do it. That they have never done, and I venture to say they never will do. I put this proposition to them that you cannot possibly increase the sum total of employment unless you increase simultaneously the sum total of wealth available for paying the labour employed. They have yet to show how they are going to increase the wealth of the country by taxing the things which the country wishes to buy. An hon. Member opposite says that Free Trade did not solve this problem of unemployment. No; Free Trade does not profess to do so. What Free Trade professes is to leave the people free to solve their own problems. That is the whole conception of Free Trade. Socialists below the gangway equally with Socialists above the gangway, both say that the State is to undertake the solution of these problems. The conception of the hon. Members below the gangway is that the 124 solution can be reached by abolishing landlordism and capitalists. The conception apparently of hon. Members above the gangway is that the solution can be reached by abolishing foreign trade. And yet, at times, they appeal to the falling, the alleged falling, off in our foreign trade figures as a proof that Free Trade is ruining the country. Surely they ought to be delighted, because, if, as they are fond of saying on platforms in the country, although I do not think they say it quite so explicitly here, the importation of foreign goods throws our own people out of employment; their policy ought to be to absolutely prohibit the importation of foreign goods. Surely there can be no other conclusion, for if you throw our own people out of employment by importing foreign goods, really it is your duty to oppose the importation of those goods altogether; and it is equally the duty of foreign countries to oppose the importation of our goods. So that we arrive at this conclusion—that you get perfect employment when each country refuses to do any any trade with any other country. I submit that is not a paradox, but that it is a perfectly logical deduction from the propositions put forward by hon. Members opposite. And if they dispute that deduction, I only repeat my challenge—let them get up and say precisely what way they will add to the total employment of this country by any of their schemes.
Mr. IVOR GUEST : The problem of unemployment, especially at the present time, is a very grievous one, and I have a certain amount of sympathy with hon. Members opposite below the Gangway in calling the attention of the House directly to the question, because I do think that the reference to this great question in His Majesty's Speech is just somewhat meagre, and leaves, I think, a little to be desired. I do not mean to say that the allusion by any means precludes the Government going further in the direction indicated. I have no doubt they have it in their minds to do so. But I think, after the rather slight allusion to this grave question, after all the promises that have been made in various speeches up and down the country, and after all that we know of the position of affairs that has existed throughout the winter, I can quite understand hon. Members above the Gangway raising this question. I think that in doing so they have the sympathy of the House on having brought it to the front. 125 One hon. Member (I think the hon. Member for South Glamorgan) alluded to the fact that this country, in common with all civilised countries, had always conceded, or ought to have conceded, the right to live, and he wanted to know why the right to work should not be conceded also. I am prepared to agree with him that in the abstract there is a great deal to be said in favour of the right to work. The only point where he and I would come to issue is not upon the abstract question, but I am not aware what the unemployed should be set to do. We have had some experience of the sort of work which it is possible to provide for the unemployed during this winter. The Local Government Board—and I see the President in his place —both in this House and subsequently through the medium of the Press issued to the public a statement of the loans which they authorised the local authorities to raise to carry out works mainly for the purpose of providing employment in this time of distress. We know that by the provision of the Government any difference between the cost of the work performed by the unemployed and the contract price is met by a special grant which the Government provided. I admit it is quite impossible for us to take a narrow economic view of this problem. I do not think it is possible, and it would be very foolish and pedantic on our part to regard this from a solely narrow point of view. I think the Local Government Board have been quite right in sanctioning a great many of those loans which have been asked for by the local authorities, because they felt, and they were satisfied, despite the economics of the hon Member for Preston, that there was a great problem to be met, and some steps of a practical character had to be taken. But when I say that about loans sanctioned by my right hon. Friend, I am bound to say that in a great many cases, as far as I am able to discover, the effect of the works undertaken by the local authorities to meet the distress has not been of a wholly satisfactory character. In many cases they merely anticipated work that would have been performed in future years. In other cases, beyond adding to the amenity of the district, creating a park, or someting of that kind, they have no adequate return of any sort. They are, in fact, in many cases works of luxury. It is really in comparison with those loans which the Government felt obliged to assent to that I venture to put before the House the case for Afforesta- 126 tion. Afforestation, at any rate, has this advantage: that if you raise a loan for the purpose of planting trees, you do so with the object of reaping a harvest in the future. You really expect to get a return, and you are making a business investment which you hope will return a fair profit on your capital. Therefore, if the system of loans is to be adopted, surely it is better to devote your loan to an undertaking which in all probability is based on economic principles, and which will give you a profit, rather than to devote it to works which, admittedly, in many cases, are not so, and merely add to the amenity of the district in which they are proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston challenged the whole question of Afforestation or any similar undertaking on high economic principles. He says, and I am disposed to agree with him, that you will not improve the position of the community unless you are able to increase the wealth. That is exactly what afforestation will do. I would suggest to this House that it is quite impossible to make any wealth in this country unless you are possessed of sufficient capital to wait until your operations can mature. Take the elementary fact of sowing a field of wheat. In that case you must have capital in the shape of money or corn, and you must wait for the due operation of nature. How does the question differ from the first process by which we have got any wealth whatever? Civilisation which can look back for six or seven thousand years ought surely to be able to wait for the forty years which we are told must elapse before any wealth can be produced by Afforestation. In so far as it is an attempt to increase the wealth of the community surely it ought to have the sympathy of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. My hon. Friend made another observation with which I am not sure I can feel in such agreement. He said that if you take whatever sum is needed for this work you divert it from another destination, that you merely prevent another set of wages being paid. Let us examine a little further what would happen. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with the Report which we had the honour of presenting, and that he provided £1,000,000 by loan for this year. Out of that sum we should be able to pay a million pounds' worth of wages. But my hon. Friend says we should be throwing somebody else out of employment. Whom should we be throwing out of employment? If you assume that we 127 should be taking this million pounds' worth of wages out of the pockets of some other Englishmen. I agree that we might not increase the sum total of employment in the country. But if you are taking it out of the pockets of people who are not Englishmen, or who do not live in England, although the sum total of employment in the world may not be increased, the sum total of employment in this country is increased. If you create in your own country that which you had been in the habit of purchasing from abroad, you thereby diminish the amount of manufactured goods which you exchange with foreign countries, and though wealth may not be increased, it certainly is not diminished. Suppose a village carpenter, who has been in the habit of purchasing potatoes or any other commodity from a neighbouring village, has an idle lad who does nothing but loaf about the street: If that carpenter says to his son, "Go into the garden and cultivate a potato plot," is the wealth of his establishment diminished because an unemployed person is put to labour? It seems to me that if we could employ our unemployed profitably in this country it would be an advantage. There cannot be any economic advantage in possessing hundreds of thousands of people who are not adding to the wealth of the community. If we can show a way by which the potential activity of these unemployed people may be utilised for the creation of wealth surely my hon. friend will agree that it should be done. Moreover, by this method not only would you increase the wealth of the community, but you would prevent unemployed men sinking into the position of unemployable, and in too many cases becoming a charge upon the community by drifting into prisons or asylums. It has been said that afforestation in this country can never pay. On what that statement is based I do not know. The Commission of which I had the honour to be a member investigated the question with some care; the evidence of the greatest experts in the country was taken; the most exhaustive inquiry was made; and as far as the evidence of those gentlemen goes there is abundant ground for believing that afforestation would pay. Hon. Members may know a great deal more than the experts on the subject, but they have not given us the source of their information, and, for my part, until they do so I shall be inclined to abide by the opinion of people 128 who, I think, are better qualified than they to judge. It is generally known throughout the parts of the world concerned with the purchasing and handling of timber that the world's supplies of timber are rapidly diminishing. The fact of the matter is that we have been living on the virgin forests, and as long as the virgin forests lasted the price of timber was abnormally low; but as the virgin forests of the world become exhausted there is every reason to expect the price of timber to rise. In talking about the economics of afforestation, that factor of the situation should not be lost sight of. But assume for the moment that it is conceded that afforestation would be a paying operation. The question then arises—what relief would it afford in the matter of employment? In that connection we have to consider, in the first place, the character of the labour, and, in the second place, the capacity of the unemployed workman. The opportunities afforded to the recent Commission to consider this question were fairly large. An enormous amount of testimony was brought to our notice, and, as a result of that testimony, one may say with certainty that it is impossible to dogmatise on the point or to fit into the four corners of any definition the capacity of unemployed labour. It varies as much as human nature itself. You find in the ranks of the unemployed people who are unemployable, having sunk physically and morally owing to the sort of life they have in many cases been obliged to live from childhood: these people are admittedly incapable, without what would amount to curative treatment, of performing the amount of work which an ordinary workman is accustomed to do. But at the other end of the scale, and especially in winter, there are people out of work who are in no sense social degenerates; through a slump in the particular trade with which they are connected they find themselves, for a longer or a shorter period, out of work. It is foolish to apply to these people—and there are many of them—the sort of observations that are generally applied to the economic utility of unemployed labour. Men who are accustomed to the use of the pick or shovel, ordinary labourers, quarrymen, coal hewers, people accustomed to hard manual labour, who have not been out of work for a long time, although they are unemployed, are not unemployable; on the contrary, they are quite capable of doing as good a day's work as a contractor would get from his gang of men. Our sugges- 129 tion is that if you select your men with care, you will be able to get a great many—probably many more than you are able to absorb—who are quite capable of performing a day's work for a day's wage the same as an ordinary contractor's labourer would do. What we claim for afforestation is that many of its operations are of a simple character and would enable that class of men to tide over the time of slack employment. Moreover, when it is remembered that unemployment is not merely an urban problem, that there is rural as well as urban unemployment, and that the greater part of the work of afforestation is done in the winter, which is the period when unemployment is most prevalent, it will be agreed that afforestation is at all events a contribution—I do not pretend that it is a solution of the problem—towards the relief of the lack of work which now too often prevails. It is on these grounds that afforestation is mentioned in connection with the question of unemployment, and I venture to think that those who urge that an experiment should be made in this direction are on good ground, and that instead of the economic heresies into which my hon. Friend thinks we should easily be led, it would to some extent afford a practical solution of the problem the existence of which we all deplore.
Sir CHARLES DILKE : It would be unfortunate if this debate were to wander off into a side track concerning any one remedy or suggested remedy for unemployment. No doubt we shall have an opportunity of considering any proposals with regard to afforestation that may be put before the House, but I feel that it is necessary that we who, I will not say have doubts as to the whole policy, but who distinguish very sharply between the different forms it has assumed in the popular mind, should utter a few words of caution which are not inconsistent with the Amendment before the House. I do not wonder that on this occasion an Amendment dealing with this question should be proposed, because, while not professing to associate myself with many of the suggested remedies for unemployment, it has been assumed, I think with some ground, that proposals were going to be announced at the beginning of this Session which seem at the last moment to have been dropped. It is, of course, most necessary in this House that Members should abstain from alluding to any private conversations and communications which may have been made to themselves. In order to make 130 this matter quite clear, I may say that I am not speaking myself from any responsible source, but alluding to what others have informed me of from responsible sources. I believe firmly that there was an intention when the Prime Minister made his speech last year of introducing measures which I have ventured to criticise in advance—measures which have been discussed as long ago as the Trade Union Congress last year. Definite proposals were made in regard to this form of insurance, and it was supposed that they were likely to be carried into effect. After the speeches which have been made I am not astonished that there should be alarm in the minds of those who have had these promises held out to them. It is, of course, possible that the form of the notice of the excellent measure for labour exchanges may only still imperfectly represent the contents of the Bill which will be placed before the House. What we have been given to expect was that the Bill would have for its first and most immediate purpose the dealing with what I think the Central Unemployed Committee have taught us to call the reserve or margin which exists in every trade— the keeping under our commercial and capitalist system of at least 2 per cent. in all the trades unemployed. There is never less than 2 per cent. of unemployment, and the idea, I believe, is that the labour exchanges, properly managed, will deal with that 2 per cent. It will take that amount out of the unemployment, which really reaches 5 per cent. on the whole. If you can dispose of that 2 per cent. on scientific grounds you will be doing a great deal, although it may only be a palliative. That we expect to be the main purpose of the Bill. There is the further purpose of providing what is called the Basle scheme for insurance for the unemployed. But that seems to have gone. If the expectations which have been formed, rightly or wrongly, were to have been met it would have been better if that had been stated in that Speech. That it has not been stated seems to show some weakening in the purpose. I say that with some sense of responsibility, for I am not favourable to dealing on the insurance plan with skilled labour only. The admitted defect of the plan is that it does not deal with women. That is a tremendous drawback to the acceptance of such a scheme —a drawback so great that I am very cautious in expressing a strong opinion in favour of it. I want to know before supporting it how 131 that enormous difficulty is to be met. That expectation was widely entertained. That the speeches made by Members of the Government led to the belief that such a scheme would be proposed at the beginning of the Session there can be no doubt. I cannot but think after the speeches which have been made that it would have been better if the proposals had been brought before the House at once. Now with regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff I should like to say a word or two. It was based, I think, on a confusion in the report of his Commission, if I may say so. He points to the opinion of great specialists. Obviously, those interested in forestry have to gain by great forestry operations, and, therefore, their opinions must be discounted to that extent in the usual way. But the confusion which is germane to this debate is the confusion between a State socialistic experiment, to which I am favourable—the long-range forestry —and the forestry which is intended to give employment to people on the land on a large scale as a remedy for unemployment. These two things were confused in the Report of the Commission, and in my hon. Friend's speech. I took note of some of his expressions which seemed to justify what I have said. He started an economic argument, in which he referred to the views of the Tariff Reformers on the one hand, and of the Labour Party on the other. I will not pursue that. He said it might be possible by a scheme of forestry to employ permanently, say, 100,000 people. His words were "hundreds of thousands" of persons at present unemployed.
Mr. GUEST : I said there were thousands of people out of work.
Sir CHARLES DILKE : "Hundreds of thousands" was the phrase. I took the words down, and we shall see from the new report what the hon. Member said. I have no doubt that I will hold my view, and that the hon. Member will hold the opposite after putting the matter to that test. I thought these statements a little crude. He divided us into those who think that State forestry will never pay, and those who think that it will. He knows as well as anyone that state forestry is almost certain to pay. The growing of oak on land suitable, if not corruptly or badly managed—if managed with skill—will always pay the Crown. I would be inclined to give him 132 long-range planting as peculiarly applicable to Crown lands, because Crown lands, if properly managed— not as where you have trees cut down by an improvident family, or cleared in order that pheasants may be properly shot—can be made to pay in that way. The Crown, of course, can stand out of its money for a hundred years. Good oak is never likely to bring anything but a good price, and a profit would be quite certain. But, as I understand the report, and still more his explanation, the proposal of the Commission is to grow coniferous timber. They believe that there is a large amount of labour in that growth, and that it will certainly pay. That is an enormous speculation. The hon. Member challenged the sources of information of any persons who might say the contrary. When we speak of unemployment, we think very largely of London, Birmingham, the Potteries, and places in England. The proposal of the Commission concerns almost entirely Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Very well, I have been examining the remedy for unemployment. The hon. Member says it is temporary unemployment. He says there are lots of people in winter who ought to be employed in this work of afforestation. Is it a practical remedy that could be applied by the Central Unemployed Committee? How are they going to employ the temporarily unemployed on the Scotch and Welsh hills. The Commission have made a good many recommendations, they have the almost unanimous support of public opinion, but the recommendations need some examination before we take actual steps in this matter as a remedy for unemployment. That examination they certainly ought to have. [An HON. MEMBER "I will have an opportunity of replying to this."] All I ask to-day is that the thing shall not be taken as admitted that afforestation is a good remedy for unemployment. May I, in order not to be misunderstood, say that there are great areas belonging to corporations where most interesting and valuable experiments may be tried if we put out of sight the idea of great money-making speculations? As regards what can be done, if you put out of sight the element of the State making coniferous forestry a paying speculation the experiment would be interesting and useful. But that is not what is commonly called afforestation. Afforestation, as it concerns the growth of coniferous timber, is one thing, and the providing of work for the unemployed by that means is another thing. The growing of oak 133 employs very little labour, except in two things of which the Commission has given us no estimate in the report. They talk about planting. A great Indian authority whose report was laid before the House recommended the natural planting of oak. The employment is in the draining, and that is not done in winter. That is not the kind of work which is contemplated by the hon. Member. Then in regard to fencing, in the first instance it is probable that it will be iron fencing, which employs very little labour.
Mr. GUEST : There is the iron trade.
Sir CHARLES DILKE : I am not going into the economic argument. I am talking about unemployment, and the two things are being mixed up. To talk of the housing of the unemployed by some of the proposals amounted to a wild-cat scheme.
Mr. IVOR GUEST : I merely made one or two allusions to the unemployed.
Sir C. DILKE : I should not have spoken in answer to my hon. Friend if we were all agreed with my hon. Friend that a large scheme of afforestation was connected with the unemployed problem. That was made quite clear by the mover, who treated it as a proper thing for the State to deal with, like the nationalisation of railways. As the Prime Minister has just come in, I shall sit down by repeating the observation with which I began. Without entering into the merits of the insurance schemes that have been suggested, undue expectations have been held out inconsistent with the form in which the Bill is announced in the King's Speech.
Mr. S. L. GWYNN : I am rather ignorant of the bearing of the amendment on the population of this country. The hon. Member who has moved it is very largely representative of Irishmen in this country. Irish people who come over here are affected by these proposals. I may remind the House that this question of unemployment is also an Irish problem. I represent a constituency which was once prosperous and once a hive of industry. To-day Galway has not the great crowds of unemployed that you have here, but for the last three years we have had winter by winter sad spectacles. At the dawn of every winter's morning we have had hundreds of men jostling each other and fighting each other for the privilege of standing in a trench. It is a miserably poor community. The public have raised during the last three years £600. There is an enormous poor rate. For once in a way I think money 134 has been spent to a great advantage. Work has been found on 30 or 40 acres—an area which a few years ago was a swamp. If the same state of misery is to be faced again I do not see where the people are to be employed, for there is no hope of a recovery such as this country may naturally look forward to. Galway to-day is dwindling out of existence. In its day it was one of the great ports of this kingdom. It has an excellent harbour, and if you are to stop unemployment in that city you must spend a large sum of money on the harbour. This House has many things to think about, but I do not think it will concern itself about the prosperity of Galway. From an Irish point of view, the condition of things in Galway is a very serious matter. Here is a case where you could spend money in developing a harbour and in modernising it. You would give employment at once where employment was needed. I join in the energetic protest against this increase of expenditure on the Navy. There is not a man in Ireland who will have lot or jot in that expenditure. Ireland is forced into this expenditure. The Colonies can cope with it themselves. We cannot in Ireland. Again, the question of afforestation is one that touches us in Ireland, but it is a problem which we should like to settle for ourselves. The expenditure of money in many directions in Ireland would not merely relieve unemployment for the moment, but for the future. The problem of Irish poverty is one which has a vital bearing on the prosperity of England. Why? Because at the present time you have in Ireland—close to England—a great reservoir of unorganised labour. What we want is to deal with our own problems ourselves. There is the work of afforestation, that of drainage, and other great schemes. We want to keep our men at home, instead of them flooding the English and Scotch markets. There is a continual rush of them across the channel. We feel that if we were given the power we could find work at home for them.
Mr. A. RICHARDSON : I feel in duty bound to my own constituency, and to the many audiences I addressed during the recess, that I should state my position in reference to the position that we will be placed in this afternoon from the lack of definiteness on the part of the Government in stating when they propose to carry out the promises made by the Prime Minister to the leader of the Labour party on October 21 last year. It is not to me so much a question of the mode or how you 135 are going to deal with unemployment, as the fact —and I speak with all respect to the Prime Minister—that the Government are not fulfilling the promise they made through the Prime Minister in October last, and while I am anxious to give them credit and to give the Government generally credit for their action in relation to social problems, I feel that unless we have some further statement going much further in the direction of solving this problem, I shall be compelled to vote against the Government in connection with the Amendment which has been moved from these benches. I grant to the Government an anxiousness to deal with all these social problems—an anxiousness never before manifested by any Government. I am grateful to them for their efforts in relation to Licensing, Education, Small Holdings and Allotments, and the Feeding of Children and Old Age Pensions, but if the Government will believe me, of all the questions that one can mention before any audience in this country there is none that focuses interest or raises enthusiasm of the people as this question of the unemployed. And speaking for myself, I want to say very respectfully to the Prime Minister that every meeting I addressed—and I addressed some 30 or 40 since the House adjourned—I made this specific answer to questions: "You can depend upon the Government carrying out their pledges in relation to unemployment, because the Prime Minister has never been known, in the three years I have known the House, at any rate, to go back upon his word, and the Prime Minister as Prime Minister has promised to deal with this question not merely administratively, but legislatively." Therefore I feel it is the question of the honour of the Government that is at stake. The question of unemployment is not now merely a necessary complement of bad trade, but a permanent and abiding element in our industrial and social system. I had occasion during the first year I was sent to this House to approach the War Office in relation to certain industries with which Nottingham, Leicester, and Loughborough are associated, and I should like to thank the Government for the manner in which they treated myself and that deputation in this matter. I think it is the spirit in which all these cases should be approached. The case I am going to put before the House proves to the hilt that the putting up of machinery and the introduction of steel are some of the great 136 factors that lead to unemployment. I was approached by the hand-frame makers with a view to securing an audience with the War Minister, because previous to the late disastrous war the whole of the Army breeches had been made by the hand-frame workers in the areas round Nottingham. When the war came on they found it impossible to supply the Army, and so a large share of the work had to be given to steam-power work, with the result that at the end of the war—and I think the War Office were justified—they issued a general notice that in future all orders to hand-frame men would be reduced by so many thousand pairs per year, which would result in the whole of the orders being taken from the hand-frame men in five years. We approached the War Office in the hope of getting an extension of the time. There are 380 hand-frame workers in this district. The youngest of these is 56 years of age, and the oldest 68, so that the average age is 61. I found also that as much work could be done by 20 men at steam power as by 380 at the hand-frames, but I pointed out to the War Minister that if the order was allowed to run in that way, it would mean that at the end of five years 250 decent, honourable men would be thrown out into the world to join the unemployed at 66 years of age. I pointed out they would be thrown upon the rates, and, therefore, what the War Office would gain by their economy, the Local Government Board would lose. Needless to say, the War Office received us well and acted generously. I merely point to this as illustrating that for no reason or vice of theirs these old men were in danger of being thrown into the world of the unemployed. I think it is the necessary complement and result of our advance in civilisation and industry that these periodical flingings out of sections of workmen to join the unemployed should take place, and as if it is in the interest of the State the State ought to see to it that the necessaries of life should not be barred to these men. May I address one word to the Prime Minister and the Government in relation to their own safety as a party. I am quite convinced the great danger to the Liberal party is that they will find themselves between the upper millstone of Socialism and the nether millstone of Tariff Reform, and the only safe path is the straight path of social reform. I entirely agree if we are going to waste our wealth on increase in armaments you are not only going to ruin the prospects of the Liberal party, but you are going to put it out of the power of 137 the House to deal with the social needs of the people.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns) : The House will have noticed with interest, as I did with appreciation, that there has been no criticism in the speeches delivered about the administration or the working of the Unemployed Workmen Act, which I have, for the last twelve months, had the honour of administering. We noted that with pleasure. Had the point been raised I think I should have been in a position to prove that, so far as possible for a department such as mine to deal, with a stop-gap measure until more serious remedies are propounded, with such a matter as unemployment that we not only did our duty with efficiency, but that we exercised every consideration in regard to the cases submitted to us. The only exception to the general chorus of approval was made by the hon. Member for Barry. He mentioned the case of Barry, which, with all respect to him, might better have been raised when we came to greater detail; but as he wished for a reply, I do not hesitate to give it. The question of Barry is very simple. Barry is a town of about 30,000 population. On his own showing there were 273 men reported to be out of work, and when the application was made for a Distress Committee to be instituted in that particular area I did what we do on every occasion. I sent an inspector into the district. He was a Welshman, and spoke Welsh, and was in great sympathy and close contact with the population of that particular district, and upon his report I acted. I said that in our judgment the money could be better spent elsewhere, and that we were not justified in giving a Distress Committee to a population of 30,000, with 273 people out of work.
