ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

HC Deb 24 February 1890 vol 341 cc1068-127

[ADJOURNED DEBATE.]

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [12th February.] —[See page 128.]

Main Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

(7.18.) MR. A. THOMAS (Glamorgan, E.)

Mr. Speaker, the people of Wales are dissatisfied with the condition of their affairs, and I do not think I shall have much difficulty in showing that they have cause for dissatisfaction. Ever since the annexation of Wales to England, it has been the policy of English Governments to Anglicise the Welsh people, and treat the country generally as if it were a corner of England, but after 350 years the people of the Principality are still distinct in race, language, and custom. Out of the 1,700,000 inhabitants of Wales over a million speak only the Welsh language; at the same time, I believe, above half the Welsh people are not capable of understanding conversation in English. Twenty years ago, when the Education Act was passed, I thought it would sound the death-knell of the Welsh language. I have lived to know better, and I say that, thanks to the enlightened policy of the present Vice-President of Education, not only English but Welsh is taught. I can very well remember that some 30 years ago, to use somewhat of a slang phrase, it was not thought by Welsh people in position the "correct thing" to speak in Welsh. Now, if a claim is to be established on popular consideration, one of the readiest ways is to speak in Welsh. The most successful men in the Principality, and the most eloquent, can speak with equal facility the English and Welsh languages. One of my principal reasons for bringing this question before the House is that great difficulty has arisen in the Courts of Justice because of many of the people of Wales not understanding the English language. I have here the Statute of 27th Henry VIII., cap. 36, enacted in 1536. It commences thus:— Albeit the dominion, principality, and country of Wales justly and righteously is, and ever hath been, incorporated, annexed, united, and subject to and under the Imperial crown of this realm, as a very member and joint of the same, whereof the King's most royal Majesty, of mere droite and very right, is very head, King, lord, and ruler; yet, notwithstanding by cause that in the same country, principality, and dominion, divers rights, usages, laws, and customs be far discrepant from the laws and customs of this realm; and also because that the people of the same dominion have and do daily use a speech nothing like consonant to the natural mother tongue used within this realm; some rude and ignorant people have made distinction and diversity between the King's subjects of this realm and his subjects of the said dominion and principality of Wales; whereby great discord, variance, debate, division, murmur, and sedition have grown between his said subjects; his Highness, therefore, of a singular, zeal, love, and fervour that he beareth towards his subjects of his said dominion of Wales, minding and intending to reduce them to the perfect order, notice, and knowledge of the laws of this his realm, and utterly to extirpe all and singular, the sinister nsages, and customs differing from the same, and to bring about an amicable concord and amity between English and Welsh. It was further enacted that only the English language be used in all Courts of Justice, &c, and to interdict the enjoyment of every kind of office throughout the King's dominions to persons using the Welsh tongue on pain of forfeiture unless they adopted the English speech. Of course the latter part of this statute is a dead letter, but as far as concerns the language used in the Courts of Justice it is still the law of the land. Well, Sir, on many occasions we find great difficulties arise. Men are charged with high crimes and they do not know what transpires at their trial because of their inability to understand the English tongue. On the 19th March, 1889, Richard Evans, of Merthyr, was tried on a charge of wilful murder, and he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The prisoner did not know what his sentence was, and, in his ignorance, he turned round in Court and said, "Am I to be hanged?" I will give one more case; it is rather long ago, it is true— the 24th January, 1888. I received a letter from the solicitor who was in the Court at the time. The case lasted for three days. The writer says— I was present at Carmarthen Assize Court on the 24th February, 1888, when David Rees was seutenced to death by Mr. Justice Stephen for the murder of Thomas Davies on the 12th November, 1887. Every one in Court was simply amazed at the apparently indifferent demeanour of the prisoner when the dread sentence was pronounced. He was taken down, and then it was discovered that he had not understood that he was a doomed man. He asked the jailor in Welsh (he was a Welshman and understood scarcely a word of English) what