RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 6 December 1888)

§ MR. BROOKE ROBINSON (Dudley)
, in rising to move the following Resolution:— That the state of things revealed in the Report of the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade in reference to the present condition of the Nailers and Small Chain Makers in South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire, requires the attention of Parliament at the earliest possible period, said, that under ordinary circumstances, after the assurances given by Her Majesty's Government that this matter was under serious consideration, with a view to bring forward, if possible, ameliorating legislation next Session, he should not have thought it necessary to trouble the House with any observations on this subject, but he now rose more than for any other purpose to afford the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) that opportuity for expressing his views which that hon. Member considered he was deprived of on Friday last. He could not therefore help expressing his surprise that the hon. Member was not now in his place. The hon. Member went down in hot haste by the midnight train to his (Mr. Brooke Robinson's) constituency to denounce him, and to denounce the proceedings in the House, because he was unable to bring the matter forward at his own time, and in his own particular way, but now that the occasion was 1385 offered him he did not take the trouble to come down to the House. If this was the zeal, this the interest the hon. Member displayed in the subject, it did not appear to be very complete. He regretted the more that the hon. Gentleman was not present, because he observed in an evening paper a letter from the hon. Member, from which it appeared that he was under considerable misapprehension as to his facts. He seemed to imagine that the two trades, the nail making and chain making, were not connected the one with the other, whereas the state of things existing in the nail trade had brought about the present condition of things in the chain trade. The nail trade was the larger industry, employing some 15,000 persons, while the chain trade was, comparatively speaking, small, giving work to some 2,000 or 3,000. The nail trade had been destroyed mainly by the introduction of machinery, though to some extent it had been affected by the introduction of nails from abroad, and the result of the destruction of the nail trade now was that every nailer losing work in his own trade had, where he could do so, endeavoured to get into the chain trade, so it resulted that there were more chain makers than there was work for. When there was an excess of supply over demand, then it was quite certain there would be a diminution in price. This state of things, too, had been largely brought about by the course of trading among the Birmingham merchants, who were the principal chain purchasers; they put up every order to trade competition. Another statement there was in a letter from the hon. Member for North-West Lanark, published on Monday, to the effect that women worked with men at the nail and chain trades naked to the waist. Now, it had been his lot to have been, for more years than he cared to recall, among these people, and he could say that he never saw, he could say that no one ever saw, work carried on by women in this condition. The women were wives and daughters of the men engaged in the trade; they had their faults in common with the rest of humanity, but he could say most emphatically they were as modest and as virtuous as any class of women in the Kingdom. As he had risen after the assurance given by the Government, not for the purpose of claiming the attention 1386 of the House at any length, and since the hon. Member for North-West Lanark was not present, he had nothing more to say in support of his Motion. He would be sorry, however, to sit down without expressing his opinion that the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade in preparing his Report had, considering that he had no previous knowledge of the subject, performed his duty in an admirable manner, displaying much knowledge and discretion. He formally moved the Resolution of which he had given Notice, but as to withdrawing or proceeding with it, he was entirely in the hands of the House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
said, he thought as his hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) was not in his place, and as he also had the audacity to visit—

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! Does the hon. Member rise to second the Motion.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, he seconded the Motion. As he had the audacity to visit the hon. Member's constituency on Saturday night, he might perhaps be allowed to say a word in defence of his hon. Friend in his absence. He was not surprised at what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Brooke Robinson) it was quite in keeping with his previous conduct, and just what might have been expected after the manner in which he behaved the other day, and the manner in which he prevented the Motion his hon. Friend gave Notice of coming on. He (Mr. Conybeare) was glad, at any rate, that the action of his hon. Friend had had some effect; it had galvanized into grim activity the hon. Member for Dudley. It was the first time the voice of that hon. Member had been hoard in the House on any subject connected with these poor nail and chain makers in his constituency, although he prided himself on being their Representative. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the people did not pride themselves on their Representative; and it was much to be doubted if they would trouble the hon. Gentleman again to occupy that position. He did not suppose the hon. Member was aware of the reason why his hon. Friend the Member for North 1387 West Lanark was not present. If the hon. Member had been aware that his hon. Friend's absence was caused by the serious illness of Mrs. Cunninghame Graham, he presumed the hon. Member would not have had the brutality to attack his absent Friend. ["Order, order!"]

§ MR. BROOKE ROBINSON
said, he was perfectly unaware of the state of Mrs. Graham's health, or the cause of the hon. Gentleman's absence.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The word "brutality," used as the hon. Member used it, should not be employed in debate, and I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, he was preparing to do so. ["Withdraw!"] He had withdrawn; he obeyed the direction of the Speaker, not the Member who represented a portion of Manchester. He withdrew the expression, and explained that what he meant to imply was that, under the circumstances, if the hon. Member had been aware of them his conduct would have deserved the epithet. But he was glad to have the assurance that the hon. Member was unaware of them, and therefore the expression did not apply. He wished, at any rate, to explain that no other reason kept his hon. Friend from his post of duty. He did not think it was becoming in the hon. Member, after a Question had been put to him earlier in the evening, and considering the few occasions when he made his appearance in the House, to taunt his hon. Friend for not being in his place at an hour when nobody could possibly have supposed that this Motion to which he attached so much importance was likely to come on. The fact was the whole of this proceeding was with the view of plucking a brand from the burning, to save a seat at the next General Election. He understood thoroughly well what these tactics meant, and the people of the country understood also. The people of Cradley Heath understood, and they would understand more before many weeks were over. The hon. Member had chosen to accuse those who had taken some trouble to examine into the condition of these people of ignorance of the conditions under which they laboured? He had the assurance to state that the facts testified to by those who went to the place were not really 1388 facts; but he would suggest to the hon. Member that if he knew no more about the people in his constituency than his speech would indicate, then it was not worth while his getting up to champion their cause. He had told the House that young men and women, lads and girls, did not work together half nude in the hovels or the villages where this work was carried on; but he (Mr. Conybeare) could only say that he preferred to rely on the distinct statement of men of their own class, who had been constantly living and working among the people, and had more information of the state of things than the hon. Member had taken the trouble to acquire. He preferred to rely on the Government Report of Mr. Burnett, who testified to those things, rather than on the statement of the hon. Member.