Mr. BRACE : The figure 273 which I gave is the figure representing the number of men who volunteered upon the invitation of the trades union to sign a book. There are a much larger number of unemployed there.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : Our experience is that voluntary committees do include men, under-employed men, who get only three or four days' work a week, and, generally speaking, that puts the maximum number up of what you would describe as genuine unemployed. But as we thought fit to refuse the Distress Committee, there was no reason, we thought, why we should 138 not do something to assist Barry, and we found it better than giving £200 or £300 to sanction a loan of £6,120 for the land on which four or five times as many men could be employed. The next speech I have to deal with is that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow. I am compelled by the circumstances of the case to deal with the first portion of his speech, and the facts underlying his statement with regard to the Embankment. No one could go to the Thames Embankment and see the motley crowd of men brought together by what is often misguided, and what is certainly undisciplined, charity, and in latter years by the new shillings and half-crowns of popular actors and actresses at certain periods, without thinking that the police or those responsible for the collection of those people would have to do something to stop what is becoming an intolerable condition of things, and which imposes upon the poor fellows that receive these gifts unnecessary hardships. Why should those who are anxious to be charitable and generous to these poor people on the Embankment—why should they ask and cause to be attracted 600 or 1,000 men at six o'clock on a bleak winter's evening, when it is probably raining, perhaps snowing, with probably a north-east wind blowing down the Embankment—why should they ask them to gather for the receipt of tickets for admission to a shelter, to which admission is denied to them until five hours after the men began to collect? The humane and only charitable way would be to give these tickets away not on the Embankment, but at the place where the shelter and the food was given at least within half an hour of when the men can reasonably be expected to be admitted. I commend that to those who are responsible for the collection of these men and exposing them to cold and rain that it all could be avoided by the tickets being given at the place where the shelter and food are given at nine or ten or eleven o'clock at night. We shall be asked—What steps have we taken to prevent this? I put this specially to hon. Members below the gangway. I differed with them as to the severity of the penal clause of their Right to Work Bill of last Session, and I have hesitated to subscribe to that Bill for one or two reasons, and this is one of them: I am, notwithstanding my occasionally serious aspect and stern demeanour, a kindly man, and I do not want to introduce a new crime, and that the crime of poverty and destitution to be punished by the 139 forcible apprehension and detention of the men who now gather upon the Embankment, and if I am asked to do that I should hesitate very seriously as to whether I should terminate the present undesirable state of things at that particular spot by the more undesirable, and in my judgment a more brutal, method of treating these men who gather there. But someone will say, "Is not there some means by which this spectacle can be removed?" So far as the law is concerned, so far as the local authorities are concerned they provide a medium by which not only these men, not only the 600 or 1,000 who gather there can be treated, but they have provided a means by which a larger number could be warmed, sheltered, and fed. The House must not forget this fact—that the casual ward accommodation of this City of London will accommodate 2,400 people— about 2,000 men and about 400 women and children intended for this particular type, whom we see attracted to the Embankment, very frequently not through lack of means to pay for their night's lodging, but by their indisposition to go to a good warm shelter with a minimum of food, preferring rather the Embankment, with the indiscriminate charity that flows there. Every night the community and the State, the local authorities, and the Boards of Guardians have the vacant accommodation of from 800 to 1400 beds in the casual wards that are provided for this class of people. With regard to the lodging-house accommodation of this class of person, there are I am glad to see signs, and they are very welcome signs, that what is known as the lodging - house population is decreasing, and but for indiscriminate charity it would still further decrease. It is decreasing to such an extent that in the lodging-houses which provide accommodation for men and women at from 3d. to 6d. a night in the City of London there are 28,000 beds provided, and there are always 7,000 vacant beds awaiting those who have the small sum of money ready for their lodgings. It would be infinitely better for those who attract these people to the Embankment either to admit them earlier to their own shelters, and if their shelters are not sufficient then they might divert their charity by the distribution of tickets to admit them to the vacancies which occur in other lodging-houses. Whatever is done; and something will have to be done because this question of casual vagrancy is only one aspect of the great 140 poor-law problem with which we are pledged to deal, which we must deal with and intend to deal with; the question is whether we shall take these 600, 800, or 1,000 men, surround them with policemen if they will not go, subject them to the rigours of Clause 7 of the Right to Work Bill, or whether we shall have to class them as unemployable, to be compulsorily arrested—because that is what it means— and compulsorily detained, perhaps against their own inclination, but for the protection of society against that kind of thing which does unquestionably act as a means of bringing the best man who is out of work and who is temporarily reduced to that condition of things down to the moral, physical, and mental standard of the old stager and the man who has habituated himself to that class of thing. But if that is done I can assure hon. Members the men on the Embankment would not welcome No. 7 Clause of the Right to Work Bill. They will probably protest against this vigorous action if taken against them. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said that he would not deal with figures of unemployment, and I do not intend myself to traverse them. The hon. Member said the figures ranged from two to six, and sometimes in an exceptional year like the last from seven to eight among the skilled trades. I can only say that whether the proportion be two to six to two to eight or one to five we are confronted with them not from among the miners, who, when trade is slack, sensibly work short time, which is a provision for dealing with some of the aspects of unemployment which has gained much popularity with some trades. We are not troubled with the textile trades or with the railways, in which work is also fairly regular, but we are confronted now by two aspects of the unemployed problem. In these violent fluctuations of industry amongst the engineers, the ship-builders, and boiler-makers, and in the building trade, and amongst skilled artisans, they are increasingly resorting to insurance by unemployed donation, and on the other hand we are confronted with the difficulty of the unorganised, unskilled labourer, who is casually employed, and whose intermittent condition of life is such that he has no incentive even if he had the inclination, and he has no means, by virtue of his low wages, to make that provision for an insurance against unemployment that the skilled artisan can more frequently make. What we have to do, and this will be one of the aspects that will fall 141 to the lot of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—we have to consider whether it would be possible to associate with his scheme of labour exchanges some form of insurance of unemployment. That has been discussed in many quarters, but with rather divided voice and divided counsels. For instance, we get very little encouragement from the hon. Member for Glasgow, who says that to offer labour exchanges is like throwing a brick at a hungry dog. It seems to me that that is not a sufficient answer to the able reference in the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, who defended labour exchanges as indicated in the King's Speech on the broad and simple ground that where you had stagnant pools of unskilled labour in certain districts, hampered too often by indiscriminate charity and hampered by relief works which I have been compelled to subsidise—where you have, as you have in same parts of the East End of London, a surplus of unskilled labour that cannot by any conceivable means be employed in the immediate district in which they live, and in the other parts of the country, especially in the rural parts, you have a dearth of labour, and if there is any desire between the town with its surplus labour and the country with its dearth to come together some medium of communication, organisation, and adjustment may be necessary. I am a Trade Unionist myself, and I wish all the men were Trade Unionists, and if they had the capacity and providence of the organised Trade Unionists of this country we should not be compelled to give as much time to the consideration of this problem as we are now doing. But if Trade Unionists do not like labour bureaux and labour exchanges, and if they—on the German system—would in this country be impossible, they have to put their own skilled, aristocratic labour out of their purview for a minute, and to think of their unskilled, unorganised, and too often lowly paid brethren, on whom the hardships of unemployment fall. It seems to me to be only trifling with the woes and sorrows of the unemployed either on the Embankment or at the dock gates, or round the door of distress committees, to suggest that an immediate practical solution of their difficulties can be found in the nationalisation of the land. However desirable as a name or as an out look, or a project, it is not much consolation or assistance to the men on the Embankment or at the dock gates, and it is not much more satisfactory for them to be told that the conditions of unemployment 142 are due to the present system of production and exchange; and, what is more, may I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow not to be quite so down-hearted as his speech would lead us to think he was. The picture he presented of the engineering trade, frankly, I never did share, nor can I share it now. Mainly by their very well regulated and disciplined thrift, providence, and organisation the Amalgamated Engineers work shorter hours than they did and receive higher wages than they ever received. Their life is lengthened, and in many ways the Amalgamated Engineer to-day is unlike the type and specimen of the old-time engineer. He has improved, and is improving, and I do not believe it is true that he is out of work more than he used to be. One of the cheerful features of modern working-class society is this—that they no longer suffer the indignities and injustice that they used to with Oriental submission, almost with the stolidity of the ox. Certain types of them now, if they are out of work for a week, holloa as if they had got their fingers in a railway carriage. In the old days the workman, whether he was skilled or unskilled, used to accept it quietly and passively, almost as an economic and inexorable law. I am only a young man —grey, it is true—frosty yet kindly. I am thinking only of 50 or 60 years ago, and for these dismal pictures to be drawn of skilled trades like my hon. Friend has done I think is rather over-colouring the picture. The other suggestion was that we were going from bad to worse. The fact is that the problems of unemployment and pauperism do not assume the vast dimensions that some of the hon. Member's observations would imply. Anyone would think on occasions like this, when we were discussing this question that every other man you met in the street was dependent upon either rates or taxes for his sustenance, and that the whole mass of the nation was pauperised, and that we have a condition of things which is comparable to what it was 70, 80, or 100 years ago. The Poor Law Report is before us, and I am glad to say the problem which we have to consider is not as big as hon. Members would think. We have 928,000 men, women, and children dependent upon rates and taxes in England and Wales, of whom only 11,000 are able-bodied men in health, in Poor Law institutions, and we believe by the action we intend to take in dealing with this problem that we shall be able to compress this within manageable proportions, so that in two or 143 three years we shall be able to say that the 11,413 has diminished down to a thousand or two, and that our 14 to 17 thousand casuals whom we now have may, by various forms of treatment—not one form or treatment, but 20 or 30—be resolved into almost negligeable proportions. And I believe in taking those steps we shall carry the great bulk of the House of Commons with us, if we are as cautious as we are bold, and we refrain from adopting too quickly some of the remedies which have been submitted this afternoon and on other occasions. The hon. Member for Leeds said it probably would be said that we should be told the workmen ought to be more sober than they are. There is a town in the North of England whose poverty, arising from unemployment, I have worked as hard as the House will give me credit for to mitigate. The manager of a bank, who, politically, would consign me to Tyburn tree if it were re-erected at the top of Edgware Road, wrote to me and said: "I would like to give you one fact connected with this particular town. When I was manager of a bank in that town, every Friday I used to pay out for the black squad—the engineers, boiler-makers, shipbuilders, and men engaged in kindred industries —over the counter of my bank from £50,000 to £60,000 in wages, and on Monday between 9.30 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon I received from the publicans alone from £12,000 to £16,000 of the money that I paid out on the Friday." I make no comment. I leave it there, and I say if only a tithe of that money had been spent as the engineers spend it in my own Union in insuring against unemployment much of the misery and sorrow of that town, which I have had to mitigate by grants, by speeding up loans, accelerating inquiries, and giving of the State's generosity would have been unnecessary, and I think could have been avoided. It has been said, What has the Government got to say and what forms of work will they suggest? We lost no time in the past three years while certain forms of remedial legislation for unemployment have been under consideration. Reclamation does not present quite so rosy a picture as it did three years ago, when it took £18,000 to reclaim £1,000 worth of land, and when the land was reclaimed they did not know what to do with it. Women's workrooms, to which I have been sympathetically considerate, have not that charm and attractiveness that they had two or three years ago. On 144 three women's workrooms, employing less than 800 people, in the last three years £16,000 has been distributed and less than £6,000 has been secured by the sale of the products which have been made in those workrooms. We have not extended them for a very good reason, which the hon. Member, with Scotch prescience, defined about five or six weeks ago when he wrote an article on this and kindred subjects. Speaking of them, he said: "Of course there is the danger of competing in the ordinary market and of the goods of the workroom displacing goods made under ordinary conditions." It was the fear of that which has induced me to be cautious in my extension of women's workrooms.
Mr. BARNES : Will the right hon. Gentleman read on?
Mr. BURNS : The next sentence which is relevant is that the goods of the workrooms might be given away. How do you expect milliners and workgirls working for moderate profits to stand municipally-endowed industries, especially when they are still further handicapped by the goods which are made by rates and taxes being given away? It would only be repeating the economic futility that the Labour Party have very properly denounced in the enormous number of meetings they have held throughout the country, of the Salvation Army and the Church Army using charitable aids to compete with ordinary industries. We have lost nothing by the three years, because we have kept all the organisation of the Act going. We have improved the organisation. We have consolidated the labour bureaux and the exchanges, and we have gained much useful experience. We are all wiser now about labour colonies than we were. You will find I venture to predict in the report of both the majority and the minority of the Poor Law Commission no recommendations of schemes of reclamation, women's workrooms, or relief works, and they will not look at labour colonies except penal labour colonies, that the honest unemployed will have nothing to do with, and which, if you create them for the unemployable or the skulking unemployed, will only become glorified prisons, call them by whatever fancy name you like. But there is one experience which we have derived great experience from. The hon. Member for Cardiff, speaking of afforestation, referred to the disadvantage which would accrue ultimately to the community if loan work, such as I have done my best to properly regulate, were con- 145 tinued. He said in some cases the acceleration of loans for the expediting of works, was only anticipating work which otherwise would be done, but it is much better that you should select the very worst year in the cycle of seven years for doing more work in that particular year than you do probably in the next year. But he makes a mistake if he thinks that in connection with loan work we have had any of the nonsense that has been attempted to be carried on by some of the men who prostitute the cause of the genuine unemployed on certain relief work schemes throughout the country. There is no nonsense about attending football matches on relief works. There is no fiasco, such as in the Newport, the Carnarvon, the Bristol, or one or two incidents that I could give. On the contrary, the four millions of money which have been spent in the last six months on expediting and accelerating loan work, in the overwhelming majority of cases has been done for the best of the unemployed under trade union conditions, under conditions where, when the local authority have got full value for their money, it has enabled an enormous number of men who have tided over the last six or eight months in a way that we could not have done if we had at our disposal £5,000,000 to have distributed in Parliamentary grants. I want, if I may, to deduce from this debate some, not excuse, but some defence for the Government. It has been said by the Labour party that not a word has been said about afforestation. With that I will deal. The hon. Baronet, the Member for the Forest of Dean, has said—I do not know his reason—he trusted that this debate would not result in all the other remedies for unemployment being swallowed up, so to speak, by afforestation. If he will pardon me, I think he did not attach sufficient weight to the re-port of the Afforestation Committee. The public and the country generally, as well the Government, are indebted to the hon. Member for Cardiff and his Commission, who produced this very able report on a very complex and difficult subject, and showed, I think, almost satisfactorily, that as an investment for the nation, afforestation of itself was good, and that, incidentally, a large number of the unemployed would have profitable employment at the period of the year between October and March, when the building and similar industries were at their slackest point. Immediately that that scheme was presented, hon. Members from all sides of the House said, "Afforestation is no good." Last night the hon. Baronet, the 146 Member for the City of London asked, "What is the good of afforestation for people who want a prompt return for their money?" Taken by itself that may be right, but you have no right to act on a one-eyed view. A one-eyed view is very often a squint-eyed view. You have got to see that to the extent to which you keep people in the country by new industries, to the same extent you give the people in the towns a better chance, and do not expose them to the hardships of surplus competition from country labour; and I can only say that one of the reasons, perhaps the one reason, why the Government did not include afforestation in the King's Speech—and I speak in presence of the Prime Minister—is the fact that this report has only just been submitted to us. It is to be read in connection with the report on the Poor Law. That has been presented to-day. They have both been issued in a month or six weeks. Afforestation is a subject that does not require legislation. It is a subject that does require a great deal of money. The only legislation needed would be probably that, for the purpose of spending certain sums of money, the Board of Agriculture or some Department should pay the salaries of one or two or three Afforestation Commissioners; but it does not want legislation in the sense that it requires an elaborate measure like the Unemployed Workmen's Act or the future Poor Law Bill; and we were not justified in including in the King's Speech any legislative proposals with regard to afforestation until we had our marching orders from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and knew the amount of money that he could place at our disposal for this purpose. In my judgment the matter has got beyond the experimental stage, and the Government are seriously considering it with a view to action. The hon. Member below the gangway asked what is there in the King's Speech to warrant us in supporting the Government in their efforts to mitigate the evils of labour? There is nothing like meeting a statement like that with the actual document itself. I am not going to talk about what the Government has done in the last three years, or to enlarge on the gilt-edged compliment paid the Government by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Richardson), who said he never knew of a Government so much fired with feeling on matters of industrial and social reform as this Government has shown itself to be. That is for the past. Sufficient for the past is the witness thereof. Coming to what we 147 have before us to-day and its relation to labour, we see the solution of the agrarian difficulty in Ireland by an improved Irish Land Bill that will still further retain the people on the soil. Is not that something that helps labour? The hon. Member for Bethnal Green smiles. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, who should know better, were to go to Liverpool and a number of places in Lancashire and Yorkshire he would find that the local unskilled labour was unemployed owing to Irish migratory labourer., to the tune of 40,000 or 50,000 every year, who, because they are divorced from the soil in many cases in their own country, come over to Liverpool. And on my responsibility as President of the Local Government Board, who has done his best to organise the dock labourers of Liverpool, I say that if we could settle the agrarian difficulties of Ireland by retaining the Irish agricultural labourer where he ought to be—on his own soil, in his own home, in his own cottage—the complexity of the casual labour difficulty among the poor of Liverpool would be absolutely removed. And we say it is not by the short cuts to the Millennium and the rapid transitions to El Dorado sketched out on the floor of the House that we are going to solve the unemployed problem. We say that indirectly, but very seriously, an Irish Land Bill does help the problem in Ireland, as it does in England and Wales. I now come to another thing for which we have a right to take credit. What is the chief justification, what is the raison dêtre of our Housing Bill? It is a rural Housing Bill. We find all over the country Tory Members, Liberal Members, and Labour Members all say that one of the chief reasons why the young, strong agricultural labourers, with some touch of imagination and some regard for their wives and families or for the sweethearts whom they intend to make their wives, will not stay in the country districts is because there is a lack of housing accommodation. And may I point out that we do two things by this kind of legislation: We retain in the country the strong, healthy competitor from the country side, who comes to the town and by his superior physique and his simple tastes and too often his greater sobriety displaces the town labourer. We save the town labourer from that competition, but incidentally in building the houses we give employment to an increasing number of men in the most depressed of all industries at this moment, namely, the building trade. The 148 next question is that of labour exchanges. I do not intend to say a word about that. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will deal with that, and I am sure he can demonstrate that the third measure, that of Labour Exchanges, is a substantial contribution. Then the fourth is the setting up of a Trade or Wages Board to deal with sweating, which is only one aspect of the unemployed and unemployable problems. And last but one, but not least, we who are praised by the hon. Member for Nottingham must take credit for the next paragraph. The Old Age Pensions Act, it is suggested, or romised—and I hope it will be carried out—will be improved and remedied by certain defects being taken out. But that will mean, if it is done as we should like to do it, anything from three to four millions of money. This will depend on the question whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer can find this money. He alone can decide. Then what becomes of the suggestion that we are doing nothing for either the poor, the working man, or the unemployed. The last paragraph with which I will deal is that referring to a Bill in connection with the hours of working in shops. Here we have in one King's Speech six matters, all of which touch the very vitals of industrial life—not to talk of the Miners Eight Hours Bill of last year, and of the Small Holdings Bill and many other Acts which we have carried out, and which we intend to develop if we are in power, as we will be, for another three years. And between now and the end of the Session, we are pledged as a Government to take up that great document, the report of the Poor Law Commission. It is not our fault that we did not start upon it three months ago. We are not to be blamed. And in every aspect of the problem of Poor Law—vagrancy, unemployment, child labour, and half-time labour—and I hope by that time that the textile trades will have been converted to the wisdom in the interests of adult labour and in the interests of the unemployed of abolishing half-time labour—in the consideration of all these great problems we intend to do our best. With, regard to afforestation, the chief subject on which I have been asked to speak for the Government, that subject will have our sympathetic, and, I trust, practical consideration and action before this Session is over. I have dealt practically with all the points that have been raised in debate. I appeal to Gentlemen on all sides of the House to be content with the King's Speech, to resist the Amendment, and to- 149 support the Government for the excellent work they have done, that they are now engaged in, and which in carrying out they do not intend to weary in well doing.