was to be done with him. The jailor replied by asking him if he had not understood what the Judge said, and the prisoner said 'No.' The jailor thereupon hurriedly sent word to the Sheriff, who informed the Judge that the prisoner being a Welshman did not understand he had been sentenced to death. His Lordship at once returned into Court (he was about getting into his carriage, it being about 8.30 at night) and then was witnessed the most painful and heartrending scene it is possible to imagine. The Judge again repeated prisoner's the solemn words which sealed the doom, and they were translated. I have given these two cases, but of course there are many more recurring daily in the smaller Courts. It may be said—"Why do you not have interpreters?" We certainly have interpreters, and some of them work very well. I have a case which has been sent up to me by a friend, and I will give the House the details of it as a further illustration of my point. It seems that a Welsh farmer borrowed a sum of money from a bank on a note-of-hand, the arrangement being that he was to repay the money in three instalments. Well, when the last was paid the bill was passed to the farmer over the counter, and he went out of the bank. Subsequently, when the cashier made up his accounts, being so much short, he concluded that the mistake lay between himself and the farmer, and the latter was arrested. When the trial came off, the farmer was afraid to trust himself in the English language and asked for an interpreter, and now comes the curious part of the incident. The farmer said he paid the money and the bill was passed over the counter to him, but the interpreter translated it "snatched" across the counter. The foreman of the jury, who understood Welsh, objected to the interpretation, saying it was not correct. The case turned on that, and the farmer was acquitted. We are constantly hearing a great deal about interpreters in Wales, and there is much feeling on the point to-day, the present system in many parts of the Principality being strongly complained of. At the meeting of the Montgomeryshire Joint Standing Police Committee, Mr. A. C. Humphreys-Owen called attention to the necessity of securing the attendance of a competent interpreter at Quarter Sessions, and moved the appointment of a Committee to consider and Report on the best means of securing that object. He said everybody must have noticed the difficulty often experienced at Quarter Sessions and Assizes in the matter of interpretation of evidence given in the Welsh language. It was wrong in principle, he continued, that the police, who were more or less always regarded as connected with the prosecution, should be employed for the purpose. It appears that a rev. gentleman, named Ambrose Jones, in a certain case refused to be sworn as a witness unless he could give his evidence in Welsh, and he was threatened with prosecution for contempt of Court for his refusal. And here I would allude to a pronouncement which must have weight with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not say whether the rev. gentleman was right or wrong, but this is how a highly respectable Conservative journal—the North Wales Guardian—commented on the case:— Although much abuse has been heaped upon the head of the Rev. Ambrose Jones, of Ruthl on, nothing more monstrous can be conceived than that magistrates speaking no welsh should have at their disposal the persons and property of Welshman who speak no English. In very many cases heard in Courts in some parts of Wales, the Court is completely at the mercy of the interpreter, and Welshmen ought not to rest content until this shameful scandal is remedied. I submit that this case discloses the existence of that which is nothing short of a national scandal. I hold that it is rank injustice that where three-fourths of the people speak Welsh, the business of the Courts should invariably be transacted in English. I know there are Judges who could hear cases in Welsh if required; indeed, some of them have already done so. It might not be right for me to give names, but I could do so if necessary, and show that when both parties had been n greed, the whole of the proceedings in a case had taken place in Welsh. We certainly ought to have Welsh-speaking Judges. Prisoners have a right to be tried in the language of their country. I would now refer, very shortly, to another aspect of this case, namely, the question of distress for tithes, and I maintain that the mode of distress is oppressive, while the amount of goods distrained upon is frequently greatly in excess of the amount of tithe due. Hon. Members opposite may find it difficult to accept this, but they are in the habit of forming their conclusions as to the condition of Wales, from reports they see in the English newspapers, and I must confess that if I had no other source of information than the English Press, I should also be inclined to look upon the Welsh as a lawless race. There have been