§ MR. BROOKE ROBINSON
said, Mr. Burnett's Report did not say anything about persons working in a state of nudity.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, No; but Mr. Burnett explained why he did not. He said the reason why he saw nothing of the kind was that it was a cool time of the year. Here was the Report. The hon. Member went on to defend the moral character of those whom he chose to call his constituents from charges which had never been brought against them. Nobody had charged the people with immorality; nobody would have suggested such a thing until it was suggested by the defence the hon. Gentleman made. The hon. Member thought he alone knew anything of these matters; but probably he knew nothing of the statement in the pamphlet published under the name of Mr. Richard Juggins. [Laughter.] Yes, the name was not so aristocratic as that borne by many hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, but it was the name of an honest man, as honest as any man in that House—perhaps more so than some. This gentleman was the General Secretary of the Midland Counties Trades Federation, and his statement was— Here you have youths and young girls working half-naked, side by side, at the forges, their lives paralyzed and debased by their low rate of wages that causes them to herd in styes unfit for pigs. Then, see what he said of the married women— 1389 I have known women to work at the forges within 14 days of their confinement, and hammering away again 14 days afterwards. How would hon. Members like their wives to go through such experience. ["Order, order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must ask the hon. Member to control himself within the ordinary limits of Parliamentary decorum.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
, continuing the quotation, said, it ran— I have known women working at forges at 9 in the morning, and at home, in bed, and confined by 5 in the afternoon. The hon. Gentleman opposite posed in that House as the Representative of these poor people, but yet he had never referred to their case before. He never professed any sympathy with them previously to this, but now he got up in that House with a view to dragging this scandalous state of things before the attention of the country, and, at the same time, he chose to sneer at the hon. Members who had already moved in the matter. The hon. Member had taken up this attitude solely for electioneering purposes. But he need not think he had heard the last of this matter; a great deal more would have to be said about it; and he could only repeat that it was a disgrace to the civilization of this country to allow such a state of things to continue so long. According to Mr. Burnett's Report it had been going on over 40 years. The hon. Member now came down and complacently says, "I have lived all my life among these people;" and, at the same time, he censured the hon. Member who had taken so much trouble to lay the matter before the House. He (Mr. Conybeare) was charged with having had the audacity to go into the constituency. Well, he could only reply that the hon. Member for Dudley's constituents would never rest satisfied until they had eliminated him from that House.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)
I think I never heard a more remarkable speech in seconding a Motion than the one just delivered by the hon. Member for Camborne. A more unfair attack has never been made on an hon. Member of this House. The hon. Member has charged my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Brooke Robinson) with neglecting the interests of his constituents in this matter. Well, I should like to say I am quite sure that the hon. Member who has made that charge, and those who heard it, did not know the facts as to what the hon. Member for Dudley had done. Very early in the present Session my hon. Friend came to me and said he believed that the condition of these people—I may, I think, call them unfortunate people, for the circumstances of their industry are in many respects terrible—was very sad indeed, and he begged I would inquire into it, and that I would instruct the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade to report upon it. Why, my hon. Friend actually initiated the inquiry which has resulted in Mr. Burnett's Report, and without which the hon. Member for Camborne would have known nothing of the subject. Yet, Sir, he now has the audacity to get up in this House and tell the House that he knows all about the subject, and that he was the first to call the attention of the House to it.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
I never said anything of the kind.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
I am speaking within the recollection of the House. He charged the hon. Member behind me with neglecting the interests of his constituents, and with only bringing this matter forward in order to catch votes. I think the House will judge of the fairness of the statements and charges made by the hon. Member. All I have to say upon this subject is this—I am sure that at half-past 2 in the morning even so important a matter as this unquestionably is cannot possibly engage the attention of the House as it deserves. The Government are fully aware of the importance of the subject, and of the necessity of dealing with it if there is any way in which Parliament can deal with it without inflicting on these people greater miseries by the destruction of their industry than those they now suffer from. It will have our earnest attention; and I trust that my [...] 1391 hon. Friend the Home Secretary or myself will be able next Session to make some proposals to the House with regard to it. I hope that my hon. Friend will not deem it necessary to press the Motion, seeing that it is of so vague a character that I do not think it can be usefully placed on record in the Journals of the House.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
said, he was sincerely glad that the expostulations addressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Camborne had really produced some effect, and that, at any rate, he had secured for it consideration from so important a Minister as the President of the Board of Trade.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion?

§ MR. BROOKE ROBINSON
I do, Sir.

§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
I object.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The matter then stands over till to-morrow.

§ THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)
Is it possible for an hon. Member to object after a Motion has been made and debated?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The objection, if taken at any time, is fatal.