Mr. CROOKS : I have listened for fifty minutes anxiously to find out what the Government were going to do, but there has not been a single word as to what they are going to do with the problems of this moment. I rejoice at the conversion of the hon. Gentleman in reference to what he is going to do for Ireland, but when I suggested that we should get an authority in this country very much like the Congested Districts Board in Ireland to deal with the unemployed, he said he would not touch it with a forty-foot pole. What proposals are the Government going to make to help to solve the problem of unemployment? To-play thousands and thousands of men, women, and children are wanting their daily bread. We hear the right hon. Gentleman talk about the necessity of thrift among trade unionists, and of temperance. He and I have been lifelong teetotallers, yet we still knew what it was to go hungry, and to walk about the streets of London on the uppers of our boots. There is no use preaching thrift on nothing. He makes light of the men on the Thames Embankment. I appeal to the House to dismiss his description of the kind of men who are found on the Thames Embankment. Why do they gravitate there? Simply because they are hungry. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is to let them alone. I have seen them left alone gathered in doorways, hungry and starving, left to the tender mercies of the police, and because someone comes forward and proposes to give them a basin of soup and a piece of bread we are told that our scheme is an impossible one. Instead of our proposal, the right hon. Gentleman suggests the casual word for decent, respectable, hard-working people.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : I am the last man to defend the casual ward for anybody, and whilst I have been in office I have done my best to make the casual ward more adaptable to the needs of its reluctant inmates. I said that if it is asserted that the people on the Embankment were there because they could not get a shelter that statement is not true, because there is a clean, warm shelter provided, and the minimum of food always available for these men if they care to accept it. I cannot help it if they care to seek the alternative, and if they prefer the attrac- 150 tions of the Embankment rather than the accommodation provided for them by the Boards of Guardians.
Mr. CROOKS : That is a delightful picture. We are told that the casual ward is the place for a wayfarer to go in to be sheltered. Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that that man cannot get lodgings in London for two consecutive nights? They must walk several miles away to another casual ward before they are entitled to another night's lodging. What is the good of him saying that to us?' Those men cannot be sheltered on the same night in London. The poor men who seek shelter are kept in till 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock in the morning, and have to pick oakum, or else break half a ton of stone. It costs £10 a ton to pick oakum in the casual wards, and then you have to give it away. Can you wonder at me being angry when I am told such things, because the casual ward is really no shelter at all? In my parish we did give them a shelter and food, and then we were told that we were creating pauperism and promoting thriftlessness. It is not good enough to talk like that to people who know all about it. The Government have not offered us anything. We have had the usual twitting, women's labour has been introduced, and those poor women have been ridiculed. I venture to say that this House cannot produce such heroic women as we have got in our workrooms. The President of the Local Government Board asks why these women should be made the competitors of dressmakers and milliners. Is it likely that those poor women would go to first-class dressmakers and milliners? We ask for this provision to cover the naked. Let me take the cost of Hollesley Bay. The cost of reclamation, which works out at between 26s. and 27s. for each man per week, does not pan out at more than 14s. 6d. for the women. You have always taken the women who had someone dependent upon them, and we are now told that you cannot make any extension in the case of these heroic women because you will be injuring the milliners. I have heard all this before, but it does not carry us any further. And now as to this marvellous Bill which the Labour Party introduced. What a fund of ridicule you have got out of it. You simply pick out a clause, and then you ask us "If a man will not work are you going to lock him up?" One Minister stated that the Bill we introduced absolutely showed our unfittedness for states- 151 manship. What we did say is that you may amend our Bill so long as you do not interfere with a certain principle. The Government, who found fault with our Bill because they said it was unworkable, bring up a Bill of their own, and say, "We only object to you altering the word 'whereas' but you can do what you like with the rest of it." The Prime Minister last year said that the Government intended to deal with the principle involved in our Bill in the next Session of Parliament, and how are you going to deal with it? You are simply going to leave it alone. I do not think the nation will trust you for five minutes on this question of the unemployed. All we are asking is that the daily bread of the people shall be secured, and we are asking for help for men who are unable to look after themselves. We are asking you for food for hungry little children, and we are ridiculed in a fifty minutes' speech and told that Town Planning is going to do something very wonderful. Take the King's Speech.In the first paragraph we are told that— "In these circumstances, the provision necessary for the services of the State in the ensuing year will require very serious consideration, and, in consequence, less time than usual will, I fear, be available for the consideration of other legislative measures." The one measure the nation was looking for as part of a sound democratic programme was the feeding of the people and finding them some useful employment. Once again we are saying on behalf of these men: "Give us this day our daily bread." Ours is a religious fight, and yet we are told there will be no available time for the consideration of other legislative measures. We are to have labour exchanges—marvellous things, to be sure! These exchanges, it is said, will solve the unemployed problem, and do away with casual labour. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they will do nothing of the kind.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : I never said they would. What I did say was that labour exchanges would prove to be one if those aids which we could not afford to dispense with.
Mr. CROOKS : The argument used by the right hon. Gentleman was that the proposal of the Government was going to lessen the number of casual labourers, but it will not do anything of the kind. The President of the Local Government Board 152 has been enlarging upon the virtues of trade unions, but that is one of the things which we are always doing. Why should the members of the Labour party be asked for any proposals at all dealing with the unemployed? I think we have a right to say to the Government: "What are your proposals?" You got £ 300,000 last Session, and I want to know if you are going to spend it all? Take the case of Barry. The Local Government Board has been complimenting itself about dealing with a limited number of men there. When the Department presided over by the right hon. Gentleman leaves off persecuting people for trying to do their duty it may find some time to look up a solution of the difficulty. What has the Department tried to do? Absolutely nothing. What we have said for years in this House is that in times of prosperity it is the duty of the Government of the day to make some provisions for times of adversity. The right hon. Gentleman once said to Sir H. Fowler, when he was President of the Local Government Board, "It is time we took this question out of the hands of amateurs and put it into the hands of professionals who are paid for it." The President of the Local Government Board is a professional, and I think we are justified in coming to him and saying: "It is all very well to talk, but what are you going to do for these people? What are you going to suggest?" Anything? Absolutely nothing in a 50 minutes' speech. Yet, and yet—yesterday there were marching through the streets of London, hungry little children, and 6,000 poor women. Last night when I left this House I picked up ten of them at Westminster Bridge Station; hungry, weary and not knowing which way they were going to get back. Yet,"it is all right, leave it alone," said hon. Members, and said the hon. Member for Preston: "Let them do as they like; it will be all right." The right hon. Gentleman says practically the same thing. "Look what we have done: you have 11,000 able-bodied paupers in the workhouse." Add to that the able-bodied on the Embankment, the thousands at the wharves: add the number at Manchester, and all over the country, and what a frightful condition of things surely. The right hon. Gentleman talked about Small Holdings. I ask him if they are going to make an offer of them; for I have received information from a rural district that two men have been turned out of their holdings because they asked for a little bit of land. If you ask me about the King's Speech, I should say that it is all window-dressing; we are not going to 153 get much out of it. I face this House of Commons calmly, quietly and coolly [Ironical laughter]— aye, coolly; I can face the greatest meeting in the country, let that meeting be never so hostile to me; but what I cannot face every day of my life is the hungry women and little children. For years we have tried to deal with men in temporary unemployment. We have given them 5s. or 6s. worth of food to keep the life's blood in them till they got work. An inquiry was held. We were told —and here again casual labour comes in— that we had no right to feed such men and such women, and the little children. It was no part of our duty to adjust social inequalities. So the right hon. Gentleman comes down here, where we have thousands of people hungry and starving, and says: "No more shall you be allowed to give food to the hungry men, women, and children under Article 10. You will have to put into operation the Modified Workhouse Test Order," and he proceeds to deal with the unemployed by sending husbands into the workhouse, and maintaining the wives and children outside. And for what cost us 6s., under his marvellous plan costs 26s., and causes the breaking up of the home into the bargain. Finding that of little use, he alters his plan and insists that no relief shall be given after eight weeks. Nearly 200 men are turned into the streets a week after Christmas. A woman came to my house and wanted a little milk for her baby. I inquired, and found that she had been refused at the Guardians' office. I went over and said: "How dare you turn a hungry woman out like that?" The official said: "Look at the order. Her husband has had eight weeks in the workhouse. He has received relief; now he is out. If he wants any further relief, well, then there is the further offer of the house for his wife and children." For 11 days they had absolutely nothing under the new order. We are told they are dealing with them. How? By doing nothing at all! We have a right to demand on the floor of this House that that Department shall at once take some steps to provide either food or employment for these men without insisting on their going into the workhouse. What we have a right to do with them is to keep the manhood and the life's blood in the men to enable them to earn their daily bread. But you do not give them that oportunity. The result is that they sink lower and lower and lower until they join the crowd on the Thames Embankment. I commend these con- 154 siderations to the leading democrat of the Labour party in the years gone by! How we have fallen! And if I never come into this House again, if I never darken the doors of Parliament, I should call myself a coward of the worst degree if I do not use the privilege which the House has given me by denouncing this or any other Government which neglects its obligations and duty to the poorest of His Majesty's subjects. It is not cheap to leave them alone. You have your workhouses and infirmaries filled. You have them living in hovels and slums unworthy of a great nation. Let them alone and they will gradually deteriorate. And yet, and yet: this wonderful Town Planning Bill. We are to be told that the majority shall rule. There is plenty of land and money. This is a wonderfully prosperous country. It has increased its capital wealth by £147,000,000 during the last seven years. Think of that. Let the Member for Preston think of that! What about Labour? Sixty-one thousand men or persons have had their wages increased 1s. 5d. per week; 500,000 have had their wages reduced 2s. 5d. Truly we go on increasing and increasing the wealth and comfort of all classes! We have wealth, and there is land enough to maintain every man, woman, and child in the country. Two thousand five hundred landlords tomorrow morning will rejoice in the noble and manly defence of the Government by the right hon. Gentleman; the two thousand five hundred men who own 40,000,000 acres of land that we are trying to get work on. Thirty-eight millions of people have no land. We say to the Tariff Reformers Have you ever thought of turning your attention to the land? "We really love the workman "—apart from what you" him for. Do you really love him? Do you really care for an Imperial race? Turn your attention to the land! Remember that you import in foodstuffs £4 per head of the population. What work we could find for our people if we were not looking about for excuses for not finding work! Germany imports 7s. per head of the population. There is a real reform that you might tackle! Never expect to go to the condemned chamber if you do, for you will have done something for the people. To-day you have heard about afforestation. You import 18s. per head in value. Here is a proposal: You get a properly authenticated register of the unemployed in every district. Then we shall be able to put our finger on the man who wants to work, and on the 155 man who does not. We shall be able to deal with the man who cannot work—the unemployable. Whenever we argue this question we are told about that loafer —the man who would not work if it was offered to him. But he is not confined to any class. You find him in Rotten Row enjoying himself. But the police will not arrest him. There is plenty of work, and I want that register organised, so that you may be able to tell whether any man in any district is a worker or a shirker. There is plenty of waste material at the Local Government Board to make that register. I am not concerned with afforestation, foreshore reclamation, or coast erosion, or the way in which men should be trained in the art and science of agriculture. These things are for your Department to find out and create. I am not content only to hope. I shall, as long as God gives me power to think and act, denounce this or any other Government that neglects its duty to starving men, women and children.
Mr. HENRY VIVIAN : First, may I ask hon. Members opposite not to claim a monopoly of sympathy with regard to this question. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars will admit that some of us are at least as sincere as himself in the desire to find a remedy for this evil. First of all, may I observe that my hon. Friend was inclined to go beyond the fact when he asserted that the evil of unemployment tended to increase with advancing civilisation. Nothing is to be gained, even when you have a very serious evil to grapple with, by overstating the case. As a matter of fact, that is incorrect. There is nothing at all to support the contention that the advance of civilisation tends to an increase in the percentage of the unemployed over a long period of time. Indeed, I venture to say—I am now dealing with the known period of the last thirty or forty years, during which we have had pretty reliable information on this point—but I do think that in the periods of which we have no reliable information we have sufficient historical and other information to suggest—that it is absolutely untrue to say that to-day the percentage of unemployed is greater than in any past periods of which we have no statistical information. My hon. Friend said that unemployment was due to landlordism and capitalism. With regard to landlordism, this Government, at any rate, whether their Bills or measures be 156 good or inefficient, has endeavoured to tackle the land problem in a very serious way. Then they declaim against trading for profit. I really do not know what is meant by an observation of that sort. Surely the object of trade is exchange. My hon. Friend opposite, who represents a Lancashire constituency, where the object of the great cotton industry is to export so as to import in return as large a quantity as possible of food for the Lancashire operatives. Their effort is to get the maximum amount of food for the minimum number of yards of cotton. That is trading for profit— getting the maximum value in exchange for the minimum. I do not see that this is a crime. In all these transactions there is really a profit on both sides.
Mr. BARNES : As a co-operator I did not think it necessary to go more into detail on a matter of this sort. What I meant was fairly obvious, or should have been, to a co-operator above anybody. What I think is that unemployment has contributed, so far as the speculative production goes, to profit instead of production for an ascertained demand, as inside the co-operative movement, of which my hon. Friend is a member.
Mr. VIVIAN : I am glad of that contribution, because it is one which clears up a point. But I would remind my hon. Friend that this country lives by trading with the whole world, and, therefore, to talk about an ascertained demand in Africa, America, India, or elsewhere is really beside the mark in dealing with this problem. If you are dealing with a municipal supply of gas, or anything of that sort, you certainly have more reliable information concerning the article you produce, but when you are dealing with great world industries you cannot adopt a limitation of that sort. My. hon. Friend opposite drew a picture of the unemployed who walked into the Lobby last night. and we were all interested and thrilled by the statement. What is his remedy? Nationalisation of the land, afforestation, nationalisation of railways. I do suggest to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division that to associate those remedies with the picture of the men walking into the Lobby last night is in all seriousness a mere trifling with the issue now before us.
Mr. BARNES was understood to say: I dealt with those particular matters which have just been mentioned, not as immediate, but as permanent remedies for unemployment. I dealt later on, briefly it is true, with the proposals of the Govern- 157 ment or arrangements of the President of the Local Government Board for dealing with the evils arising out of unemployment.
Mr. VIVIAN : I understand that my hon. Friend says that the nationalisation of the railways and the nationalisation of the land and various other proposals have really nothing to do with the immediate problem of looking after the unemployed, but they are really the ultimate ideal that my hon. Friend is working towards. I have looked at the Report on Afforestation, and have not been able to discover that they have proved their case that afforestation is a remedy for unemployment at the present moment. Afforestation is probably good in itself, but I am not able to appreciate its practical value when my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars refers to the unemployed coming into the Lobby. I say that we have a right to ask those who denounce the proposals that are now before us to deal with this great problem, that they at least should offer some suggestion in the way of a solution, and I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not evident that there is poverty of suggestion. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are waiting for the President of the Local Government Board."] Hon. Members opposite say that it is the duty of the President of the Local Government Board to find solutions for himself. I deny that. They cannot take refuge in that way when they challenge the Government on a question of this sort. The Labour Party claim to be the constructive party, and the Radical and Tory Parties are supposed not to be constructive—they have not the ability to be constructive; but my hon. Friend associates himself with the Party who go up and down the country as the constructive party, and surely, that being so, we have a right, when that party comes down here and actually threatens to block all business until a solution is found for this problem by the President of the Local Government Board—I say we have a right to ask the party which takes upon itself the responsibility of endeavouring to block the business of this House until one particular evil is remedied, to put forward their proposals in order that we may discuss them. To say that my right hon. Friend must do it seems to me rather trifling with the question. With regard to labour bureaux, I do not understand why this proposal should be regarded as a small contribution towards a solution of the problem. The hon. Member denounced labour bureaux and then went on to say that it was essential in endeavour- 158 ing to deal with the problem of unemployment to get a complete knowledge of its character. The words of the King's Speech are:— "A measure will be proposed for the better organisation of the labour market through a system of co-ordinated labour exchanges, with which other schemes for dealing with unemployment may subsequently be associated." [MR. CROOKS: "Some day."] Really, this is not a subject for semi-humorous or half-cynical treatment. [MR. CROOKS: "I call it tragedy."] If it is tragedy I do not understand the half-humorous cynicism of the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend was right or wrong in saying that one of the essential things in dealing with this problem is to get an exact knowledge of its character. Is that right or wrong? I believe it is right. When the Government makes this proposal in the first instance, I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in underrating labour bureaux. I hope it will not be thought that I have dealt in an unfriendly way with the observations of my hon. Friends opposite, and no one would welcome from them a practical suggestion more than myself. I want to make a practical suggestion or two to my Friend on the Front Bench. I do not believe in the ultimate wisdom of gigantic systems of relief works all over the country; nor do I believe it is possible for the public authorities to solve this evil. I do not believe in the policy of allowing industries to take advantage of an adequate supply of labour in an industry like the cotton or other industry, and to use that labour for the purpose of making profit for those engaged in it, and then that the industry should feel itself at liberty to throw off a percentage of the labour it has used and compel the ratepayer or taxpayer to keep that labour pending the industries recovering again. In the long run the turning in on the industry itself of the responsibility of dealing with its own fluctuating margin of labour between a slump and a boom is one of the whips for compelling the employers and workers in that industry to organise it so as to have the minimum margin of labour floating about without wages. If you allow the industry to throw this margin on the rates, employers and others in connection with that industry will become indifferent as to the organisation of their own industry. I believe that the line of action for this Government or any government is to throw back as far as possible on the industry itself responsibility of looking after its own unemployed. 159 What is the justification for them? There is, first of all, the importance, as I have urged, of the internal organisation of the industry. The industry itself must be made to feel that it is responsible for making the most perfect use of the time and energy of the labour employed in that industry and that they shall not be permitted to abuse the margin. The only other point is possibly of greater importance, and that is the problem of the administration of any unemployed funds that you care to suggest. I ask my hon. Friends opposite to look into this thing from the point of view of experience, and in all human affairs it is experience that is our main guide. It is no use indulging in claptrap about the future or talking about some abstract idea. I believe I have endeavoured to read up the accounts of practically every experiment with regard to the unemployed problem that has been made in this country or abroad, so that I hope my hon. Friends opposite will not think I am speaking without a study of the thing so far as books enabled me. I say without exception, so far as I know, they have all broken down on the side of administration except one. I do not think you could name a single experiment in connection with which your unemployed have been allowed with more or less freedom to throw themselves on to funds that they are not responsible for providing that has not broken down. If all schemes of the kind have collapsed, then, I say, it is too much to expect men who know that fact to repeat that again and again and again, and on a large scale, on the same lines. We have some experience that acts as a guide, and that is the experience of the great trade unions. During the last twelve years a million workpeople have insured or made provision against unemployment. The term "insured" is a wrong term in this connection. The term technically suggests that there are fixed quantities concerning which actuaries could make calculations and base premiums. There are no such facts concerning sickness and unemployment. They attempted it in the case of sickness, but the great insurance companies have thrown it over. It turns so largely on the personal factor that no actuary could get fixed quantities to work upon, and have given up all attempts to insure, against sickness, leaving the field to the friendly society because they have a special method of dealing with the problem and have self-acting checks against abuse. 160 So far as the great mass of the workpeople are concerned, the main problem is not the raising of the money, but to secure that the money can be so administered as to provide self-acting checks against abuse. Unless you do that you will have demands upon any fund that you care to create to such an extent that your industrial system would collapse under it. It collapsed under it in Paris, and ultimately ended in 12,000 men being shot in the streets. The Government of France, as a result of great distress, determined, with their zeal for Republican and Radical ideas, that one of the first things they would do would be to proclaim that it was the duty of the State to find work for all, and they created the national machinery to do it. Week by week the figures grew. They began with 8,000 in Paris, and that went up to 14,000, 21,000, and ultimately, to the best of my recollection, reached 112,000. There seemed to be no limit to it. Business men began to give up work, workmen began to leave the ordinary avenues of employment, so that the whole industrial life of Paris was in danger of collapsing. The result, the usual result of all mistaken enterprises in the direction of social reform done in the name of democracy, ended in the reversion to autocratic rule. There was a general order that young men under twenty-five were to join the army, task work instead of day work was adopted—then there was a revolution, and 12,000 men were shot in the streets. I say our trade unions have shown us the way out of the difficulty. What happens in a trade union? I have had some little experience. I do, not profess to be the leader of a great trade union as some of our friends are, but I am a member of a trade union, and I have presided over the largest branch of my trade in London. In a trade union this is what happens: the men have an unemployed list read out week after week at the branch meeting. The money those men will be paid out of is the money subscribed by the men in the room. Those present are able to say when a name is called out, "If you call round at such a job you will be able to get a start." If the man does not call round for his job he knows it at the next branch meeting. I have known men, as every trade unionist has, who, being entitled to a certain amount of unemployed pay in the year, availed of the full amount, and almost to the day in the following year when again entitled their names would again appear. I would not like to use the ex- 161 pressive language indulged in when those men know that "Brother So-and-so" is again on the branch funds. Steps are taken, and probably the man finds himself out of the society, which is a very severe penalty. These things are important, because it is really a problem of human nature you are studying, and you have to under stand the motives that actuate the average man in going through life. You have to estimate the amount of checks and counter-checks necessary to get a man into the right groove to make him an efficient citizen. I do hope that the Gentlemen on the Front Bench will before very long make some attempt to provide in the great industries, making both employers and employed responsible for finding the money, a system for making provision against unemployment by which the workmen in an industry shall feel it is their duty to co-operate with the employers in reducing the margin to the minimum and that equally it will be the concern of the employers to do likewise. This two will be able to estimate the situation with a greater certainty of success than any committee appointed by the ratepayers in the ordinary way. You get a Distress Committee consisting of some well-meaning persons—may be a couple of Socialists, a Radical or two, and possibly a Tariff Reformer, very few of them a success in their own line of life. I submit that to hand over to incompetent committees of this sort, all over the country, ten thousand here or twenty thousand somewhere else, to administer, you have really selected about the most incompetent tribunal that it is possible to conceive; they could not manage an ordinary business with absolutely efficient men, and when dealing with this extraordinary material called the unemployed they are powerless. I submit that to make the trade itself responsible is the real solution, an important part of the problem; and in so doing you are following up the line of experience, because it is precisely the line the trade unions have succeeded in. I have one other suggestion to make, and it is to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, with regard to organising public work. I believe a very substantial contribution could be made towards the solution of this question by the better organisation of public work, and it would help us to deal with another class of labour than that with which I have been dealing. I have been dealing with the skilled men in our great trades, but there are also the navvies, the labourers, the men connected with the 162 proportion of our workpeople. There are over a million in the building trade. We spend something over a hundred million pounds a year on sewage works, water works, buildings, libraries, town halls, and all that kind of thing. That is apart from the Government work, which would make a substantial addition. I am convinced that it is possible by co-operation between our great public authorities all over the country and the central authority, such as the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade, to so organise that public work— not artificial schemes, but the normal wants of the communities—that it shall not be used as it is, to intensify the fluctuations of trade and commerce. They now in some cases throw their work on the market at a time when prices are high, and when there is a full demand for all the labour in the industry affected; and they have a peculiar way of withholding them when there is depression, and when they could advantageously step in and do public work. So far as my own trade is concerned, every kind of building material—bricks, and cement, and lime, not timber—you can buy from 20, 25, or 30 per cent. less than you could have bought it six or seven years ago. I could give you examples of large public contracts undertaken unnecessarily at the inflated prices when the material was dearest and labour difficult to get. So that what they did was to intensify the boom and attract men to the trade, and then when the slump came leave them stranded. I believe it is possible for my right hon. Friend and the Board of Trade to get into touch with these public authorities, and to get them to anticipate their probable capital expenditure for the next four or five years. These works could be scheduled at headquarters into "Urgent" and "Less urgent"—many could be deferred, some almost indefinitely—and thus you would have at headquarters a fairly complete forecast of the probable capital expenditure on works of this kind all over the country. An enormous volume of work —probably £10,000,000 or £ 15,000,000 worth a year—could thus be organised, so that, instead of being put on the market to intensify the boom, it could be used to check the drop both in prices and in the demand for labour. By organised provision in the great trades,in accordance with my first suggestion, you would deal with four or five millions of people, but the benefits would not be confined to the trades immediately concerned. If you retained the purchasing power of four or five millions of people, a large proportion of whom would otherwise 163 lose it, you tend to check the ebb of demand, because these people are able to continue to command the services of others, whereas if they were penniless they would lose that power. It really means the establishment in large industries of "breakwaters" to the ebb of the demand for labour. When 10,000 or 20,000 men are out of employment in one industry it is not only they who suffer; tens of thousands of other people suffer through the cutting off of the purchasing power of the men out of employment. The real solution is the creation of reserves in good times for use in tackling with the problem in bad times, and the good that would flow from that policy is almost unlimited. I hope that when the Government, having ascertained through labour exchanges the extent of the evil, come to deal seriously with the problem they will give consideration to the two ideas I have put before the House.