certain tithe riots in Denbighshire, but in the very district where the disturbances have occurred, it has been the pleasing duty of the foreman of the Grand Jury at the Sessions to hand the Chairman a pair of white gloves. That I consider a good reply to people who complain at the lawlessness of the Welsh people. As to the manner in which tithe distraint is conducted, in the first place a summons is issued, then the sheriff's officer appears on the scene, and generally attaches all the crops of the farmer. Supposing there are four or five ricks, he goes and attaches them, and nothing more is heard of the case until some months afterwards—it may be five months afterwards—when the sheriff again appears. The farmer, in the meantime, has found it necessary to live, and to feed his cattle, and very rightly has used some of the hay. Action is then taken for pound breach. The Report of an Investigation Committee on this point says that distraints have been levied by agents of clerical tithe-owners, and that the cattle and goods distrained upon have been left an unreasonable time upon the farms; that action for pound breach has been taken against many farmers, and treble the original amount thus extracted from them; and that costs have been run up to an enormous extant—in one case over £98 having been paid in respect of a tithe claim which originally was £10 15s., in another case execution having been levied for £71 in respect of a tithe claim which originally was £6 17s. 6d. Other instances of exorbitant imposts and oppressive exactions are given. In one case, a farmer was sued for pound breach, whereas he had done nothing, and had never been distrained upon. In one case, that of John Thomas, Tyrhos, Cardigan, distraint was effected in March for a sum of £7 18s. 3d. due for tithe, two stacks of hay and one of barley being seized. In June, four and a half tons of prime hay, valued at £6 10s. per ton, were taken away, and no account of it has yet been received. The barley is still on the premises, and the farmer has, since the spring, been obliged to purchase fodder for his cattle. In the case of Mr. David Griffiths, Pen-Ian, Cardiganshire, the farmer concerned appeared personally to set forth his grievances. The amount due from him as tithe was £10 15s. 7d., and the goods seized consisted of one rick of hay, value £5; stack of hay, £10; and three stacks of corn, £24. The farmer put into consumption all the corn and part of the hay, nothing having been removed by the bailiffs. A writ was served on June 20th for £32 (that being treble the value of the original amount), under an allegation of "pound breach." The farmer consulted a solicitor, who wrote to the bailiff, and forwarded a cheque for the £10 15s. 7d., this being forwarded "in full discharge" of the original claim and costs. The cheque was accepted, and a receipt returned, and the cheque came back through the Clearing House in ordinary course, duly endorsed. The date of the receipt was June 26th. This money was paid before judgment could have been legally signed against the defendant in respect of the claim for £32. On August 18th, notwithstanding what had been done, the Sheriff entered upon the premises with a warrant for £81, and left a man in possession. The defendant, who has a large family, paid £88—the £81, with £7 costs—to pay out the execution, which he did under protest. So that he has paid £98 15s. 7d. in respect of a tithe liability of £10 15s. 7d. In another case, that of Mr. Evan Davies, Rhydwen, Crymmych Station, the sum due as tithe was £6 17s. 6d.; and, in February, distraint was levied on two cows. On the 21st May the farmer was served with a writ for £21 1s. 6d.; and because of the manner in which service was effected he considered that he was not duly served; therefore, did not consult a solicitor and take the necessary steps to resist the claim. Subsequently execution was issued against his goods for £71 7s. The Sheriff was in possession, but could not sell; and the defendant was most anxious to sell, for he wished to leave the farm, but was unable to do so because of the Sheriff being in possession. To show the amount of tithes due, and the amount of the distraint in this case generally, it will be sufficient to mention the following:—One year's tithes: David Evans, Brynllewelyn, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes claimed, £6 15s. 8d.; goods distrained, £60. David Jones, Esgergarn, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes, £1 14s. 6d.; dis traint, £38. Timothy Evans, Esger-fynwent, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes, £3 8s.; distraint, £100. D. T. Gilbert, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes, 8s. 5d.; distraint, £13 10s. Two years' tithes: Daniel Evans, Brithder, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes, £4 to £5; distraint, £15; distrained three times. Daniel Davis, Efynonygog, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes, £3 15s. 6d.; distraint, £40.