Mr. JESSE COLLINGS : The hon. Member for Birkenhead has made suggestions which, if they could be carried out, would be of great use. But his proposition is to throw the responsibility upon the trade unions and the employers. That, however, would deal with only about one million of the picked workpeople of the country —at any rate, with only a small proportion of our 11 or 12 million operatives; and it seems difficult to apply the suggestions, which are very scientific, to the great body of fluctuating and miscellaneous labour. I agree with the hon. Member that in this discussion there has been a poverty of remedies suggested. If any foreigner had been in the gallery he would have thought that we were a nation of paupers instead of being the richest country in Europe. Nearly all the suggestions have been mere palliatives. Positive suggestions, such as the nationalisation of the land and the nationalisation of railways, have been suggested, but we may put those on one side. If the unemployed are to wait until those visions are realised they will need a great deal of patience. The picture, presented by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow, of the dreadful condition of some of the unemployed was not overdrawn. He stated that there were a million skilled workers out of employment, and that the number of unskilled unemployed could not be accurately ascertained. I know myself that the present position is most exceptional. Take the city of Birmingham, which because of its multiplicity of trades 164 rarely suffers to any great extent: if one trade is bad, others are good; for the first time in my experience—and I have lived there for 59 years—there is in that city general suffering from want of employment, and the incidence of that suffering is of the most cruel and heartrending description. The hon. Member also touched on another important point—that it is not merely the want of employment, but the continued want of employment, that leads to that deterioration, both physical and moral, which is inevitable from a position of poverty. Poverty, after all, is at the bottom of the matter. As the Russian proverb says, poverty is no crime; it is ten times worse. It leads to all the difficulties. My hon. Friend then proceeded to state the primary cause of poverty, but he confined himself to the monopolisation of land. He wanted to nationalise land, to have no private owners. But if he will look through history he will find that in every nation in Europe which is now flourishing and which in the past had the same problem to deal with, the salvation of the people has come, not from the destruction of private ownership in land, but from multiplying the owners of land ten thousand-fold. The hon. Member referred to the depopulation which is taking place. Only 23 per cent. of our people are now rural. That is the state of things which, if continued, no country can survive. In France, 46 per cent. of the population is rural and dependent on agriculture. Hence riches—and I judge riches by the extent of their distribution, not by their lump sums—are more evenly distributed in France than in this country. It is calculated that last year the output of the land in France amounted to 750 millions sterling. That explains why there is no want of employment in the great rural districts of that country. My hon. Friend referred to the fiscal question as being a red herring drawn across the scent. I will not deal with that matter in detail, as it is to come up for discussion to-morrow; I will merely state two points for the consideration of hon. Members. First, the fiscal question in England differs from that in any other nation; and, secondly, our land system differs from that of any other country in the world. Thus you have two of the greatest of economic questions, which must of necessity underlie every other question of employment or national wealth, different in England, as compared with any other country. The conclusion from that is either that we are wiser than all other 165 countries, or that we are more in error and more stupid. My hon. Friend spoke of Germany as being a new industrial country. He was quite right. But she started into life 30 years ago, when she altered her fiscal system. Before that, Bismarck said: "My country is bleeding to death." Since then she has gone on by leaps and bounds to attain the position she now holds. My hon. Friend says that there are 33 per cent. of the population owners in Germany. It is more than that. If you look back over the legislation of the last century you will find that the prosperity of Germany increased collaterally and simultaneously with the increase in the number of owners of land. At this moment there are 8,000,000 proprietors in Germany who are living in a position of reasonable comfort. I mention that because I believe that by following the same course as France and Germany, and all the countries in Europe which have adopted the Code Napoleon, and which had the same problems to solve as we have to solve now, we would also solve them by making the cultivator the owner. It is strange that we are here tonight beating about the bush, advancing palliative after palliative, and shutting our eyes to the one thing that has been proved in the new world and in the old world the one way out of the misery of unemployment and the road, not to riches, but to reasonable comfort, to manhood, to health, and to the stability of the country. My hon. Friend's remedy, Nationalisation, may come in a hundred years, but here we have a remedy close at our hands, ready to start. We have the land, the men, and everything ready. We are in the position of a manufacturer with his books overflowing with orders, with the material lying on the ground, with the men looking in at his gates, and who yet, for some foolish obstinacy in the arrangement of his business, allows the orders to pass by him into a foreign country. We have to bear in mind that we import every year 50 millions' sterling worth, not of corn and cattle, but of the smaller articles of food which this country is as fit—and even more fit—to produce as most other countries, and which the men are ready to produce. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not produce them?"] Because our landed system is at fault, but my hon. Friend will not support the remedy. A system of land ownerships has been applied in Ireland, but it is objected to apply it in England. There is room for a million families on the uncultivated land of England. The hon. member for Birkenhead referred 166 to the system of allowing men to rent land. The legislation which was applied in 1907 by which a man can get a bit of land at a high rent, and never be anything but a tenant, might do some good. It might be of some advantage to such men as the blacksmith or the carpenter to have a little bit of land in his possession. I am not disparaging that, but as to bringing back the people from the towns to the land, and that is the problem, it would be an expensive failure. Any system of land reform we propose which fails to relieve the congested districts in our towns is of comparatively little use. My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division, and others, will have nothing but nationalisation. Why do not they assist in getting possession of the uncultivated land? Let me give an instance. Suppose the Government were to get a vote of £1,000,000 to begin with, suppose that they were to provide within a reasonable distance of a railway land moderately good, suppose that they were to purchase a thousand acres and divide it into small holdings, and equipping them as going concerns, then let it be known that these holdings were to be sold at such a price, the cost to be repayable by instalments over so many years, there would be ten or twenty times more applications than at present. Applications from whom? I know from extensive enquiries which I made some time ago there is a class consisting of porters, caretakers, coachmen, gardeners, cab-drivers—men who for the most part have saved a moderate amount of money, some more than others— who are disillusioned about the towns, and who would go back to the country in which they were brought up if holdings such as I have described were offered to them. In that way you would be doing something to relieve the congested centres of industry, and every man who went into these small holdings, instead of competing with his fellows in the towns, would be getting from mother earth wealth which would be spent among the community which he had left. Perhaps because I have for 50 years studied the question in every country in Europe and in other countries it seems to me to be very plain and simple; and when I hear all these intricate proposals I ask myself, "What is all this about?" Why are we spending all this evening in extraordinary suggestions when we have a real way out of the difficulty? Suggestions will not cure the evil, but experience will. I cannot understand the situation. I often think that this House and the 167 people outside of it are nonplussed by the proposals that are made. The people want the drum and the trumpet. When a Bill is put forward in Parliament which has every hope of being successful it does not arouse enthusiasm, because there must be one principle observed in dealing with this question, and that is that the producer must be put in the front rank. I have talked to scores of producers in the rural districts of France. I have said to them, "Why do you spend a little more on your loaf?" What was the reply? "It is the French loaf. It is raised on our soil; it is ground in our mills; and we keep the offal. Yours is the foreign loaf." Production must go before consumption. It is useless to tell a man that he can consume unless he produces. Unless he produces during the week there will be no wages to make him a consumer on the Saturday night. Employment that will give money to buy is a far better thing than when a man has got no money and the things are very cheap. My right hon. Friend opposite said very rightly that in Liverpool by some means —I do not know what they were—the influx of Irishmen had stopped or lessened, and that consequently there was more employment in the locality. I apply the argument to the influx from the rural districts in England to the towns. Stop the influx into the towns and the effect would be the same as regards employment in the towns. Why do not we do it. We cannot do it by Land Nationalisation. I have attended a large number of meetings, and there is not a village in England where, when, on the one hand, we have put land nationalisation before the people, together with the prospect of ownership on the other hand, a doubt existed as to what the people would accept. The Government in their policy have surrendered at the dictation of the Socialist party. I do not blame them. They are perfectly right from their point of view. Yet, every man who is an owner is an enemy of Socialism. It is the only natural barrier to Socialism. When the people are on the land, they do not compete with anybody except the foreigner. Every thousand pounds they produce is a creation, and is spent in subsidiary trades. If this country will adopt the twin policy of Tariff Reform, and adopt land reform in the direction of creating thousands and tens of thousands of owners, the imagination of the people will be touched and Socialism destroyed.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON : Some very practical suggestions have been made towards the goal of stable employment. Perhaps that is as far at this moment as we can practically get. The hon. Member for Birkenhead, who made so interesting a speech, was not always so logical upstairs when the scheme of town-planning was dealt with. We are endeavouring to find a practical scheme for the relief of unemployment, and you have to rely in the main on the local authorities.. All those who are connected with the work of local authorities feel that we have a great sense of responsibility cast upon us with respect to unemployment, whether we have actually tried to meet it or whether we have not been quite sure of the moment we might have to meet it. And what makes one feel that responsibility all the more is the deterioration; in the workman which follows through loss of employment, and which makes us so concerned and anxious to bring that growing evil to an end. It was recognised by a member of the Labour party that there were a long list of Bills introduced by the Government dealing with social legislation. I doubt whether you can go much further in expecting to get provision made by the local authorities against unemployment until the Report of the Poor Law Commission has been considered and until the unemployed who genuinely desire to work are separated from the unemployable, of whom there are, unhappily, a very large number. I doubt whether you can make any effective provision until you separate these two classes. Most attention has been given to the question of the land, and rightly so, because of all employment, employment upon the land is most stable than any form. The diminution of the country population has diminished the sphere of that stable employment, and that is an evil which has to be remedied. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me has one solution. I think it is a mistake, perhaps, to dogmatise too much as to this or that particular solution. In some respects there should be nationalisation of land. It is a subject that has been discussed. Afforestation is clearly a case in which the State should nationalise the land. I have a strong impression that the Town Planning Bill, admirable as it is, would not solve the whole of the land question. I think the towns ought to own their sites and the land surrounding them, and that is the true ideal at which to aim. With respect to agricultural land, I believe in private ownership. I am not a 169 nationaliser of agricultural land. The State would have difficulties if it undertook any such solution. I do not think it would work well, but within that sphere I should be glad to see occupying ownership. I do not see why you should not settle a large population on the land through the instrumentality of the Small Holdings Act passed by the Government last year. It has been done to some extent, and I think it will be done on a very large scale. It may be that the levy out of the rates may not be sufficient to enable you to carry on as large a scheme as you would wish, and it may be necessary to devise other means of finding the money, but you have an admirable machinery. I have always thought there would be difficulty in a system of compulsory leasing; it is met under this Act. I would be glad to see occupying ownership encouraged with it. I know nothing else that gives so good security and so encourages thrift as occupying ownership of agricultural land, and that standard of thrift is one on which we stand in need; but I by no means restrict myself to occupying ownership. I regard the Town Planning Bill of the right hon. Gentleman as a really great Bill, perhaps as great as any the Government has introduced, not perhaps so well grasped or popular as some, but as good a Bill as any the Government has introduced. These Bills, the Small Holdings Bill and the Town Planning Bill, will certainly tend towards more stable employment. If the town was once made master in its own house, as it would be under this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to lay out its policy so eloquently described by the hon. Member for Birkenhead you would go a long way towards making employment stable. Exception has been taken to the Navy expenditure which I support. I should have thought that in a time of such great unemployment one or two Dreadnoughts might have been laid down six months earlier when the great shipbuilding yards were standing idle, and if Members of the Government looked in front of their noses, as members of the local authorities are expected to do in organizing work, then when great Government works are to be undertaken the same principle would apply. I should have liked to have seen those ships taken sooner. But, taking a less controversial point, nobody doubts that we need a North Sea Naval base, and a certain site was adopted by the late Government. They did nothing for some years, and then it became obvious that the 170 less we were to be outclassed on the other side of the North Sea, on which we have no first-class Naval base. It having become obvious that these works had to be carried out, the present Government, we understood, were ready to begin work, but they could not do so because it took a year to prepare a plan. I think that before the Government lecture the local authorities upon not having plans ready they should have their plans ready for their own work, and be ready to see that the works can be constructed in times of unemployment. I think that is a very good illustration, and I cannot improve upon it. I will not occupy the time of the House except upon one other point, which has been touched upon this evening, afforestation. The right hon. Gentleman, I am glad to see, is here, so that I can talk to him easily. He told us that afforestation has passed beyond the experimental stage. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. In what way has it passed the experimental stage? There have been some experiments worked by a few scattered landowners in the country, but what has the State done? If you wanted to see an example of incompetency in sylviculture, you only had to examine the State forests during the last few years, but they have improved greatly lately in consequence of one of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests taking an interest in the subject. If you want, generally speaking, to see what you should not see in forests, go and see the State forests. The State has not only kept its own forests in a disgraceful way from the point of view of sylviculture, but it has failed, in spite of pressure, to provide any system of training for its own servants or for those of the private adventurer or private landowner. There is no such thing as a demonstration forest, we have absolutely nothing of the kind. I think the right hon. Gentleman is on very dangerous ground when he said we had passed the stage of experiment; the Government does not realise that only the experimental stage is being arrived at now, except so far as regards a few private landowners. Before making a beginning with the work of afforestation, you have to create a Board of Forestry, and you have to buy your demonstration forests of 30,000 or 40,000 acres where planting can be carried on on a considerable scale. You will have to have a demonstration forest, if not two. Then there ought to be a Forest school and I think, after what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the 171 woods and forests, we ought to have two forest schools. A large portion of our imports consist of coniferous timber, and it is a very remunerative form of investment. We should, therefore, have two forest schools, and I have always calculated that the Government would want £100,000 to start with and very soon want more. There was a very interesting inquiry last year at the India Office, of which I happened to be Chairman, regarding the recruiting of the Indian Forest Service, and if it is necessary to improve the Indian Forest Service, which is in existence, the right hon. Gentleman will realise how important it is to form a framework of something of the sort here before you embark upon such a large scheme. The Government did not take any interest in sylviculture until it became a solution for unemployment, with which it has no connection. You may by afforestation on a proper scale double or treble the population of the Highlands, and that is a thing which would be worth doing refer to the Highlands, because it is the only place where you could plant on a large scale. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "How about Ireland?"] Yes, I know about Ireland, but the Highlands are the only place where you can do it on a large scale. It offers a very large area. It has this advantage— that whereas by an extension of the crofting system in the Highlands you might add something to the population, you could not add anything like the same amount to population or prosperity as by putting moorland under timber and cultivating it in the form of State property. As regards occupying ownership or the crofter system being the one method of giving salvation to the Highlands, this question of afforestation shows how little one should dogmatise in any particular direction, but that we should all of us, either in this House, in the local authorities, or in the Government, combine to work out the best means of settling the largest possible number of people upon the soil. I would lay great stress on the need for all kinds of agricultural, horticultural and sylvicultural training. I shall not be suspected of any arrière pensée in saying so, because I am so far from dogmatising that in some respects I am a land nationaliser, and in others I am a strong individualist. We should not spend all our time trying to root out or lay bare the root causes of unemployment. By dealing with these practical solutions which have been offered in 172 the course of this debate by practical men practical lines we shall be surely working out a better day for the working people of this country and securing the smallest possible margin of unemployment.
Mr. SUMMERBELL : The only excuse have to offer for interposing is that I represent a town which has proportionately a larger number of unemployed than any town in the United Kingdom. When the right hon. Gentleman talked about beating about in regard to the unemployed question I looked around, and felt very sad to see such a lack of interest in regard to the problem. To my mind there has been a great deal of beating about to-night. When one has to go back, as I have, and associate week after week with men I have known for 10 or 15 years—upright, energetic men, prepared to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, to see these men, depressed, with practically all their manhood knocked out of them, to see their homes depleted of furniture, parted with bit by bit in order to meet the demands of the landlord—one feels sad to see the lack of interest taken by the House of Commons in the problem. A great deal has been said about the Weary Willies and Tired Tims. I will give two cases which I am prepared to vouch for in my own town. A man a short time ago, unemployed for a considerable time, got up at four o'clock in the morning to walk three miles to gather coal. The only food in the house was a crust of bread. his wife asked him to take it, but he declined because it was the only food for the children. He went and gathered the coal, and dropped down dead in the road on the way home. There was an inquest, and the jury returned a verdict of death from starvation. The word "loafer" should not be used with regard to men of this character. Men of that character are the material out of which heroes emanate. He sacrificed himself rather than take the food of his children. The other case is that of a man of 32 years of age, who wended his way seven miles there and seven miles back gathering coals. He also fell dead in the middle of the road. There was another inquest, and a verdict of death from starvation. I would ask hon. Members, seeing this misery, poverty, and starvation, to try and put themselves in the position of unemployed men, not Weary Willies and Tired Tims, but men who are prepared to do an honest day's labour if the opportunity is presented. You who love your 173 wives and your children, and who have a certain self-respect, how would you like to see the pinched faces of your children and part with your furniture? How long would your manhood permit it to continue? If you put it to yourselves as parents you will assert your manhood at once, and say you will not be prepared to stand idly by and see it continue. As one who has never infringed any law of this land I am not going to continue to tell the unemployed to go back to their homes and hide their poverty and misery. The right hon. Gentleman on the Government Bench may declare as he likes against the practice of bringing the unemployed to a centre to demonstrate their misery and starvation. I am going to say to them, "Come out and demonstrate your misery and starvation, and stand up and assert your manhood, and demand the right to live." I feel this unemployed problem keenly. The last time it was debated in this House I appealed from this bench to the Government to take a whole night to discuss this important problem. We were assured that this year would see a start made to permanently solve the unemployed problem, but we get in the King's Speech practically an intimation that we are going to have a set debate in regard to Navy expenditure, and increased expenditure at that, and that time will not permit to go into other legislation. I thought after the recent visit of the King to Berlin those who have been shouting for increased Naval expenditure would have held their hands and ceased their declarations in this respect. This problem will not stand any further delay. It will have to be faced, and we on these benches do not want the unemployed to face it themselves. We want this problem faced in a constitutional manner, and this House has to recognise that the economic position of the unemployed man to-day, the fact of his being unemployed and denied the opportunity of labour, is on account of the laws which have been passed in bygone times, and to this House the unemployed have to look for a remedy. The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting speech, but when he arrived at the finish all the interest was practically taken out of the suggestions that he had made. He talked about the land question, and pointed out that to-day we have in this country land lying idle, and rural depopulation going on. We deplore that, and want to see the rural population taken back again into the rural areas, and put again upon the land. Sixty years ago 174 there ware more people employed on the land of England and Wales than there are to-day. They have come into the large industrial centres to, in many cases, swell the ranks of the unemployed. Sixty years ago we imported one-third of our food supply; to-day we import two-thirds. My right hon. Friend told you there were more people on the land in France than there are in this country. That is perfectly true, and the same may be said of Belgium and Germany. Does the right hon. Gentleman want the question of the land dealt with in order, as he says, to prevent the spread of socialism in this country, or in order to solve the unemployed problem? I may say I was somewhat left in doubt. Why cannot you get back the people on to the land of this country How has the land gone out of cultivation. If the land has gone out of cultivation it is not the fault of the government of this country, so far as giving encouragement to the owners of the land is concerned. In 1870 the land of this country contributed practically 66 per cent. of the rates, and household property in towns 33 per cent. To-day the position is that household property contributes something like 86 per cent., and the land is only bearing the other 14. It was all done, according to the speeches I have read, owing to the declarations of those interested in the land, that they would be relieved of the burden, and would be able to put more land into cultivation. We have tried that policy and tried it to an alarming extent ; but in spite of that the land is going out of cultivation and is becoming a place for the rearing of game for the purposes of pleasure. We say emphatically that we must go on the opposite tack, and no matter what standpoint the argument may be taken from we are standing here as declaring against private ownership of land as unjustifiable. The land is nature's storehouse, out of which everything you eat, wear or use must come. Therefore to have the land in the hands of a few individuals is practically denying that liberty that some people argue for, denying the liberty of access to mother earth in times of necessity. We stand for nationalisation of the land. Nothing else will satisfy us so far as our ultimate ideal is concerned. The machinery of this House has been used to take away the land from the people in the past, when they had no say in the government of the country. We are going to do our best to have the machinery of this House used to restore 175 the land to the people. My hon. Friend, who talks so nicely, made a statement about Tariff Reform which was a most extraordinary one. I have thought that the people who advocated Tariff Reform wanted us to give the Colonies a preference in order that we might buy food from the Colonies, and that they would in return accept payment in the shape of our goods, and yet my right hon. Friend argues for the cultivation of our land, and in the next breath speaks of Tariff Reform. It only makes the question more confused than ever it was before. There is one other matter to which I wish to allude with which I have some connection—that is the question of afforestation. I want the House to look at this matter, not from the standpoint of unemployment, but as business men from the national standpoint. We are assured on the best authority that thirty or forty years from now there will be a timber famine in the world. America is now consuming every year many times more timber than she grows and is making rapid inroads on the forests of Canada. In recent years hard woods have gone up in price by 60 per cent. and other kinds of wood by 30 per cent. And while we have this growing scarcity of timber we have ever so much land vacant which could be used in the interests of the nation for the growth of timber. This is a great national problem which ought at once be taken in hand. We have had this matter before the House of Commons for years. Committees have been appointed, and commissions have been appointed, and they have all reported in favour of taking up this question, and if I am sorry for one thing more than another it is for this fact that we have had no intimation from the Government that they are prepared to deal with this particular problem. A large number of the rural people in the towns are prepared to go back to the rural areas if the opportunity presented itself. In our towns at present we have sufficient material from which you could organise a staff to deal with the work of afforestation if it were taken in hand, so that from the very first you would achieve success as far as labour is concerned. Then we have got the question of small holdings. The great lack in rural areas to-day is that there is not constant work for the twelve months. After the harvest is over men have got to live by some other work. Afforestation will pro- 176 vide work in the winter months in the rural areas. If you carry out a small holdings scheme of providing land by money lent at a low rate of interest, and give a permanent tenure that alone with the agricultural work now available will at all events keep in our rural areas many of the people who otherwise are likely to leave them within the next few years. I am grievously disappointed by the statement of the President of the Local Government Board. This is the fourth Session of Parliament. We have been waiting anxiously in order that the Government might make at all events something like a decisive step in regard to the unemployed problem. It will stand no further delay. Men are gong to assert their right to live. They are not going to stand idly by and see their wives and children suffer as they suffer to-day. I am not going to advise them to do so. I am going to tell these men to come out and assert their rights, and if we cannot move the Government then all we can do is to go into the country and agitate in order to win over the electorate in regard to the unemployment that exists in this country at the present moment.
Mr. ELLIS DAVIES : I am sorry that the mover of this Amendment referred to the measure for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales as a possible barrier to dealing with the question of unemployment. I am sure it will not be denied that the vote of the Welsh Members has always been cast in the cause of democracy. I do hope that the Members of the Labour party will not look upon the proposed Bill for dealing with the Welsh Church as any hindrance to measures of social reform, because I am sure that if it came to a choice between allotting time to a measure dealing with unemployment and one dealing with the Welsh Church the majority of Welsh Members would be found voting for the former measure. I must confess that I feel a certain degree of disappointment with the speech of the President of the Local Government Board. After the speech of the Prime Minister we expected a much more drastic proposal than that which has now been proposed. I do not know whether what has already been announced is going to be followed by something stronger from the President of the Board of Trade. Perhaps the Government has been converted, or is about to be converted, to some kind of Socialism by a system of afforestation. I wish to point out to the House that if you ignore the statistics of 177 the trade unions there still remains in the country, not merely in the industrial centres but even in the rural districts, a large amount of unemployment. In the County of Carnarvon we have had a period of the deepest depression known for the last thirty years, and every council, both urban and rural, has experienced the greatest difficulty in dealing with this evil. A great deal of the difficulty arises from the fact that it is too often assumed that the men are out of employment through lack of character, and in consequence of drinking habits. I have consulted our county surveyor, and he states that the character of the men on the unemployed register is in every essential most satisfactory. He informs me that these men are quite capable of doing a hard day's work, and are well worthy of the remuneration they receive. There is no doubt that a great deal of relief can be extended to the unemployed by granting loans to communities for work which is immediately necessary, or which may be anticipated. The fatal objection to the course suggested by the Government is not that you are anticipating work, but that you are asking a community already suffering from trade depression to tax itself further to relieve distress. If relief is required it should be granted by the Government out of Imperial funds, and not out of the rates raised in the distressed districts. I heartily sympathise with the proposal of the Government relating to labour exchanges, and I hope that whatever else the Government may do they will proceed with this part of the remedy of this evil. Labour exchanges, when established, will not only facilitate the acquisition of knowledge upon the question, but they will assist us in drawing a most valuable distinction between those who are employable and those who are not. In my opinion, the number of the unemployable class is considerably less than has been suggested in this House. I think that before we can ask the community, which is already too heavily rated, to undertake any satisfactory measure for the relief of the unemployed we must satisfy them that the men in whose interest the money is to be spent are really anxious to work. I would like to suggest to the President of the Local Government Board in creating labour exchanges the absolute necessity of prohibiting anything which may savour of pauperisation. We have had the greatest difficulty in Wales in getting the men to register because of certain speeches which have 178 been delivered associating the men out of work with those who are inefficient and have lost their character If labour exchanges are to serve their real purpose, I think it will be necessary to make their administration compulsory upon the officers of the municipalities. Another point which ought not to be overlooked is that of the quality of the work done by the men who are out of employment. I do not know whether the President of the Local Government Board in his speech was referring to what is known as the Carnarvon fiasco.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : No.
Mr. ELLIS DAVIES : I am glad to hear that denial. The work offered to these men is very often totally unsuited for them. The man who first finds himself out of employment in the case of trade depression is generally the man least fitted, mentally or physically, to go to work, because as a rule the employer gets rid first of those men who are least fit to perform the work he requires from them. I have known a number of men out of work for several weeks because they were unable to perform the work of a labourer in a quarry. Not long ago I asked a quarry official of fifty years' standing his opinion on this question, and he told me that the physique of these men was never intended for hard work in quarries. I think that is a point which we ought to consider when we are trying to deal with this question, and when we are deciding as to the character of the work which these men are able to perform. Then it has been suggested that one solution of the unemployment difficulty may be found in the establishment of small holdings. With the Secretary of the Local Government Board I was on the Committee for Small Holdings. At that time every effort was made to induce the Government to deal with the question of the acquisition of land on the basis of its rateable value and at a fair price. I have heard with a very great deal of surprise the statement of the Prime Minister to-night that that is one of the provisions of the Act. It is not. The result is that that Act, which ought to have been a success and have helped to keep a very large number of men on the land, is really being found to be a failure. A reference has been made to afforestation. The very difficulty which has been experienced in the country with regard to the acquisition of land for small holdings will meet the Government with regard to afforestation. I am going to tell the 179 Government again that unless they are prepared to deal with the question of the taxation of land values and to make the rateable or annual value the basis of purchase it will be as impossible for them to acquire the land for afforestation as they have found it to be for the purposes of the Small Holdings Act. It will take some years to put in force a scheme of afforestation. On the other hand, the sufferings of men, women, and children at the present time are real. We must not forget that the children are the future citizens of this Empire, and the burden of this great Empire will rest upon their shoulders. It is essential that they should be physically and mentally fitted for their task. I suggest that if the question of afforestation cannot now be taken up, the Government should at least make grants to the County Councils for the improvement of the main roads of the country. Any money spent by the Government on the improvement of the methods of transit is both economically sound and will tend to ultimate development. The War Minister depends upon the main roads for military purposes. It will be essential that the Army should be transported at short notice; and anyone having experience of the main roads of the country must at once admit that as at present formed they are not adapted for the purpose. I hope before the debate closes that we shall not only have a repetition of the assurance that labour exchanges will be established within the next few months, but the further and stronger assurance that the Government has a real intention of making certain grants to the County Councils and the municiaplities that will enable them to immediately effect the relief of those out of work.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE : I should like to refer to one remark of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He spoke of Welsh disestablishment. I hope he has not the impression that either the leader or the chairman of the Labour party are hostile to it. The complaint both make is that whilst Welsh disestablishment has its place in the King's Speech, unemployment is excluded from that document The President of the Local Government Board congratulated himself that his department had escaped criticism on this occasion. May I remind him, and the House, that we are not dealing with the administration of his department to-day. We are dealing with the legislative proposals of the Government, or, rather, the 180 absence of those proposals. When the opportunity comes the President may rest assured that we shall have plenty to say, and plenty of material upon which to say a great deal about his department. The point for the moment is: What reply is the Government going to give to the claims of those who are now suffering cold and hunger from lack of employment? The position has not improved. Wages are going down, and the cost of living going up. Both of these statements are based on figures taken from Board of Trade returns. Wages have gone down £62,000 per week since the beginning of the century, and the cost of living has gone up 8.4 on the 100 maximum that was taken as the basis in 1900. I do not want to continue the academic side of this discussion. There has been too much of that. But let me entirely repudiate the statement that the trait of drunkenness is the cause of unemployment. The shipbuilding yards of the Clyde, Tyne, Wear, and Thames are more than half empty. Drinking habits have little or nothing to do with that fact. There are no shipbuilding orders. It is not want of skilled training that is the cause. The returns of the Board of Trade prove that conclusively. The society to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, his own, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, has at the present time nearly 11 per cent. of its members receiving out-of-work pay. There is not a single branch of the Engineers' Society in any part of the country which reports vacancies for work. Eleven per cent. is the heaviest since 1879. And it is not true, as stated, that the wages are higher and the hours shorter than they were some couple of decades ago. As a matter of fact, the wages in that industry in Glasgow, which I know best, seem to-day as they were in 1866, which is more than forty years ago, and the hours, instead of decreasing from 1879, have been increased from 51 a week to 54 per week; I mention this so that the House may understand that the cheery optimism of the President of the Local Government Board is not warranted by the facts of the case. Those who are responsible for the Amendment now before the House have no quarrel with any of the measures contained in the King's Speech. We are delighted that something is to be done to still further solve the land problem. We are also pleased that at length something is to be done for the regulation and the building of towns, and to give towns a real interest, not merely in the development of building but in acquiring for 181 themselves the increase in the values of the land on which those buildings stand. Nor have we any quarrel with labour exchanges. Labour exchanges and labour registries are a necessary part of any machinery for dealing with unemployment. I welcome the labour exchanges if only for this reason: that they will reveal a state of things in this country which will compel action on the part of the Government. Therefore, we are not finding any fault in the King's Speech, only with things that are not in the King's Speech. May I ask the House to note that we have more labour registered than we are able to deal with. If you take the distress committees set up under the Unemployed Workmen Act you find, by the figures which appear in the Labour Gazette of the Board of Trade that the registered number of unemployed for December, 1908, was 134,445. These were not all the applicants, but those who had passed all the severe tests and were registered as being unemployed and requiring work. Work was found for 31,820—about 20 per cent. of the total. What was the amount of work found? Work was found on an average of 12 days each at the average of 3s. 1d. per day. That was the total amount of work for these people in the month of December. Now we come to January. The number registered during that month was 145,151. Those who had received work during January numbered 39,749. [THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: "Hear, hear."] The number for whom work was not found during the month of January was 105,402, and the average days on which work was found during the month was only 10, as compared with 12 during December. If that be a subject for cheers or congratulation then I confess he must be easily satisfied. It may be that all the proposals of the Labour party are uneconomic and wrong, and that our Right to Work Bill did deserve all the hard and insulting things that had been said about it and its promoters, but it is an easy matter to criticise. The President of the Local Government Board, quite unwittingly, I am sure, totally misrepresented Clause 7, when he gave the House to understand that it established a penalty for people now on the Embankment. It does not. What we say is that if work has been provided, and a judge can be satisfied that a person who is claiming maintenance has refused to perform that work, though able to perform it, and persists in his refusal, then he ought to be fined. I listened, I confess, with a good deal of anxiety to hear whether there would be 182 any further development of the proposal contained in the King's Speech, and there was none. All over the country we have members of the Distress Committees literally at their wits' end to find work for those who are making application for it. They find themselves hedged round with restrictions and limitations which almost prevent their taking a single step. Only last week there was the case of the estate of the Palace of Rigg in Glasgow—a great piece of land which is being reclaimed. In connection with the work it is necessary in certain parts to plant belts of wood to shelter the land, the exposed moor lying very high. But permission to plant the trees cannot be obtained, and the Distress Committee of Glasgow are afraid to go on with the work lest they should be surcharged. Is it too much to ask the Government to so amend the existing Act as to give the Distress Committees greater scope to deal with the problem of the unemployed? There may be a development, though I do not pretend to know what it is going to be. All I can say is that the Distress Committees in Glasgow, in Birmingham, and Liverpool would be justified in saying that while they are prepared to do their share in meeting the evils arising from unemployment, they will refuse to, go on with their work until the Government bears its share of the burden. It is quite on the cards, as was threatened a few weeks ago in Glasgow, that there will be a strike of Distress Committees generally. I hope it may be so. Let us have a crisis that will compel the Government to take action. It is not as if it was a new question or as if the Government was not pledged on it by every tie of honour to deal with it this Session. The absence of any measure from the King's Speech is such a serious breach of good faith and political honour that it will damage the Government seriously in the eyes of their own supporters in the country. The word of His Majesty the King was pledged by the Speech of 1906 to do something to deal with this question. The Prime Minister on the floor of the House, as my hon. Friend to the right reminded us yesterday, speaking as Prime Minister, gave his solemn word that this question would be dealt with drastically this Session. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking to his constituents in Dundee on 9th October last, used these words— "What is the problem of the hour. It can be comprised in one word, unemployment. It ought to be possible for some department to exercise some power over Government contracts. There ought to be in permanent existence certain recognised 183 industries of a useful but non-competitive character, like, we will say, afforestation, managed by public departments and capable of being contracted or expanded according to the needs of the labour market." What is he going to say to us to-night? There is a more important declaration still made in connection with the recent bye-elections. When a vacancy occurred in Newcastle the Prime Minister, in the letter, dated September 19th, to the Liberal candidate, made use of these words— "There are other social problems immediately ahead of us which will call for and will receive equally drastic handling. Among them, none is more urgent than the question of unemployment. You can remind the electors that the Government are pledged to deal with the matter, and you can assure them that it is receiving the most earnest and anxious consideration, with a view to the framing and the early presentation to Parliament of practical legislative proposals." That was to the Liberal candidate seeking the suffrages of the working class electors. Where are those drastic Liberal proposals to-day? Is it as the President of the Local Government Board said, that they are to be found in the King's Speech, in the Irish Land Bill, or in the Town Planning Bill. May I remind the House that both those were in the King's Speech last Session, and before the House last Session, so that they could not have been in the mind of the Prime Minister when he made this definite statement. What is to be done? The President of the Local Government Board would have us believe that the poor miserable wretches who even now are beginning to assemble on the Embankment are there of their own choice. Oh, the mockery of man! The picture he drew to us of the comfortable casual wards where they have rooms and clean beds, nice warm, genial atmosphere, all waiting for those men to go to when by some cussedness in their nature they prefer to spend five hours shivering on the Embankment waiting for a ticket to go to a doss house where none of these comforts obtain. Surely the House of Commons is not going to be misled by talk of that kind. If it is, the country is not going to be misled by it. One thing we can assure the House of, that unless something be done this Party will take action both in the House and in the country which it has never hitherto taken since this Government came into Office. The Government cannot complain of the action of the Labour party either in Parliament or on the public platform. We have followed our 184 own course, we have retained our independence, but we have given the Government credit for the things they have done, and we have accepted their word. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Oh! Ministers may say "No," but we have given the Government credit for the things they have done.
Mr. HENDERSON : Why do you quote at bye-elections from our speeches?