MR. SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. Member that it is not competent for him to dwell on the Tithe Question, as it is the subject of a Bill in Parliament. Of course he can call attention to it in general terms as one of the grievances that Wales suffers from.

MR. A. THOMAS

I will only add that if there is to be any change in the present law relating to tithes it can only be satisfactory so long as it is accompanied by a measure for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church. I regard my Amendment as a most moderate one, as, indeed, all proposals which emanate from Welsh Members are. We find that Ireland his in this House one law officer, and would possibly have two if the Government could find a seat for the second. Besides that, there is the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, and not even his worst enemy can say that the right hon. gentleman's post is a sinecure. The case of Scotland is almost more analogous to that of Wales, for she has a Lord Advocate, another law officer, and a Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. the Member for Mid Lothian, in his then capacity of Prime Minister, in 1884, speaking in reply to a deputation urging the necessity for the creation of a State Department for Scotland, said— Although Wales has no separate Administration or representation of any kind in the administrative system of the country, it has many of the features and feelings of a distinct nationality, and within the last two or three years the claims of Wales for certain arrangements for its own benefit have been recognised both in laws and in administrative Acts. And the present Secretary for Ireland, speaking in reference to the same matter at Edinburgh, on January l6th, 1884, said— It is not the measures that are most important that are passed, but the measures entrusted to the most important Minister. Hence, by similar reasoning, if we had a Minister for Wales we might reasonably expect better legislation, adapted to the wants of the Principality. Justice demands that some such plan as I suggest should be adopted in regard to Wales. Wales has always been loyal and law-abiding, and has ever stood by England in her weakness and in her strength. Whatever may be the fate of my proposal, certain I am of this, that sooner or later—I hope sooner—a proposal similar in terms to mine will be accepted.

Amendment proposed, at the end of paragraph 16, to insert the words,— And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that more satisfactory arrangements for the administration of the affairs of Wales are imperatively required, and that a separate and independent Department of State should be created for the conduct of distinctly Welsh affairs, presided over by a Minister acquainted with the national characteristics of Wales."—(Mr. Alfred Thomas.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

(7.55.) MR. P. MORGAN (Merthyr Tydvil)

In seconding the Motion, I will confine my remarks to the first part of the Amendment, namely, "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that more satisfactory arrangements for the administration of the affairs of Wales are imperatively required," and then I will endeavour to show that unless we get some such earnest of our individuality as we seek to obtain we shall have no alternative but to devise some other method by which our desires and aspirations can be realised. My hon. Friend has truly said that Wales has always been loyal. I trust it always will be loyal; but there are occasions when the angry passions of men rise to such an extent as to bring about disasters regretted by all classes of the community. I am told that the time was when an Irish Member getting up in this House found the Benches empty, as they are this evening; but now, if an Irish subject is before the House, it commands the whole attention of the House. That is what Irishmen have done for their country by agitation. I hope, as a loyal Welshman, that the Government will consider the very modest request that Wales has made. It seems to me that Wales has been the Cinderella of the sisters. She has been neglected in every conceivable way; but perhaps the fairy may come along, and Wales will take the lead, as Wales has done before, in the affairs of the Empire. [A laugh.] Well, Wales has taken a prominent part in the affairs of the Empire before, and I hope she will do so again. Wales is nearly unanimous in her desire for recognition. Of the 30 Members, 26 belong to the Party which at least claims to be the Party of Progress. I think the time has arrived when there should be some re-construction of our Constitution. Wales has claims for recognition beyond Ireland or Scotland, for there is no Irish. Member and no Scotch Member who can get up and address the House in his native language; at least they cannot carry on a debate or address their constituents in their native tongue, as many Welshmen can. Ireland has a Chief Secretary, and if it had not it might be in a far more disastrous condition than it is to-day. It is because I respect law and order that I sympathise with the Irish people, who have been the victims of this and every other Government. The Empire has grown too large. There are already 29 Parliaments sitting in the British Empire, which do the legislative work which this House, in my opinion, is unable to perform. We have no one to appeal to in such a case as the disaster which happened in Wales the other day. No doubt the Home Secretary gives all the attention to such matters he can, but still it would be more satisfactory if there were a representative of Wales seated on the Treasury Bench. There would then be someone to whom we could appeal in regard to the questions of the Disestablishment of the Church, the Tithes, and other matters with reference to the feelings that prevail in the Principality, and in order to bring about legislation beneficial to the country. England has five Universities, Scotland four, Ireland two, but Wales has no University. Degrees can be obtained in all the faculties in the other countries, but no degree can be obtained in Wales. Again, in Wales there are no learned societies which have a legal standing or which can give to the people degrees and other honours. Wales is certainly entitled to such a mark of recognition. Then there is no royal palace in Wales. In all the other parts of the Kingdom, even in Ireland, there is a royal palace The fact of the Local Government Bill being printed in the Welsh language by the Government is evidence of the necessity of some recognition of the Welsh nation. As special legislation for Wales we have had the Sunday Closing Act, and an Intermediate Education Act, which are also recognitions of Wales, and now we are asking for the1 Disestablishment of the Church, for a Tithes Bill, and other measures. Having this special legislation already granted, and desiring, as the Welsh do, further legislation, I maintain it is a very moderate request to ask that we should be recognised not as a separate nation, but as a part of the English nation having peculiar characteristics and peculiar aspirations. In asking for a Welsh Minister, we have a precedent in the recent appointment of a Minister of Agriculture. That Minister has been appointed just when the country has practically given up growing wheat, and about all he can do is to induce people to eat a few more vegetables in the shape of Brussels sprouts or something of that kind. I could have understood a combined Minister of Agriculture and Mines, who would have looked after everything relating to the land. Then we would have had someone to appeal to in reference to the sad disaster the other day, and in reference to all the mining difficulties which exist in this country; at all events we should have had some person who would advise the Government upon matters of far more importance than the mere growing of Brussels sprouts, and that sort of thing. What is the feeling in the Principality as to the point raised by the Amendment? It is that out of 30 Members, 26 sit upon this side of the House, and these 26 Members must necessarily be of one opinion. I take it that they are all of opinion that the country is entitled to recognition in the shape either of a Minister or a Separate Legislature. Let the Conservative Members too, reflect before they vote against the Motion, what may be the consequences if they vote against the Motion and determine that Wales should have no recognition either in the shape proposed by the Motion or by Home Rule which may be asked for hereafter if the request made in this Motion is not granted.