Mr. KEIR HARDIE : We have taken their word for the things they intend to do. We have not pressed them unduly. We have been blamed for being neglectful of our duty in not pressing this question in the belief and expectation that the pledges and promises so freely given were honestly given and were honestly meant. But we shall not accept the present position without such a campaign in the country as will make the Government sorry for its great betrayal of these poor, starving labourers. One of the disgraceful things in politics is the way in which the miseries of the people can be played with for party purposes. We have seen it done by those on this side in connection with old age pensions; we are seeing it now on the other side in connection with the unemployed; but, just as the country showed no mercy towards the party now on this side for failing to take up social questions, neither will it show mercy to the party on that side for following the bad example set by their predecessors. [A laugh.] I have heard that laugh before in connection with this same question, but 1895 showed on whose side the laugh lay. If only one-tenth of the energy which is being put into your so-called Territorial Army had been imported into the organisation of the unemployed, there would be no social problem of the magnitude that exists to-day. The Territorial Army can find its backers and supporters, and all the money necessary, with its flaunting parades in the streets of London, with all the authorities behind it; but when the unemployed army, in their rags and misery, and especially the helpless women and still more helpless children, tried to parade their misery before the country yesterday they were chevied and hounded through back streets as though they were beings of an inferior kind. I do not wonder that the authorities were afraid to allow their misery and shame to be exhibited to the public gaze. One word in conclusion. We are asked to believe that the great issue upon which 185 bye-elections and the coming general election will fall to be decided is Protection or Free Trade. If the present Government were in the pay of the "Confederates" of the Tariff Reformers they could not play the game of Tariff Reform more effectively than they are doing by this omission. If the issue is to be between Free Trade and laissez faire on the unemployed question on the one hand, and Tariff Reform joined up, as it is in Germany, with great measures of social reform, then the working classes will not be long in making up their minds. From our point of view as Socialists and Labour men generally, Protection and Free Trade are matters of little moment. Under either system, whether it be in Free Trade England or in Protectionist America, labour has to struggle for a bare living. We prefer to retain Free Trade for a variety of reasons; we do not want to see Protection in any shape or form introduced; but if the choice is to be between Free Trade and Protection, with social legislation for helping to solve this great problem, the choice of the working men will be easily made. I do not know, and I have no right to inquire, how hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to vote. I hope they are not satisfied with the position taken up by the President of the Local Government Board. If they are, I would ask them to apply this test in their own minds: Are they prepared to face a meeting of unemployed workmen in their own constituencies with the Government programme in their hands? If not, surely they ought to bring pressure to bear upon the Government to get something done. According to the speeches we have heard, even the Labour Exchanges Bill is not yet drafted, and seems to be open to certain developments. I hope that in this issue, where the claims of humanity should rise far above the claims of party, there will be no hesitation on the part of hon. Members; but that all who are really in earnest about something being done for the unemployed will cast their votes for this Amendment. If you ask us what our proposals are, we reply we are not called upon to make proposals. We have made proposals, and we shall do so again if required. The Government have rejected our proposals, and we place upon them the responsibility of finding something to put in the place of those which they have rejected. I hope that to-night's division will be such as to convince the unemployed—the most hapless creatures on the surface of God's earth—that in the House of Commons their claims are at 186 length being considered, and that neither fair speeches nor fine promises will be allowed to prevent some drastic legislation to bring honest work within the reach of every honest worker.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill) : The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has addressed to the House an impassioned and impatient speech. I do not at all quarrel with him for having expressed impatience, because reformers should always be impatient. If they do not provide the driving power from day to day and month to month the coach will move forward more slowly. But, Sir, I hope that the House will not feel inclined to respond to the invitation of the hon. Member to make this division a test—a crucial division— on the great question of the relief of distress from unemployment and other causes in this country, because I do not think—and I will presently endeavour to put forward some reasons to-show the grounds of my opinion—that the materials are at present before the House on which they can properly form a final judgment in these matters. The problem which has been discussed during a good many hours to-day is no doubt a problem which has vexed and puzzled the minds of almost all the Members who are gathered here more than any other question of current politics. No one will pretend for a moment to underrate the misery and the waste of human happiness and human strength and energy which is going on in this country at the present moment, and not only in this country, but elsewhere as well, through the existing comparatively unregulated working of economic and competitive laws. I have heard a great deal said of the principle of the right of work. I am not sure that is a very good expression even as a catchword; but at any rate there is one thing I may say on behalf of the Government, and that is I unhesitatingly accept the responsibility of the Government in the disposal of its resources to do all that is in its power to protect the well - abiding and willing citizens for industrial fluctuations entirely beyond their control, and even beyond their foresight. I do not think that responsibility could be repudiated by any Government. We do not repudiate it when there is a famine in India. We do not repudiate it when there is an earthquake in Messina, and there are circumstances which can occur in the ordinary year-to-year work of modern and industrial life which expose the individual 187 worker to just the same hopeless and pitiful position as we see when there is a failure of crops in India, and when there is a vast convulsion in Italy. It is the duty, and we accept it as the duty, of any Government, and of no Government more than this Government, to exert itself to the utmost to relieve the consequences of such fluctuations and disturbances. It is very easy to admit the evil. It is very easy to admit the responsibility, but it is not so easy—and the hon. gentleman who has just spoken with all the sincerity and earnestness which characterise him knows —to assume the responsibility of making any definite or precise proposal. It is not very easy to say what is the precise or what is the proper remedy. We have a remedy, but we do not call it short and simple, and when remedies are clear cut and precise they do not carry much conviction or much consolation to my mind. We see this phenomena of unemployment in every country—in the newest as well as the oldest. We see it under every system of Government —under the most democratic Republican Government and under the most authoritative monarchy. We see it here in Free Trade England; we see it beyond the shelter of the highest tariffs; and we see that this problem of unemployment is not confined to years of trade depression. It continues during periods of great trade activity, and I do not for one moment expect that it will be removed by the automatic and inevitable process of trade revival. There s at any rate in this island no evidence that the population is increasing in excess of the means of subsistence. Production is active. Industry grows and grows with surprising and fantastic vigour. Enterprise here needs no artificial protection. You may say that it errs, if it errs at all, on the side of over-trading and over-production. Wealth accumulates from year to year in ever greater quantities, yet on the face of every trade, round the edges of every growing industry there grows steadily with its strength, growing with its growth and strengthening with its strength, a fringe of casual underpaid or unemployed labour which at any moment of depression may be converted into absolute unemployment. Even the dimensions of the problem are not known. I think the Labour and Statistical Department of the Board of Trade receive every month some six or seven thousand Reports of different kinds bearing upon the commerce and labour of the country. We have had 188 every desire to come to a precise conclusion as to the existing dimensions of unemployment; we have been unable to do so, and we cannot commit ourselves, without great risk of misleading, in one direction or the other, to any precise mathematical computation. It cannot be assumed that the degree of unemployment among unskilled labourers is greater necessarily than among skilled, nor can it be assumed that the degree of unemployment is greater among non-union men than among members of the trades unions. It must be remembered that the mobility of the unskilled is greater than that of the skilled, and that consequently contraction in particular trades affects the unskilled less than the skilled. It must also be remembered that the trades union returns cover, and are mainly composed, of the most unstable trades, and that they exclude from their area the most stable; and, further, it must be remembered that the returns of unemployed trades unionists must be qualified by this fact—that trades unionists are more prone and liable to take unemployed benefit and to come within the scope of the returns than to accept work at the lower rate than the standard rate, and that the choice which trades unionists exercise in this case is not open to non-unionists. Therefore, in measuring the Board of Trade returns, it must not be assumed that the degree of unemployment is greater among unskilled than skilled, or greater among non-unionists than among trades unionists. But, Sir, it is only as an example of the difficulty and perplexity of this problem—which, as the hon. Member reminded us I said is the problem of the hour, I said so, and I say so still—that we do not know its exact dimensions, and that we are not able to measure the number of actually unemployed, still less to disentangle the actual unemployed from the number of the casually employed or the under-employed. If the difficulties and perplexities are so very great, if the unknown element in the solution of this problem is so large, we cannot wonder that it is not easy to find the cause or to predict the remedy. My hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow, who introduced and moved this Amendment to-day, told us with great candour that, in his opinion, landlordism and capitalism are the causes of unemployment. I am sure he, as a practical Trade Unionist, will not abuse me if I do not at this moment attempt to discuss whether the abolition of rent and interest is the true remedy for the existing industrial situation. Nor will 189 I attempt to deal with the question of whether a Government Department really would be able to organise effectively and smoothly, without any of those fluctuations or miscalculations which we see in the ordinary economic world the life and labour of the whole population of the United Kingdom. I am not usually accused, even by my friends, of being of a modest or retiring disposition, but I must say that if ever the nationalisation of the means of production and distribution came to be an accomplished fact, and if ever a Department were created on an extensive scale to deal with the regulation of these grave matters, I earnestly hope—I even emit an involuntary but no less fervent prayer that I shall not be called upon as President of the extended Board of Trade to discharge those very large and extended functions. But I am quite sure of this, that my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow would not wish us to wait until these grave matters have been settled before we tried to do something practical and something prompt to alleviate the distresses in which in effective language he has drawn attention; and I am quite sure that if the Gracious Speech had declared that the Government were unable to deal with the problem of unemployment until we were prepared to deal with the nationalisation of the means of production and distribution there would at any rate have been one more argument much stronger than any that has been used in support of the Amendment which has been moved. I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, who always makes speeches which interest and instruct the House, but always depress it. He extinguishes all the hopes of all parties—Socialism, Tariff Reform, Afforestation—there is none that doeth good, no not one. When I listen to the speeches of the hon. Member I am alway reminded of the popular song:— "What's the good of anything? Why, nothing." The hon. Member for Preston, who is or ought to be, a great mathematician always runs mathematics a little too far. He always excludes nature, human or otherwise. I heard my hon. Friend this afternoon speak with derision of systems of short time in particular trades. He showed by the indefeasible laws of mathematics how if unemployment can be mitigated by reducing hours from ten to eight it can be still further mitigated by reducing the hours from eight to four, and still further if they were reduced from eight to nothing, but when we come from these 190 mathematical abstractions and logical subtleties, and I must respectfully say absurdities, there is no Member in this House who does not know that a great element of comfort and security has been introduced into the lives of the cotton operatives and others by some such system of short time and the smashing of households like egg-shells which follows too often from the influence of external fluctuations of trade creates an injury to the individual worker far greater than the periodic contraction of wages or the restriction in its purchasing power would ever inflict in any circumstances. Then when the right hon. Gentleman turns to the question of afforestation he equally excludes nature. His mathematical calculations were quite correct. The money which was taken, which would have paid the wages of so many people doing such and such a trade, would be taken to pay the wages of so many people digging holes in the ground and putting saplings into them. Nothing, he said, would be returned from that operation. But he forgot this elementary fact. Trees grow, and by their growth create new sources of credit and capital and new industries, and a greater organisation of national industry than exists at the present moment. Let us confine ourselves in dealing with this problem to proposals which are practical, and let us not give up courage. Do not let us be led into visionary or extreme propositions, which at the present time are not within the scope or range of this Parliament. Do not, on the other hand, let us be deterred by any sharply-drawn logic, nor by the risk that our statements and actions will be made the basis for extravagant deductions of another character altogether. Do not let us be drawn by either of these two difficulties from dealing with the facts as they are and with the problem as it is, real, concrete, human, and immediate. There are three main divisions of the question, so called, of unemployment which must clarify themselves in the minds of anyone who thinks earnestly and carefully on the subject. There is, first of all, the organisation of existing economic employment—the proper organisation of the existing demand for labour throughout the country and the reforms necessary in that organisation. There is, in the second place, the question of the provision of further employment to counteract and counterbalance the fluctuation of periods of depression, and there is, in the third place, the treatment of those for whom, after both the 191 other two processes have been exhausted, there remains no employment. I think the House will find that these are the three main categories into which the consideration of this subject may naturally harmoniously be divided. Let me take the second first, the provision of further employment and the provision of means of average employment throughout the country. I have only a word to say on that, but I do feel most strongly that there ought to be in the machinery of the State something which corresponds to the governor of an engine, which does to some extent regulate the speed of the machinery. We cannot always tell what the state of industry will be. We cannot always tell what circumstances in the world will make their reaction felt in the social and industrial life, but I am not at all sure that we might not devise machinery so that we could exert a steadying effect on the labour market by the more systematic coordination of public work in such a way as to throw the weight of public contracts into the balance at times when the labour market is congested. That is one point upon which we are at work at the present time. Then there is the question whether there could not be certain industries constant or contemplated, actual or projected, which could be brought into existence to counteract any undue depression, and increase the demand for labour during the period of depression, and which could be contracted or altogether closed down in periods of boom in employment. That is the second aspect of that section of the problem. And let me say why I am not prepared at this juncture, within such a short time of the presentation of this Report, to make any statement on behalf of the Government in regard to afforestation. We by no means take the gloomy view of the proposals which the right hon. Member for Preston was inclined to adopt. It is obvious that in the development of such enterprises, which far exceed in the period necessary for their completion the ordinary time of human expectation, we by no means exclude the support and adoption of that method from the purview of the State, and it is undoubtedly the fact that if they were adopted, and if they were justified on strictly economic and commercial grounds—and I believe they can be—they might also be made to some extent. though I think to a limited extent, to subserve the purposes of a counterpoise to the rocking of the industrial machine 192 from the fluctuations and disturbance to which I have referred. On that I trust that public opinion will advance, and that Parliamentary expression will advance during the course of the present Session. Then there is the third division into which I have endeavoured to classify the subject—the treatment of those for whom no employment remains. After the work of organisation has been done, after the balance has been established so far as it can be by such machinery, there will remain a residuum of unemployment or, at any rate, unemployable. What is to be done with them? The treatment which should be accorded to such persons requires the immediate attention of the House of Commons. Let not Society shrink from the burden. There is a large number of unemployed persons in this country, and they have an uncommonly bad time. But they are maintained in some fashion. They do not starve and they are housed. But I think it perfectly true to say that they are fed and maintained and housed at the expense of the community already, and in the manner which least contributes to their regeneration and to their being able to take their places again in the line of industrial life. Society does not escape its burden; it only escapes the fruits which belong to those who bear it in a manner in consonance and harmony with the public interest. I said there were three main categories into which this subject can be divided: (1) The organisation of existing employment; (2) provision for averaging and furthering employment; and, (3) the teatment of those for whom there is no employment. There is just one other category, and that is the prevention of the unemployable. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has referred to that, but it is too wide, too speculative, too general in its terms to be introduced effectively into the present debate. But, of course, the conditions under which boy labour is used and exploited in this country at the present time; the manner in which our educational system comes to an abrupt conclusion just at the time when it is most needed; the way in which our youth waste those precious years without learning any employment to carry them on, losing all the advantages of the education which the State, at great expense, has given them—that is one of the subjects which comes under the heading of the prevention of the manufacture of the unemployable. I agree with the mover of the Amendment when he says that the problem of the land 193 is highly cognate and closely connected with the manufacture of the unemployable. I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish his words, when he said that the House should not waste its time on Licensing Bills, and so forth, to cut him off from the great temperance movement of the country upon which a great deal of the prevention of the creation of unemployment depends, and with which all who care for the real future of democracy must fearlessly and unflinchingly be associated. I have now dealt with the last of the two categories into which I have divided this question, and I now come to the organisation of existing economic employment, which is more particularly my affair, because that is the part of this question which falls precisely within the sphere of the Board of Trade. The organisation of existing employment requires consideration from two points of view. You want to increase the mobility of labour, and you also want to increase the stability of labour. People make a great mistake when they say that labour exchanges will increase the movement of labour, because they will not. They will only render the movement of labour, when it has become necessary, less painful and more easily possible. The stability of labour is naturally the first consideration; and I maintain that, at the Board of Trade, where we have some of the best-known and most respected representatives of Trade Unionism, we do not exclude that point of view. It would be a very great mistake for it to be supposed that a labour exchange policy meant a policy of hustling working men from pillar to post all over the country. It means nothing of the sort. A great deal of movement is necessary in the organisation of modern industry, and that is inevitable. We ought, by regulating and steadying machinery, to endeavour to reduce that movement to a minimum, because, although the man moves from town to town and from job to job we forget—and the hon. Member for Preston forgets—the awful convulsion in a working man's home when all the local associations are broken, and when all the expenses of a change in movement and transition are placed upon him; we are apt to forget the awful convulsion disturbance, suffering, and real affliction which is caused to an ordinary workman when he is forced, perhaps without any real or permanent cause, to move from one centre of employment to another. Ridicule has been poured upon the pro- 194 blem and disadvantages of the short-time system. I venture to think that in many cases it has a highly mitigating effect upon the ordinary day-by-day life. But when the moment comes in an industry when through a permanent change in the centres of employment it is necessary for the workmen to move, then we say that this movement should be rendered as painless, expeditious, and as speedy as science and organisation can make it. Here is where the labour exchange comes in. It does not make movement more necessary. It does not make any extra work. It creates no new employment—none whatever—except by reducing friction. But, at any rate, instead of a man setting out to tramp along a road, guided by chance or rumour, he can go by train and on certainty, and can be informed in a short time whether there is in the whole range of the British Islands a job, and if there is a job he can be conveyed to it with all speed. What is more important still, he can be told where not to go. I do hope that my Friend who moved this Amendment, and used the expression he did about Labour Exchanges —I do not say with any absolute hostility, but with a certain recklessness that cannot always be distinguished from it—I do hope that he will not close his mind to the elaborate and exceedingly recent proposals which on this subject alone we are going to lay before Parliament in the course of the next few months. No, we want, we ask for, and invite, and we think we are going to get, the attention and the serious aid of the Labour party in dealing with any portion of this problem, without prejudice, of course, to their views as to the general problem. Labour Exchanges are the gateway to industrial security. It opens the way to every branch of the question. It bars the road to none. Certain right hon. Gentlemen blamed us because we said expectations had been created that a system of unemployed assurance would be associated with the scheme of Labour Exchanges. This I will say, that the system of Labour Exchanges, so far from being a bar to the adoption of any such system—I am not prejudging the form or scope of such a system— is, in fact, a necessary and essential foundation for any such system before the corresponding benefits enjoyed by trade unionists are extended to a larger circle who do not belong to trade unions. I have ventured to deal with these various subjects and to try to put before the House a comprehensive view of the question in order to show that the Government is not 195 only taking a general view, but is resolved to make a concerted effort by various and converging routes to deal with the problem as it presents itself at the present time. I ask the House to believe that; I ask the House to believe it as a matter that will be brought to the test of fact within a very short period of time, and I ask the House to believe that the Government have every intention to make good their pledges in regard to unemployment, and in dealing, as the Prime Minister said, drastically with the roots of the problem, so far as in human power and human reason it is possible to do. But if this conclusion has emerged from any remarks I have made, surely there is another conclusion which must have been brought to the hon. Gentleman's mind. This is a very grave, a very complex, and a very difficult subject. What an irrelevancy, what a mockery it is to pretend that a question so complex can be resolved by a mere petty expedient of a temporary tariff of 10 per cent., or something like that, on all goods coming into this country. You have only to look into the problem of unemployment and the remedies for that problem in their many branches with an earnest desire to do something to see that all this is an attempt to exploit the misery of the poor to the propaganda of the rich. All these attempts, sometimes expressed in the language of menace, fall into their proper proportions as mere impudent irrelevancy, a mere grimace, a piece of mockery introduced into this serious subject. It is an unsolicited testimonial on his part to the commonsense of the present House. Labour exchanges is not the policy of the Government in regard to unemployment. It is not a detached and isolated proposition made to Parliament without any sequence or without any intention of carrying the matter further. It is not regarded by the Government or by the Ministers responsible for the conduct of the measure as a fulfilment of the Government's pledges. It is a first and necessary step. It is a necessary step in the process to the relief of distress and of social reform, and it follows as a regular sequence after Old Age Pensions, and before other steps which I am not yet prepared to detail, but which are already more or less obvious or becoming more or less obvious to most of those who keep themselves closely posted on public affairs. It is part of the process of systematic treatment of the subject, but more than that we cannot say now, and for three reasons. 196 First of all, I came down to the House this afternoon, and I read on the placards, "Publication of the Poor Law Commission Report." Is this to be urged against the Government as a condemnation that they have not been willing to deal with matters of such extraordinary complexity before they had the opportunity of measuring and weighing and digesting the conclusions of that laborious inquiry and into that voluminous and most important report? Why, Sir, who does not believe that the Government have not been studying the question on the lines I have tried to indicate? We have been engaged constantly, and, as far as the Board of Trade are concerned, throughout the whole of the time of three or four months on the subject. But it is not because the question has not been studied, not because provisional conclusions have not been reached, but because those in the last resort must be brought into relationship with the knowledge and with the decisions which have been embodied in the different reports of the majority and minority of the Poor Law Commission. Everyone knows we would have done a poor service to the country and a poorer service to those people on behalf of whom the mover of this appealed if we had compromised their case by taking premature and ill-considered action which might easily have been repudiated by the country when the fuller and comprehensive report of this Commission had been laid before the public. That is the first of the reasons why it would have been impossible to make a fuller statement at this juncture of the intentions of the Government. There is another reason. We are entering in this matter upon Trade Union and Friendly Society ground. You cannot attempt to approach any of these subjects without coming into close contact with existing organisations in this country, who are to-day serving a vast number of people and which have been doing a noble and necessary work in days when the State made no attempt to deal with these matters. You have not only to make your plan, but to see your plan can be brought into being without destroying or undermining existing institutions. Thirdly, there is the great question of finance. The Prime Minister said yesterday that these questions of social reform resolved themselves in the end into questions of finance. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to bear a heavy burden, and the extent to which 197 these problems can be satisfactorily solved does depend in no small degree upon the provision which this House consents to make for the services of this or subsequent years, and upon the demands which are made from various quarters upon the financial resources available. For these reasons I would ask the House to support the Government on this occasion. I make no complaint whatever that this amendment has been moved. I think it would have been impossible for those who sit on the Labour benches, holding the views they do, not to have made the motion. I think they have well served those to whom they are responsible by the course which they have taken. And I say on behalf of the Government I make no complaint, because we have a clear conscience in regard to this question. We know that we are doing our best. We are earnestly resolved to persist and to press this matter forward. I do not know whether I can say that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has always tried to help as much as he could the party whose assistance he now seeks. But we make no complaint of the Amendment. Our answer to it will not be speeches but acts— real acts, like the Old Age Pensions Act. This House of Commons is no longer young. It has perhaps lived more than half its life already. We must feel, as a Parliament, the sort of emotion that most people experience as they grow up—almost at a stroke, almost in a moment, they feel that they can no longer claim to be reckoned youthful, but have already passed into a soured and sedate middle age. This Parliament is no longer young; its strength is no longer what it was. It has done one great and memorable thing for which it will long be honoured, and I see no reason why, by consolidation of purpose, by a supreme and sustained effort, we should not place upon the Statute Book a sucession of measures designed for the prevention and relief of industrial distress, which will make the reputation of this Parliament as honourable and as memorable in the history of the English people as it has already become in the history of the British Empire.
Mr. FENWICK : Perhaps the House will allow me to explain my position in reference to this Amendment. The House will take it from me certainly that I am in no sense hostile to the unemployed movement. I represent a Trades Union which has probably given more practical evidence of its sympathy with the unem- 198 ployed than any other labour organisation in the country, because besides providing for our own unemployed we have within the last month or so given from our own funds the sum of £500, which is the second instalment within about twelve months, to assist the unemployed in other parts of the country, and notably on Tyneside; but I want to explain exactly what my position is. If my hon. friend goes to a division I cannot vote with him, and I will tell him why. I make no complaint of the Amendment having been brought forward. I believe his Amendment is an honest Amendment, and also that if he goes to a division he does so in the honest belief that if he can get a majority of the Members of this House to follow him into the Lobby and so defeat the Government, he is acting in the best interests of the unemployed. I do my hon. Friend the credit to say that it is his honest belief that if he could persuade a majority of this House to follow him into the Lobby he is doing a kindness to the unemployed. Well, I do not share that belief, and that is really why I cannot support the Amendment, for I believe that the defeat of the Government on a question such as this would lead to the resignation of the Government. [A LABOUR MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I will allow my hon. Friend to hold his own opinion. I should cease to have any confidence in a Government defeated on such an important issue as this if they continued on sufferance to hold office after such a defeat. Besides, the amendment itself implies —though not intentionally, I admit—want of trust and want of confidence in the pledged word of the Prime Minister himself, and I am sure that that want of confidence is not shared by the Member for Blackburn, who has recently testified publicly to honesty of intention on the part of the Prime Minister. What was it that the Prime Minister said? Replying only yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition, who had re- called to his mind the pledges he gave last year, the Prime Minister accepted the interpretation of that pledge, and said in so many words while accepting the interpretation, "That is our intention." I for one refuse to believe at this stage that the Prime Minister has any intention whatever of going back from his pledged word. In that belief, and the belief that if we defeated the Government we should probably put in their place a Government not so sympathetic towards the unemployed as the present Government and the present majority in the House of 199 Commons, if he insists on going to a division, I regret that I shall not be able to support him.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 205.
House adjourned at ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.
|
S5CV0001P0_f06d72aef6799461
| null |
HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS SPEECH.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 45041}
|
Mr. HODGE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention had been called to the evidence of an old age pensioner, given at an inquest on the body of his wife, held before the coroner in Hammersmith, on Tuesday, 21st ultimo, that he did not call in the parish doctor for the reason that such act would have stopped the payment of his old age pension; and if it is his intention to amend the Old Age Pensions Act so as to prevent a similar occurrence?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S reply was as follows:—My attention has not been called to this case. If, however, the facts are as stated, the old age pensioner in question would appear to have acted under a misapprehension, since under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Old Age Pensions Act any medical or surgical assistance (including food or comforts) supplied by or on the recommendation of a medical officer, is not to be considered as poor relief for the purposes of the provision which makes the receipt of poor relief a disqualification under the Act.
Mr. FELL asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for pensions have been received up to date, how many have been granted, how many refused, and how many are still under consideration in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively.
The reply of The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was as follows:—The numbers of claims for pensions granted up to the 31st January last were:— England and Wales 370,657 Scotland 66,123 Ireland 177,182 —— Total 613,962
The numbers of claims still under consideration on the 31st January last were (exclusive of those which were the subject of appeals):—
Statistics of the numbers of claims made up to the 31st January are not available, but the numbers up to the 31st December were:—
Mr. CLAUDE HAY asked the President of the Local Government Board if he would state when the Return as to Municipal Trading, ordered by this House to be prepared, and referred to in the Board's circular letter of the 14th May, 1907, will be published.
The PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD replied: There have been considerable difficulties in connection with the preparation and printing of this elaborate return. It is now proposed to issue it in local parts; and it is hoped that the issue of the first part may take place at an early date.
|
S5CV0001P0_41453fc64631a725
| null |
QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN WRITING.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 400}
|
Mr. HODGE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention had been called to the evidence of an old age pensioner, given at an inquest on the body of his wife, held before the coroner in Hammersmith, on Tuesday, 21st ultimo, that he did not call in the parish doctor for the reason that such act would have stopped the payment of his old age pension; and if it is his intention to amend the Old Age Pensions Act so as to prevent a similar occurrence?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S reply was as follows:—My attention has not been called to this case. If, however, the facts are as stated, the old age pensioner in question would appear to have acted under a misapprehension, since under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Old Age Pensions Act any medical or surgical assistance (including food or comforts) supplied by or on the recommendation of a medical officer, is not to be considered as poor relief for the purposes of the provision which makes the receipt of poor relief a disqualification under the Act.
|
S5CV0001P0_9d6f122d3cd20cbd
| null |
Pensions and Medical Relief.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 182}
|
Mr. FELL asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for pensions have been received up to date, how many have been granted, how many refused, and how many are still under consideration in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively.
The reply of The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was as follows:—The numbers of claims for pensions granted up to the 31st January last were:— England and Wales 370,657 Scotland 66,123 Ireland 177,182 —— Total 613,962
The numbers of claims still under consideration on the 31st January last were (exclusive of those which were the subject of appeals):—
Statistics of the numbers of claims made up to the 31st January are not available, but the numbers up to the 31st December were:—
|
S5CV0001P0_0aced6cfb2af70ad
| null |
Claims for Old Age Pensions.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 121}
|
Mr. CLAUDE HAY asked the President of the Local Government Board if he would state when the Return as to Municipal Trading, ordered by this House to be prepared, and referred to in the Board's circular letter of the 14th May, 1907, will be published.
The PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD replied: There have been considerable difficulties in connection with the preparation and printing of this elaborate return. It is now proposed to issue it in local parts; and it is hoped that the issue of the first part may take place at an early date.
|
S5CV0001P0_35312915003ed44d
| null |
Municipal Trading.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 97}
|
Mr. ELLIS moved: That the Committee on Standing Orders do consist of Thirteen Members: That Sir John Brunner, Sir Frederick Cawley, Mr. Ellis, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Jenkins, Sir Joseph Leese, Colonel Long, Mr. Mildmay, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Stuart, Mr. David Alfred Thomas, and Mr. Eugene Wason be Members of the Committee.
Motion agreed to.
|
S5CV0001P0_904b5321c1f8ad35
| null |
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 59}
|
Sir BRAMPTON GURDON moved: That Mr. Abraham (North East Cork), Sir James Dalziel, Mr. George Denison Faber, Mr. Fenwick, Sir Brampton Gurdon, Sir Joseph Leese, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Pirie, Mr. George Roberts, and Sir Herbert Roberts be Members of the Committee of Selection.
Motion agreed to
|
S5CV0001P0_53c612f9c446163d
| null |
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 48}
|
Mr. BUTCHER presented a petition from the Trustees of the British Museum for a grant in aid.
(King's Recommendation signified.) To lie upon the Table.
|
S5CV0001P0_8f885a1bd46bb5b8
| null |
BRITISH MUSEUM.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 25}
|
For the Hawick District of Burghs, in the room of the Right Hon. Thomas Shaw, who had accepted the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.—[ Mr. Joseph Pease .]
|
S5CV0001P0_7762d37be96417ea
| null |
NEW WRIT.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 30}
|
Mr. LONSDALE: I beg to move for a Return showing, respectively, for each month of 1908 the number of cattle drives, of cases of firing into houses and at persons, of boycotting (complete and partial), of prosecutions for foregoing Offences, of results of prosecutions, of claims for 204 malicious injuries, amount of awards, number of appeals against awards, etc., in the same form as Parliamentary Paper, No. 289, of Session 1908.
Motion agreed to.
|
S5CV0001P0_80cd32595a844885
| null |
0FFENCES (IRELAND).
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 74}
|
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE: The accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1909 be laid before the House.
Motion agreed to.
|
S5CV0001P0_1501dd9256e23414
| null |
TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 33}
|
Mr. DILLON : I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now lay upon the Table of the House papers on the affairs of Persia?
The SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey) : I have hitherto been reluctant to publish papers, for reasons which I gave in answer to Questions last autumn. But, in view of the course of events in Persia, it is due to Parliament to make public what information we can. I think it is also due to the Government that the line we have taken should be known as fully as possible.
I have, therefore, had papers put together for publication, and propose to publish a Blue-Book, I hope, before the end of next month.
Mr. DILLON : I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Memorandum on the affairs of Persia, recently handed by the Russian Government to the British Government, and the reply of the British Government?
The SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS : I cannot make public documents coming from foreign Powers unless I know that they are willing that they should be published. But if the honourable Member will put an unstarred Question on the paper I will circulate in Answer to it the views which His Majesty's Government have expressed to the Russian Government, though there is little that I can add to what was said on Tuesday by the Prime Minister.
|
S5CV0001P0_90a28eaf6bd4432e
| null |
Affairs of Persia.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 248}
|
Mr. JOHN ROBERTSON : I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the increasing frequency of crimes of brigandage in Egypt, notably in the Markaz of Quesna, and the recognized inability 205 of the police to protect the inhabitants, he will now take into consideration the expediency of a thorough inquiry into the Egyptian system of police and the causes of the multiplication of crime?
The SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS : Sir Eldon Gorst is dealing with this subject in his annual Report for 1908, which may be expected shortly, and I propose to await its receipt before considering the question of making any further communication to him on the subject. This subject has been closely engaging the attention of the Egyptian Government.
|
S5CV0001P0_7929bcfa56f28446
| null |
Egyptian System of Police.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 127}
|
Mr. JOHN ROBERTSON : I beg to ask the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to charges brought against the majority of the lotteries in Cairo as now conducted, and to the official admission of the Egyptian Parquet that abuses are general in the administration of lotteries; and whether he will advise the British Agent at Cairo to recommend to the Egyptian Government efficient measures for the prevention of such abuses in future.
The SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS : My attention has not been called to this question before. With regard to the second part of the honourable Member's Question, I will ask His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General to furnish me with a report on the matter.
|
S5CV0001P0_1eb2f0d5911b3475
| null |
Lotteries in Cairo.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 121}
|
Sir C. DILKE : I beg to ask the Secretary of State whether he can inform the House at what date he expects to receive the reply of the Belgian Government on his Memorandum of 4th November, already put in hand on the 16th November, as stated in the despatch from the Belgian Minister, laid before Parliament in that month; and whether he can state the measures taken towards carrying out his promise of 1st December to provide a steamer on the Upper Congo to assist His Majesty's Consular officers in their official tours.
The SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS : With regard to the first part of this Question, I have received no official intimation from the Belgian Government as to when I may expect to receive their reply to my Memorandum of November 4th beyond the information conveyed in the Note from the Belgian Minister, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but I gather that it may 206 be expected early next month. As regards the second part of the Question, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have consented in principle to the expenditure necessary for the construction and upkeep of a steamer on the Upper Congo, and I am now in communication with His Majesty's Consul at Boma in regard to the details.
|
S5CV0001P0_12e2d57cf1896a41
| null |
The Upper Congo.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 216}
|
Mr. GEO. GOOCH : I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give to the House the latest information in reference to the Somali Mullah
The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel SEELY) : My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The latest information is that two messengers have come to the Commissioner of Somaliland from the Mullah with open letters offering to return the camels looted from our tribes on conditions which it would be impossible to accept. The Commissioner has replied to the effect that, apart from the impossibility of accepting the conditions now offered as a basis for discussion, the Mullah's conduct has been so inconsistent with his professions of peace that his present proposals for a settlement cannot be seriously considered without some earnest of his bonâ fides , and that this can best be given by returning the camels and by withdrawing his riflemen from the Warsangli country and from the British Protectorate generally. The Commissioner states that it is very doubtful whether the Mullah has either the intention or the power to return the camels and that everything tends to show that the letters were sent merely with the object of gaining time.
It is reported by His Majesty's ship on the Warsangli coast that 200 riflemen suddenly appeared and made a hostile demonstration at Las Korai, and that, as they finally prepared to attack the village, it was necessary to disperse them with shell fire. It is believed that the majority of the party were Warsangli from the in terior, assisted by a few Dervishes, and that the object of the demonstration was to overawe their fellow tribes on the coast, who have now shown a disposition to live at peace with the neighbouring tribes.
Mr. ASHLEY : Is there any intention of sending an expedition into the interior?
Colonel SEELY : No, sir; there is no intention of sending an expedition.
Mr. DILLON : Have the Government ever succeeded in discovering whether the Mullah is not actually a European?
Colonel SEELY : We have no information as to the descent of the Mullan; we only know his present position.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG : Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these cattle were driven?
Colonel SEELY : They were not, driven; they were taken away, and we hope to get them back.
|
S5CV0001P0_b9fe86ca51b3eee9
| null |
The Somali Mullah.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 401}
|
Captain CRAIG : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of persons boycotted in Ireland at the present date.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell) : On the 31st January last there were 47 cases of serious boycotting—namely, 37 cases described as wholly boycotted, and 10 as partially boycotted. On the same date there were 176 cases of minor boycotting.
Mr. KENNEDY : Are not many of these people Catholics? And, have not several of the most prominent of the constituents of the hon. and gallant Member advocated conduct of this kind?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : Oh, no.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : In what counties are these people boycotted; be cause I do not know of anybody boy cotted?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : Tipperary.
Captain CRAIG : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not a single case of boycotting in my constituency?
|
S5CV0001P0_b439a71b3f15c9ed
| null |
Boycotting in Ireland.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 161}
|
Captain CRAIG : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary if he can state how many persons are at present under police protection, wholly and partially respectively, in Ireland at the present date.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : On the 31st January last 71 persons were receving constant police protection and 264 were being protected by occasional patrols.
|
S5CV0001P0_1809643ae2d62cbf
| null |
Persons under Police Protection in Ireland.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 59}
|
Captain CRAIG : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether he can state the number of outrages in which firearms were used in Ireland during the recent recess; how many persons were made amenable 208 to the law in connection with the outrages; and what sentences were imposed.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : Nineteen cases of the kind referred to in the Question have occurred during the Recess. Eleven persons have been made amenable. Six of these have been returned for trial at Assizes, and five are awaiting proceedings at Petty Sessions.
|
S5CV0001P0_4950433472ff8e4e
| null |
The use of Firearms in Ireland.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 94}
|
Captain CRAIG : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary if he can state the number of cattle-drives which took place in Ireland during the recent recess, the number of arrests in consequence, and sentences imposed.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : Fifty-five cattle-drives took place during the recess. One hundred persons were arrested in connection with these drives, of whom 14 were discharged, the remaining 86 being ordered to give bail. Sixty-nine of these persons failed to give bail and were sent to prison in default.
Captain CRAIG : May I ask whether anyone was sent to prison?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : No, Sir, they were sent to prison for the offence of unlawful assembly.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG : Why were they not prosecuted for the offence of cattle driving?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will give me the form of the prosecution.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG : In view of the fact that it is not my duty to instruct the Members of the Government—
Mr. SPEAKER : Order, order. Speeches cannot be made at question time.
|
S5CV0001P0_9a848245ab3b1808
| null |
Cattle-Drives in Ireland.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 187}
|
Captain CRAIG : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a van driver belonging to the Ballybane Dairy, while on his way home from Galway, was attacked by three men in disguise, knocked down and his pockets rifled, and was stabbed with a knife by one of his assailants, receiving an ugly wound in the chest, about the 8th December last; and what arrests have been made and what sentences imposed?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The van driver referred to reported to the police that he was attacked as stated in the Question. The case is still under investigation.
Captain CRAIG : Seeing that this case occurred so far back as December last, would it not be possible to expedite this matter somewhat?
|
S5CV0001P0_b15fe0229d068095
| null |
Van Driver assaulted in Galway.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 130}
|
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say when were negotiations entered into between the Estates Commissioners and Mrs. Shelton for the purchase of the untenanted lands at Beaufort, Coolanoran, in the county of Limerick; has an agreement yet been arrived at for the purchase of these lands; if so, what is the date of it; how are the lands worked at the present time; have they been let for grazing, and, if so, to whom and for what time; and when do the Estates Commissioners intend to parcel them out amongst the evicted tenants and labourers in the locality?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The Estates Commissioners inform me that the vendor in this case accepted their preliminary estimate of price on the 19th March last. Formal proceedings for sale were subsequently instituted, and the case was referred to one of the Commissioners' inspectors in August last to prepare a scheme for the distribution of the lands. The Commissioners being unable to take over the lands by the let instant, notwithstanding that the vendor is anxious for them to do so, have informed the vendor that she is at liberty to let the lands temporarily till November next, when they hope to complete their arrangements for taking over the lands.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : Will the Estates Commissioners not take over the land until November next?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : They do not think they will have any chance of completing the arrangements until then.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have agreed to purchase the untenanted lands on the Drew estate, situate at Ballygran, near Charleville, in the county of Limerick, from which Michael Hartnett and Mrs. Carey were evicted, and whether the inspector of the Commissioners promised them that they would be reinstated a year ago; and when will they be put hack in their holdings?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The Estates Commissioners have not purchased these lands, but are having them inspected with a view to estimating 210 a price. If the lands are acquired, the applications of Hartnett and Mrs. Carey will be considered in connection with their allotment, but the Commissioners have not made or authorised any such promise as is mentioned in the Question.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : Would not the Estates Commissioners put the Compulsory Clauses of the Evicted Tenants Act into operation in this case, as these people have been out of their holding for a considerable time?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : I do not think that would be any quicker process. They are inspecting these lands with a view to offering a price.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say whether the untenanted lands at Cappananty, near Bruree, in the county of Limerick, have yet been purchased by the Estates Commissioners from Captain Lyons; and, if so, when may they be divided amongst the evicted tenants and other suitable persons in the locality.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : These lands have not yet been acquired by the Estates Commissioners, but proceedings for their purchase are pending under the Evicted Tenants Act.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have yet purchased the untenanted lands at Barnalick, near Adare, in the county of Limerick, on the Dickson estate; and, if so, what steps have they taken to apportion them amongst the evicted tenants in the locality.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The Estates Commissioners are now preparing their formal offer for the purchase of this estate. Should it be accepted, a scheme for the distribution of the lands will be prepared.
|
S5CV0001P0_1ce6485386edf3d3
| null |
Untenanted Land in County Limerick.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 641}
|
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he can say what action the Estates Commissioners have taken to restore the Dunworth family in the farm at Garryfine, Bruree, in the county of Limerick, from which they were evicted; and what is the cause of delay in this case.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The Estates Commissioners inform me that the holding formerly occupied by the Dunworth family is in the occupation of another tenant. The Commissioners proposed to allot another farm to the Dun-worths, but the offer was refused.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dunworth family have stated to the Commissioners that they will not take any other farm except this one?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : That is what I hear.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : Would the right hon. Gentleman put before the Estates Commissioners the necessity of trying to settle with the tenants at present in occupation?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : I am sure the Commissioners have done their best. They find the farm the Dunworths want in the occupation of other tenants. They offer the Dunworths another farm, and they refuse to take it.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY : Is it not a fact that the agent has this farm, and expresses his willingness to give it up if he gets untenanted land, and that the only obstacle in the way is that an emergency man has a small part of this farm?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : Well, the Estates Commissioners give me this information which I give to the House.
|
S5CV0001P0_bc3eba851875c9f3
| null |
The Dunworth Evicted Tenants.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 269}
|
Mr. M'KEAN : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the circumstances under which a town clerk has been recently elected in Kingstown, county Dublin; if he will exercise his powers as President of the Local Government Board to have the election annulled; has the acting town clerk, Mr. D. F. Condon, B.L., been in the service of the council for nearly seven years, during which period he was engaged in transacting its most difficult and important work; has he any official reports showing that he discharged this work most efficiently and to the complete satisfaction of every section and every member of the council; did Mr. Condon undertake to perform the duties of the town clerk in addition to his own for his present salary; is he aware that one member of the council who voted for the newly-appointed town clerk admits that it was a party appointment; and whether, under all these circumstances, he will take such steps as may be necessary, whether by introducing a Bill into Parliament or otherwise, to protect ratepayers in Ireland against admittedly unnecessary and unjust expenditure?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the 212 recent election of a Town Clerk to the Kingstown Urban District Council, but the powers of the Board would not enable them to annul the election even though it were shown that the Council had not selected the best qualified candidate. Mr. Condon has discharged the duties of accountant to the Council in a satisfactory manner for nearly seven years, and was prepared to undertake the duties of Town Clerk in addition to his present work without an increase of salary. The Local Government Board have no record of the alleged admission that the appointment of another person as Town Clerk was made for party purposes. I see no reason for depriving urban councils of their discretion in regard to the selection of their officers.
Mr. McKEAN : Is it not a fact that this was an unnecessary appointment, involving unnecessary expense to the ratepayers, and is not that a reason for some authority interfering?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRE LAND : No, Sir. If the Local Government Board were to deal with considerations of that kind they would usurp the whole functions of the Council.
Mr. McKEAN : May I venture to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. SPEAKER : Order, order. The hon. Member is entitled to ask questions but not to make suggestions.
|
S5CV0001P0_1138fd986384ee84
| null |
Kingstown (co. Dublin) Town Clerk.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 431}
|
Mr. LONSDALE : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the number of purchase agreements, under the Land Act, 1903, lodged with the Estates Commissioners since the 30th November last.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The number of purchase agreements in direct sales lodged with the Estates Commissioners from 30th November, 1908, to 13th February, 1909, was 2,262.
Mr. LONSDALE : Were these under the Act of 1903?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : Yes.
|
S5CV0001P0_e889aaa2797bb6ff
| null |
Land Purchase Agreements.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 82}
|
Mr. LONSDALE : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has recommended that a grant should be made from the Royal Bounty Fund or other source to the victims of the Craughwell outrage on the 22nd January or to the relatives of the murdered constable?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The Irish Government have recommended that a compassionate allowance be made to the relatives of the murdered constable.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : What is the amount?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : I say the Irish Government have recommended a grant. No grant has yet been made.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : May I ask what the amount the Irish Government has recommended the grant should be?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : I do not think that any particular sum was mentioned. We simply put the whole case forward very strongly.
|
S5CV0001P0_501c329c6fcd5045
| null |
The Craughwell Outrage.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 146}
|
Mr. LONSDALE : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will now state what has been the result of the warning given to certain newspapers in October last against the continued publication of intimidatory resolutions of United Irish League branches?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The warnings referred to have had satisfactory results, and since they were given very few cases have occurred in which intimidatory resolutions mentioning individuals by name have been published in the newspapers warned.
|
S5CV0001P0_ce91f443089ae479
| null |
Intimidatory Resolutions in Irish Newspapers.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 83}
|
Mr. LONSDALE : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary receive any special training in the handling of revolvers; at what intervals are they practised in the use of this weapon; what were the reasons for arming the late Constable Goldrick, when employed on the duty which led to his murder, with a revolver instead of a double shot-gun; and whether the police detailed for protection or special duty in Craughwell and other notoriously disturbed districts are now armed with the latter class of weapon?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that every recruit before leaving the depot goes through a complete course of instruction and practice in the use of the revolver. The knowledge so acquired is kept up by frequent instruction in the country, and arrangements are being made for the firing of a certain number of rounds annually by every member of the force. The reason why Constable Goldrick was armed with a 214 revolver only on the occasion of his murder was that one of the men under protection had asked that the carrying of guns by the police in charge of him might be discontinued as unnecessary and tending to attract attention. The sergeant in charge of Craughwell Barracks believed that it was safe to accede to this request owing to the absence of any sign of hostility, the public place where the men were working, its proximity to the police barrack, and the fact that the work was being carried out in broad daylight. In all cases in which the police are engaged on protection or special duty in any disturbed district in the East Riding of Galway one man is now armed with a double-barrelled shot-gun while his companion carries a Lee-Metford carbine, both weapons being loaded.
Captain CRAIG : May I ask whether up to the present the police in Ireland have had only what is called "snap drill" with the revolver, and have not been firing out of them at all?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question I will get the information from the Inspector-General.
|
S5CV0001P0_0f720b90e6a063d3
| null |
Rozal Irish Constabulary and Revolver Practice.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 374}
|
Mr. LONSDALE : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the action of the magistrates who adjudicated at the hearing of the summonses charging 21 members of the United Irish League with intimidation designed to compel Protestant farmers in the Riverstown district to become members of the League; whether it has been brought to his knowledge by the police and Crown officials Present at the hearing at Ballymote Petty Sessions on the 12th November last that the bench on that occasion was almost exclusively composed of justices known to be members of the League, and that without hearing any evidence for the prosecution a majority of the justices adjourned the cases for three months whether he is aware that on the adjourned hearing on 3rd February the bench by a majority refused informations, although the charges against the accused were sustained by evidence and there was no evidence called for the defence; whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to the action of the magistrates in question; what further action is to be taken to assert the supremacy of the law in these cases; and what was the conclusion at which the Attorney-General stated he had arrived on the 14th December?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : My attention has been called to the action of the magistrates in this case. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, having read the depositions, is of opinion that the refusal of the magistrates to send forward the case for trial was not justified by the evidence, and he has accordingly directed that a bill should be sent up to the Grand Jury at the approaching Spring Assizes for the County of Sligo against the accused persons with one or two exceptions. The case was, as stated, adjourned by the magistrates from the 12th November to the 3rd February. I have no knowledge as to whether any of the magistrates who sat on either of the dates were members of the United Irish League or not. The conclusion at which the Attorney-General arrived on the 14th December last was to continue the prosecution at the adjourned hearing on the 3rd February, unless circumstances should subsequently arise rendering that course inexpedient in the interests of justice. The attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to the case, but he informs me that he has no power to interfere with the action of magistrates who have heard a case and come to a decision.
|
S5CV0001P0_b14d9f8ed483fb95
| null |
Irish Magistrates' Action.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 421}
|
Mr. LONSDALE : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the number of cattle drives reported to the police during the year 1908; the total number reported to the 31st January, 1909; and the total number of cases in which prosecutions were instituted by the police against persons concerned in cattle-driving?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : There were 681 cattle drives in 1908. Proceedings were instituted in respect of 102 of these. In some cases, however, the same persons were concerned in more than one cattle drive on the same occasion, and such cases, therefore, formed the subject of a single proceeding. The number of separate cases of proceedings was 84. In all 1,091 cattle drives have taken place up to the 31st January, 1909, and proceedings have been taken in 187 cases.
Mr. ASHLEY : How many persons were imprisoned for these cattle drives?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : I cannot say without notice.
Mr. ASHLEY : Was anyone imprisoned at all?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : Yes, certainly.
Mr. LONSDALE : Did nearly four hundred take place during the month of January?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : I did not say so. I cannot give the number for January.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG : Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why such a small proportion as 102 out of 681 have only been proceeded against?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The police tell us that out of all these cattle drives not more than 100, in their judgment—and they know more about it than anyone else—fall within the category of organised assemblies. The vast majority are where isolated individuals open a gate, pull down a gate or wall passing by; it is done secretly—very often after nightfall; there is no possibility of obtaining evidence, and no proceedings could be taken by any Government under Heaven against them.
Mr. LONSDALE : Where are the police?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of the counties in which these proceedings take place. I cannot have the police at every gate and every stone wall.