(8.8.) MR. KENYON (Denbigh District)

I do not think the two speeches to which we have listened can be seriously meant. I regard them very much in the light of fishing inquiries, to find how far their colleagues and the people of Wales will go in the direction of what is called Home Rule. To use a vulgar expression, the hon. Gentlemen are waiting to see how the cat will jump. If my hon. Friends had exercised a little patience and waited another week they would have found that their speeches would have been more singularly appropriate to the festivities of St. David's Day than to the present occasion. I am rather curious to see how the Colleagues of my hon. Friends on the other side of the House will receive the Motion. I fancy they will, like a certain character, "smell the cheese but not put their noses into the rat trap." I admire the courage of my hon. Friend rather more than I admire his discretion, because I do not think there was any necessity for him to come to the House to ascertain what the feelings of the Welsh are upon this subject. He might have ascertained it easily enough if he had taken the trouble to be present at the meeting of the North and South Wales Federation, which I believe was held in Carnarvon this year. Upon that occasion there were great searchings of heart. I have not got a report of the meeting with me, but I remember that threats were thrown out upon the great Denbigh leader (Mr. Gee), and that the delegates were implored not to show their differences to the outside world, and the hon. Member for East Glamorgan was called in to pour oil on the troubled waters. My hon. Friend might, without coming to the House of Commons, have ascertained sufficiently the feelings of the Welsh people upon the question of Home Rule; that is to say, he might have ascertained it as far as this, that at any rate, whatever the opinions of some may be upon the subject, the opinions of Welshmen in the aggregate are not made up upon the matter. I thought we should have had from my ton. Friends an exposition of several national characteristics to justify the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but the deficiency of arguments in support of the Motion reminds one of the heading to a celebrated chapter on snakes in Hooker's work on Iceland:—"There are no snakes in Iceland." There are no national characteristics in Wales so distinct as to justify such a proposal as that made by my hon. Friend. The principal arguments relied on relate to the difference of language. That is, no doubt, a difficulty—particularly in regard to the interpretation of evidence in Court. But it is an exceedingly partial difficulty. Many parts of Wales are as English as England. In Radnorshire, for instance, you cannot find a man who can say "Dim Saesnag." In the mining districts of Denbighshire, and in a large area of Flintshire, the prevailing language is English, and the same may be said of Pembrokeshire, and of some parts of Breconshire and Montgomeryshire. The difficulty is, therefore, a partial one, and affords no reason for the sweeping suggestion made by my hon. Friend. In the matter of land tenure there is hardly any difference between England and Wales. I recently visited Derbyshire, and the Highlands of Scotland, and I would rather farm in any county in Wales than in the bleak and arid districts of Chats-worth. There is bad land in England and in Wales; there are bad farms in Wales as well as in England. I am told that 26 Members out of the 30 who represent Wales are in favour of this Motion, but I should like to see how many of them will follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby on this question. There is only one reason which might entitle the Welsh people to a different treatment and consideration from that bestowed on other parts of the Empire. The largest number of them are Nonconformists, and they think, and I think not altogether without some plausibility, that their difference of religion shuts them out from employment and possibly from consideration at Westminster. Well, I own that the Welsh may have some reason to think that their interests have not been sufficiently considered in some matters, such, for instance, as the Tithes Question. But still I hardly think that the Motion my hon. Friend has made, and the remedy he proposes, will give satisfaction to the Welsh Nonconformists, or promote the prosperity of Wales. I sympathise with national sentiment; it is a noble sentiment; but the proposition be- fore us is neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. It is marked by a narrow provincialism which may develop into Bumbledom or something worse. The hon. Mover can ascertain the real wants and wishes of Wales, and also the remedies which may best be applied to them. He can encourage the influx of English capital and intellect to assist the hard sound common sense of the Welsh, of which he is himself so good an example. If, instead of launching out into these vagaries, he would endeavour by these means within the pale of the Constitution to promote the prosperity of our common country, he will find both Englishmen and Welshmen on both sides of the House ready to assist him in his effort. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take what I have said in good part, and I will conclude by asking him, as an earnest of his repentance and the commencement of a better life, to at once withdraw his Amendment.