Mr. LONSDALE : Are not these cattle drives effected by one or two persons?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : That is what the police think. Where they are done by organised assemblies and large numbers it comes to their notice.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG : Are the police properly backed up by the Government when they do discover them?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : Yes, sir; and they know it.
|
S5CV0001P0_52e923001f40f9b7
| null |
Cattle Drives in 1908.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 430}
|
Mr. LONSDALE : I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, having regard to the increase in the number of shooting outrages, he intends to introduce, during this Session, legislation to empower the executive to impose restrictions upon the sale and the possession of firearms?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND : The Government have no present intention of introducing during the present Session legislation of the character indicated in the Question.
|
S5CV0001P0_dbffe1410e4165fc
| null |
Shooting Outrages in Ireland.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 73}
|
Mr. REES : I beg to ask whether the Under Secretary of State for India can state when the East India Reform Bill will be brought before the House?
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Buchanan) : The Bill was introduced in the House of Lords and read a first time yesterday, and we are anxious that its progress in Parliament should be expedited as much as possible.
|
S5CV0001P0_a2692e96e73929e7
| null |
East Indian Reform Bill.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 69}
|
Mr. REES : I beg to ask whether the Government proposes to take any steps to stay the publication in England of anarchical journals inciting British-Indian subjects to rebellion and assassination?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : The Government are well aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, and have them under attentive consideration.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : Do the Government propose to do anything?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : It is under their consideration.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to communicate to the House, and when the result of the consideration will be known?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : No, Sir; I could not.
|
S5CV0001P0_4522e7fc5148709f
| null |
Anarchical Journals.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 117}
|
Mr. REES : I beg to ask whether the perpetrator of the murder of the attendant of the saloon carriage of the Commander-in-Chief in India last January has yet been apprehended?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : The Secretary of State has no information on this subject beyond what has appeared in the newspapers. A servant is reported to have been arrested on suspicion.
|
S5CV0001P0_0adb210abcc2dd1c
| null |
An Indian Murder.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 63}
|
Mr. REES : I beg to ask whether it is finally decided to absorb the Indian collection at South Kensington into the Victoria and Albert Museum, and to distribute its material among the various sections of the latter institution?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : The Secretary of State has made representations to the President of the Board of Education, who now has the matter under his consideration.
Mr. REES : Is the question an open one?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : That question had better be addressed to the President of the Board of Education. So far as we are concerned it is.
Lord BALCARRES : Is not this matter wholly within the discretion of the India, Office?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : I should not like to answer that without notice.
Lord BALCARRES : Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether it is not the case that the objects in this collection belong to the Indian Department?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : They did belong.
Lord BALCARRES : The question is do they belong?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : No, they did belong.
|
S5CV0001P0_f271c0e17f2de01f
| null |
Indian Collection at South Kensington.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 186}
|
Mr. REES : I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information as to what punishment was inflicted upon the native driver who assaulted an English lady traveller upon the Tonga Road to Srinaggar last December?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : The Secretary of State has received no information on the subject.
|
S5CV0001P0_a193845237b2184a
| null |
An Indian Assault Case.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 61}
|
Mr. REES : I beg to ask whether Chirdomiburum Pilla, who was convicted of sedition in connection with the Tinnevelly riots, and announced his intention of lending the steamers of his Svadeshi Company for the deportation of the English from India, has recently given evidence in connection with the outbreak in the gaol in which he is incarcerated at Coimbatore, to the effect that owing to the lack of sufficient European supervision, and to the influence native subordinates have over the European supervisor of the gaol, he and his brother prisoners are systematically bullied and brutally ill-treated; and whether, if the answer be in the affirmative, any information can be given to the House regarding the outbreak in the Coimbatore Gaol and the treatment of prisoners therein?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : The Secretary of State has seen the report in the newspapers on which the Question is no doubt based. He has no official information on the subject.
Mr. REES : May I ask if the Government intend to take any steps to protect this patriot from his fellow-countrymen?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : I do not agree that the Government have taken no steps. We have seen statements to the effect contained in the question in the newspapers, and we have no reason to believe they are incorrect, and I rather gather that the Gentleman has received considerable satisfaction as the result of his enquiry.
|
S5CV0001P0_422c314941f00de1
| null |
Indian Gaol Supervision.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 237}
|
Mr REES : I beg to ask whether an appeal has been presented against the judgment of a majority of judges of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Mr. Clark, magistrate of Mymensingh, whose appeal against the fine imposed upon him in a civil action for trespass in searching a remindar's chutcherry was dismissed by a judgment from which one of the three learned judges concerned dissented?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA : No appeal to the Privy Council has so far been preferred in this case. The High Court's judgment was delivered only on the 12th January last.
|
S5CV0001P0_e91656a690ed101b
| null |
An Indian Magistrate's Case.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 101}
|
Mr. EVELYN CECIL : I beg to ask whether, owing to unrest in Somaliland, the 2nd Battalion of the King's African Rifles in Nyassaland were ordered to Somaliland last December; whether they were conveyed up the coast in the German mail steamer, the "Prinzessin," in consequence of there being no suitable British line of steamers communicating between the British East African Colonies; whether the landing of these troops at Berbera so delayed the German mails that His Majesty's Government have to pay the fine levied for exceeding the mail contract time, as well as demurrage for calling at a port not on the ship's course, and, if so, what is the amount of these penalties; and whether, in consequence of such disadvantages, His Majesty's Government are pressing forward the negotiations for assisting to maintain a direct British steampship line to East Africa adequate to the needs of the Empire?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES : Two companies of the 1st Battalion of the King's African Rifles and one company of reservists were ordered to Somaliland last December, and were conveyed up the coast in the German mail steamer the Prinzessin." 220 In the statement of expenses which has been furnished by the Commissioner of Somaliland no reference is made to the payment of a fine or demurrage. The question of the establishment of a direct British steamship line to East Africa continues to engage the attention of the Government, and I am not, therefore, in a position to answer that part of the hon. Gentleman's Question.
Sir GILBERT PARKER : May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the Government has under consideration the subsidising of a line of steamships on the East African Coast or elsewhere in East Africa?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES : That is just the question.
|
S5CV0001P0_936dbcf2f7350e82
| null |
The Unrest in Somaliland.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 300}
|
Mr. ESSEX : May I ask the President of the Board of Education whether a scheme has been decided upon for the use of the trust funds of Northleach (Glos.) Grammar School in educational work in that town and its neighbourhood; and, if not, how do the affairs of the trust now stand?
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman) : I stated in reply to a similar Question on 27th October last that the Board had addressed a letter to the Local Education Authority with regard to the prospects of a Higher Elementary School, in the event of the endowment being utilised for the establishment of such a school. On 3rd February the Authority replied that they were unable at the present time to furnish the Board with the information asked for. The Board have not, therefore, at present sufficient material upon which to prepare a scheme.
|
S5CV0001P0_aa6df704ed27e364
| null |
Northleach Grammar School.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 150}
|
Mr. MORRELL : I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any case has yet occurred in which the Small Holdings Commissioners have reported to the Board of Agriculture, under the Act, that there is a demand for small holdings, and that it is desirable that a scheme should be made; and, if so, in what counties?
Sir EDWARD STRACHEY : No such report has as yet been made, but the Commissioners are in constant communication with the various County Councils, and have, whenever they thought fit, put pressure on them to prepare schemes with the least possible delay. They will, of course, take any further action that may be necessary to put the Act into effective 221 operation by preparing draft schemes or otherwise.
Mr. MORRELL : Is it not the duty of the Commissioners as soon as they ascertain that a demand exists and is not satisfied to report it to the Board of Agriculture?
Sir EDWARD STRACHEY : The Commissioners have always carried out their duties.
Mr. NEWNES : I beg to ask what are the latest figures as to the number of acres applied for and acquired under the Small Holdings Act, 1907, the value of the land so acquired, and the number of applicants and the number of applications acceded to?
Sir EDWARD STRACHEY : About 13,000 applications have been made for about 175,000 acres. The acreage of land already acquired is over 22,000 acres, of which 13,000 acres have been purchased at a cost of £422,000. It is not possible to give the number of applicants for whom land has been provided, as in many cases the land has only recently been acquired, and it has not yet been finally sub-divided and allotted.
|
S5CV0001P0_8b53fb137fff0352
| null |
Small Holdings Act.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 301}
|
Mr. THORNE : I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. J. W. Thompson, Local Government Board inspector, recently told the Lewes Guardians that their resolution that the Board should consider whether any recipient of out-door relief who is over 70 years of age, who is infirm, and who is not receiving more than 3s. 6d. a week in relief, shall have that relief increased to 5s. per week was in spirit, at any rate, in conflict with the Old Age Pensions Act; will he say whether the Local Government Board concurred in that opinion; if the Local Government Board did so concur, will the President point out the section or sections of the Act upon which the Local Government Board grounded their opinion; and, if they did not concur, will the Board inform Mr. Thompson and the Lewes Guardians that they do not concur in it?
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns) : I have not had an opportunity of ascertaining the precise point which the inspector had in view on the occasion referred to, but I may state generally that I do not think that a board of guardians would be justified in increasing the amount of outdoor relief to aged persons up to 5s. 222 a week merely on account of the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act.
Mr. BELLOC : If the Old Age Pensions Act applies to electors of the middle classes, why should it not apply to paupers who have no vote? Does that come in?
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : It would be an injustice to aged paupers who are now receiving outdoor relief that any arbitrary figure such as 5s. should be imposed upon the boards of guardians, as in many cases, I am glad to say, amounts considerably above 5s. a week are given in deserving cases.
Mr. FENWICK : May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any legal restriction existing which debars the guardians from reviewing the amount of the allowance to be given with a view to increasing it?
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : It is within the discretion of the boards of guardians to determine the amount of the grant of outdoor relief to suit the merits and circumstances of each particular case.
|
S5CV0001P0_874cc60fa4b142a0
| null |
Outdoor Relief and Old Age Pensions.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 397}
|
Mr. BRIGHT : I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is able to issue such regulations as to the provision of fire escapes in lodging houses as will render less likely such tragedies as that which recently occurred in Manchester?
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : I am not empowered to issue regulations of the kind suggested in the Question. I have no doubt that the Town Council of Manchester will do all in their power to minimise the risks of such catastrophes as that which has recently occurred, and I am in communication with them on the subject.
|
S5CV0001P0_14a6a07762fdc746
| null |
Lodging Houses and Fire Escapes.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 107}
|
Mr. CLAUDE HAY (for Major Coates) : I beg to ask when the regulations in reference to the granting of licences under the Pharmacy Act, 1908, are to be issued?
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : Regulations under the Act are made by an Order in Council. Notice of the intention to submit to His Majesty in Council the draft of an Order making such regulations was published in the "London Gazette" on the 16th inst., and after the expiration of 40 days from that date the draft of the Order will be submitted to His Majesty in Council accordingly.
|
S5CV0001P0_94d975ea1556eee2
| null |
The Pharmacy Act.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 102}
|
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he accepts the principle that the State and public authorities should compensate employees injured in their service, and the representatives of such employees as have been killed in the course of their service, on the same scale as private employers are under legal obligation to adopt; and, if so, whether he will take steps to give effect to that principle in the case of the widow of Constable Tyler, who was killed while attempting to arrest alien Anarchists at Tottenham?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith) : So far as the State is concerned, the answer to the first part of the Question is that the rights of employees are defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, which applies as a general rule to servants of the Crown in the same manner as to the servants of private employers. Constables, in common with members of the Army and Navy, are excluded from the provisions of this Act, and are dealt with under the Police Act, 1890. As to the latter part of the Question, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will deal with it in a subsequent answer.
Captain CRAIG : I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the amounts respectively granted from the Royal Bounty Fund towards the sufferers injured in the recent Tottenham outrage and to those who were shot down in the performance of their duty at Craughwell?
The PRIME MINISTER : A grant of £100 will be made from the Royal Bounty Fund in aid of the sufferers from the Tottenham outrage. Representations are, I understand, about to be made to the Treasury by the Irish Government with regard to the other case referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and when they are received careful consideration will be given them.
Captain CRAIG : May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the relatives of these two equally brave constables will receive at least the same as those of the constable who was killed in London, and that the families of those killed in Ireland will not be treated in any inferior way?
The PRIME MINISTER : I cannot anticipate the decision which will be come to. All the circumstances will be considered.
Captain CRAIG : I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state if any representatives of Government Departments 224 were requested to attend the funerals of the two policemen who were recently murdered in Tottenham and Craughwell respectively?
The PRIME MINISTER : No, Sir. I am informed that no representatives of Government Departments were requested to attend the funerals of the two policemen mentioned in the question, and that such representatives as were present at the funeral of Police-Constable Tyler attended on their own initiative. In the case of Police-Constable Goldrich the circumstance that the funeral took place in County Mayo on a Sunday, when there was no railway communication with Dublin, and that the decision to hold the funeral on that day was not arrived at till the previous night, made it impossible for any members of the Headquarters Staff to be present. I may add that my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary, had intended to go to the funeral, but he was called to London by urgent public business.
Mr. J. H. M. CAMPBELL : Could the right hon. Gentleman state whether there was any reason why this sudden decision was arrived at on Saturday to have this funeral on a Sunday?
The PRIME MINISTER : I am told it was at the suggestion of the father of the murdered man.
|
S5CV0001P0_fda5ba56bbdaa333
| null |
The Tottenham Outrage
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 613}
|
Mr. BYLES : I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to unofficial suggestions from influential persons in Germany pointing to the possibility of a naval agreement between Germany and Great Britain as to armaments on condition that Britain reduces the speed of her naval construction; and whether the recent visit of His Majesty to Germany encourages the hope that some mutual arrangement of that nature may be entered on between the two Powers?
The PRIME MINISTER : I have not seen the unofficial suggestions referred to, but so far as I am aware the German Government adhere to the view which they have expressed to us that their Naval Programme is fixed to suit their own needs, and will not be influenced by anything that we may do. They are also of opinion that it is natural for us to take what steps we think necessary to protect our own interests. No arrangement, therefore, was come to at Berlin, but I trust the recent visit of his Majesty has made it clear that naval expenditure is not to be regarded as implying any friction whatever between the two countries.
Mr. BYLES : Does the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to understand that there is no competition between the shipbuilding programmes of the two Powers, and that the magnitude of them will not be determined by what is done by the other?
The PRIME MINISTER : I did not wish that to be understood nor anything to be understood except what I have said.
|
S5CV0001P0_6480b3044b0c1cc0
| null |
Germany and Great Britain.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 260}
|
Mr PARTINGTON : I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how much of the £300,000 voted in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, has been distributed in London, England and Wales (excluding London), Scotland, and Ireland?
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : Of the £200,000 already voted by Parliament for contributions in aid of the expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, the sum of £162,000 has been allocated to England and Wales, £28,000 to Scotland, and £6,750 to Ireland. From the amount allocated to England and Wales the sum of £67,371 has been paid to the Central (Unemployed) Body for London, and £80,017 to Distress Committees outside London. The sums allocated to Scotland and Ireland are not distributed by me, and I have no information as to their distribution.
Mr. JOHN J. MOONEY : May I ask if it is not the fact that the amount expended in Ireland was last year given over to the Irish Local Government Board and expended by them, whereas this year the application has to be made to the English Local Government Board, and they allocate the funds? May I further ask whether it is not the fact that the amount allocated to Ireland this year is £5,000 less than the amount allocated last year, and whether that reduction was made on the advice of the President of the Local Government Board, or upon whose advice?
Mr. BURNS : No, Sir; my hon. Friend is misinformed. The Treasury allocate the amount to be spent, not the Local Government Board for England and Wales. The allocation of the money after the Treasury has sanctioned the sum rests with the Local Government Board in England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland respectively.
Mr. MOONEY : Is it not a fact that in the year 1905 £11,000 was given to the Irish Local Government Board to distribute, and this year they had no say in 226 the question of allocation, and that there has been a change in the procedure from last year?
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : No, there has been no change for the last three years. In 1905 it was the Queen's Unemployed Fund, and the method of distribution was somewhat different, being a voluntary fund, from that under the Unemployed Workmen's Act.
Mr. MOONEY : The statement I am making now was made on the authority of the President of the Irish Local Government Board.
Mr. BRACE : May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the amount allocated to Wales only?
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : The amount allocated to Wales is rather small, and I should be pleased to know that they were in a condition not to receive any more.
|
S5CV0001P0_c9887b5da5539685
| null |
Unemployed Workmen Act.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 467}
|
Mr. ESSEX : I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether any examination is made at the port of entry in the United Kingdom of carcasses of Continental-killed Argentine-grown mutton.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD : Continental-killed mutton, like other imported meat, is now subject to inspection at the port of entry under the Foreign Meat Regulations which have recently come into force.
|
S5CV0001P0_dca42da0fd6ff1b4
| null |
Examination of Imported Meat.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 69}
|
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the pension to which the widow of Constable Tyler is entitled as the widow of a constable killed in the execution of his duty is £15 a year only; whether the fund raised to make further provision for her had the advantage of official sanction and encouragement; and, if so, whether such sanction and encouragement were given on account of the pension being insufficient to meet the just requirements of the case or to remove the burden of making further provision from public moneys and throw it upon private contributors.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone) : The maximum pension allowable under the Police Act, 1890, to the widow of a constable killed in the execution of his duty is £15 a year, an additional allowance at the rate of £2 10s. a year being authorised 227 for each child under 15 years of age. Official encouragement was given to the fund which was being raised for the benefit of the widow of Police Constable Tyler, because it was considered desirable that an opportunity should be afforded for the expression of public appreciation and sympathy in a practical manner.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : I beg to ask how many widows of constables killed in the execution of their duty have received pensions during the last ten years, the amount of pension in each case, and in how many cases a fund raised to make further provision for the widows or other dependants of those constables has had the advantage of official aid and encouragement?
The HOME SECRETARY : During the last 10 years the widows of three Metropolitan Police constables killed in the execution of their duty, and of 14 others who died from the effects of injuries received in the execution of their duty, received pensions of £15 each per annum. So far as I am aware, no public fund was raised in connection with any of these cases.
Mr. PICKERSGILL : I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the pension allowed by the Police Act, 1890, to the widow of a constable who loses his life from the effect of an injury received in the execution of his duty and whether he will favourably consider a proposal to make more adequate provision for the purpose?
The HOME SECRETARY : The Police Act, 1890, enables liberal provision to be made for officers who are injured in the execution of their duty; but it appears to me that the pensions which can be given under that Act to the widows and children of officers who are killed in the execution of their duty are too much restricted. Such cases are happily rare. In the last 10 years only 17 pensions have been granted to widows of men killed on duty or dying from injuries received on duty; but the matter is one which shall receive my consideration.
|
S5CV0001P0_1c63c760fb7cc848
| null |
Murdered Constable's Pension.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 513}
|
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state on what scale compensation will be paid to the parents of the boy killed by alien anarchists at Tottenham, and to the persons injured by those anarchists in their attempt to escape?
The HOME SECRETARY : I have no power to grant compensation from public 228 funds in these cases, but a local subscription, to which a donation of £100 is to be given from the Royal Bounty Fund, has been set on foot for the benefit of the injured persons. I have no evidence before me that these men were anarchists.
|
S5CV0001P0_a5bb1f7cbd462d6a
| null |
The Tottenham Outrage.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 112}
|
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Judge Rentoul, K.C., to the effect that, in the course of a week of this month during which he has been sitting at the Old Bailey, three-fourths of the prisoners tried before him were aliens; whether he will say what number of aliens are now serving sentences in prisons in the United Kingdom; and what the cost of carrying out the sentences on those aliens will be to the British taxpayer?
The HOME SECRETARY : I will answer with this the Question on the same subject addressed by the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary. When I saw a newspaper report of the learned Judge's speech I communicated with him, and he has promised to give me the exact statements which he made and the facts on which they were based. I refrain therefore from dealing with the newspaper report at present. As regards the hon. Member's suggestion for the identification on their arrival in this country of persons banished from other States, I have to say that similar suggestions have been made and considered on many occasions, but have been decided to be quite impracticable. There were 405 convicted aliens in English and Welsh prisons on 31st December last, 28 in Scotch, and one in Irish prisons. It would involve much useless labour to calculate the exact cost of carrying out the sentences in those cases; but it can be calculated as regards 281 of the 405 aliens mentioned above who are in local prisons, that, taking the average annual cost of a prisoner and the average prison sentence, the cost of carrying out these 281 sentences will be about £753.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : May I ask whether the time of the County of London Sessions is not very largely occupied in the trial of aliens?
The HOME SECRETARY : I shall have something to say on that when I get the information from the learned Judge.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : I do not ask as to the Old Bailey. My enquiry relates to Clerkenwell Sessions.
The HOME SECRETARY : The proportion of aliens that comes before the Courts is very small, and at the beginning of this year the proportion in prison was only 2 per cent. of the prison population.
|
S5CV0001P0_0716398e48ddc048
| null |
Criminal Aliens.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 404}
|
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the instruction issued by him to immigration officers in March, 1906, that in all cases in which immigrants coming from the parts of the Continent which are at present in a disturbed condition allege that they are flying from political or religious persecution, the benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists, as to the truth of the allegation will be allowed, and leave to land will be given, what parts of the Continent immigration officers are now enjoined to consider as in a disturbed condition for the purposes of this instruction?
The HOME SECRETARY : No parts of the Continent are, or ever have been, specified for the purpose mentioned. I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave him and other Members of the House on the 14th and 15th March, 1906, on the same point.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers the condition of other countries in 1909 the same as it was in 1906, and will he reconsider the regulations to which I refer in my Question?
The HOME SECRETARY : If a like situation arises the regulations will apply.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : Has the regulation been withdrawn?
Mr. SPEAKER : This is carrying the right of asking Questions too far.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that certain shipping agents on the Continent are now advertising that they undertake to bring alien immigrants into this country without inspection under cover of the non-immigrant ship clause of the Aliens Act, as modified by the Secretary of State's alteration of the original regulations bearing upon that clause, he will lower to five the number of alien immigrants that a vessel may land in the United Kingdom without becoming an immigrant ship?
The HOME SECRETARY : If the hon. Member will furnish me with any specimens of the advertisements to which he refers, they shall certainly have my consideration, but up to the present they have not been brought to my notice.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY : May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken steps to ascertain whether there are any such advertisements?
The HOME SECRETARY : I have made inquiries. The general Question, of coarse, has been under the consideration of the inspector, and I have asked him in general with reference to the hon. Member's Question.
|
S5CV0001P0_43c03680691a4a59
| null |
Admission of Alien Immigrants.
|
{"house": "Commons", "speaker": null, "word_count": 429}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.