(8.50.) MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

I had hoped before rising to find some expression of opinion forthcoming from, the Treasury Bench, but as no right hon. Gentleman rose I feel compelled to intervene to elicit that expression of opinion. My two hon. Friends have made very interesting speeches, and have said a great many things that are perfectly true as, for example, that there are constant miscarriages of justice occurring in the High Courts from the ignorance of the Welsh language, and that the claims of Wales have not received that recognition which, as a distinct nationality, it deserves. As to the Amendment, I should like to see it cut in two. I am ready to adopt the premises of my hon. Friend without his conclusions. I do not suppose it will be denied that the affairs of Wales, with one single exception, have been neglected. On that exception I am willing to lay all stress. I refer to Welsh intermediate education. I wish to give the Vice-President of the Council full credit for having done his best with this important and, on the whole, exceedingly beneficial Act for Wales. But having done this I am afraid I must stop. Take one of the questions upon which Welshmen feel most keenly, the Disestablishment of the Church. On this question —as the hon. Member for Denbigh has admitted—there is practical unanimity among Welsh Members. Look at the Divi- sion List on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea last year, and you will find that out of 30 Members for Wales 25 voted in favour of, and only three against the Motion; and if that is not practical unanimity I do not know what is. If there is any strong feeling the other way there was a splendid opportunity for displaying it in the Mid Glamorgan election, occasioned by the lamented death of my late friend Mr. Talbot. The Conservatives had six weeks to select a candidate and they scoured the country for the purpose. At last they chose a certain Mr. Mortimer, but he ran away as soon as he got to the constituency, and no doubt showed his wisdom, for if he had stood the result would have disclosed the nakedness of the land. For two years my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) ballotted to get a day for this most important subject—this burning question for Wales, and not only did he fail to get facilities from the Government, but they actually took away from him the day which the chances of the ballot had given him, and he could only avail himself of the fag-end of a Tuesday evening. And now the Government meet our demand for a Disestablishment discussion by the promise of a Tithes Bill. That seems to me very much like asking for bread and getting a stone. But when I come to the second part of the Amendment I must part company with my hon. Friend. We have heard a good deal about Home Rule for Wales lately, and I am afraid we shall hear a good deal more of it if a deaf ear is turned to Welsh claims. Now, Home Rule may mean a great many things, but it does not mean this Amendment. The hon. Member for Denbigh was quite wrong when he said this movement was in the direction of Home Rule; it is quite in an opposite direction. As regards Home Rule, this Amendment is a distinctly retrograde movement ["No, no"]. I am speaking only as regards the question of Home Rule, and I will show my hon. Friend who says "No" why it is retrograde. It is not in the direction of decentralisation but of centralisation. Of course it has been said there is a precedent for the establishment of such a Department of State. We are reminded that for five years the Scotch have had a Secretary of State; we know that for a considerably longer period, for 90 years, Ireland has had its Secretary of State. It is said, and I admit with perfect truth, that on the whole the claim for nationality on the part of Wales is at least as strong as that of Scotland or Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: It is more so.] More so. In one respect our claim is stronger than that of Scotland, we have a separate language, while Scotland has only an accent. As regards the claim of distinct nationality then we have as good ground as Scotland or Ireland; but I should like to ask hon. Members from Ireland what benefit their country has derived from the establishment of an Irish Secretary? In the event of this Motion being carried, and a Secretary of Wales appointed, there is only one gentleman whom the Government would think of appointing, and that is the Postmaster General. I have the greatest possible respect for the administrative abilities of the right lion. Gentleman, but I cannot help thinking that the same qualities and the same opinions which entitle the right hon. Gentleman to the confidence of the University of Cambridge would not entitle him to the confidence of the Principality of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman is as strong a Party man as there is in this House—I do not object to that, I like a good strong Party man—but we are bound to look at the matter from all sides, and I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman was appointed principal Secretary of State for Wales his efforts would be directed to setting the Church of England on its legs and doing all he could to depress and discourage Dissent. Would my hon. Friends be satisfied with that sort of recognition of the rights of Wales? For my part, I am bound to say—while wishing to avoid anything personal—that so long as Government is carried on upon Party lines we must have for the moment a Party man, who will do the best for his Party, and we are face to face with the fact that the Party opposite is represented among Welsh Members by four Members as against 26 on this side. Though I do not yield to my hon. Friends in the desire to see the just claims of Wales recognised I should prefer something like the proposal made two years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvon, that Welsh measures and Welsh questions should be referred to a Standing Committee mainly composed of Welsh Members. Still more should I desire that the County Councils, which are thoroughly patriotic and representative popular Bodies, should be formed into a sort of Grand Council for Wales, with legislative or quasi-legislative and administrative powers in regard to exclusively Welsh questions. I cannot help hoping that my hon. Friend will not press his Motion to a Division. It has produced a very interesting discussion, and I should be sorry to see the Welsh Members, who upon most questions are so united, present a divided front on this subject. Therefore, I venture to hope my lion. Friend will be satisfied with what has taken place, and withdraw the Amendment.

(9.2.) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, East

The speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman brings out very plainly the contrast there is between the Resolution on the Paper and the arguments we have heard advanced by the Mover and Seconder. I do not think that any of the arguments advanced by either the Mover or the Seconder of the. Amendment really support the creation of a fresh Administrative Department for Wales; and the right hon. Gentleman has just stated that the creation of such a Department, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, and conducted on principles consonant with the views of the present majority of the House of Commons, would give no satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Welsh people want the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, the foundation of a Welsh University, and changes of that sort, but these are matters of policy and not of administration, and it is quite obvious that the remedy for the grievances of hon. Members opposite is a change in the majority of the House. You cannot expect to get from the present majority changes which they regard as mischievous in the highest degree. The interesting facts laid before the House by the Mover and Seconder really did not touch the question of admistration. The hon. Member for East Glamorgan animadverted in nounfriendly sense upon the administration of justice; he thought it was not satisfactory because it was not conducted in the Welsh tongue. I hope I have not misunderstood the hon. Member. [Mr. THOMAS expressed dissent. Then I was wrong; but I understood him to say, at all events, that two men had been sentenced to death, and did not know the nature of the sentence until they were informed by a friendly Welsh attorney. I understood him also that there had been bad mistakes in interpretation, and especially in one case, in which the difference was between the snatching and the voluntary handing over of a Bill, which might have seriously affected the result of a particular action. Again, I understood him to complain that it was sometimes necessary to have recourse to the police to interpret. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer that complaint; but I have known of cases in which both parties have desired that the police should interpret, as they were most reliable and faithful.

MR. A. THOMAS

I took no exception personally to the police acting as interpreters. In my own experience, for many years as a magistrate, they have done so very satisfactorily. But I mentioned cases which had come to my knowledge where mistakes were made.

Me. MATTHEWS

The hon. Member, then, was stating not his own opinions, but the opinion of anonymous prisoners. At any rate, the only inference we can draw is that he desires that proceedings in the Courts of Justice should be in Welsh.

MR. A. THOMAS

Not totally so. I say I think it is a great injustice that a man should be tried in his own country in a language which is not his native tongue. I do not wish the proceedings in Courts of Justice to be conducted wholly in Welsh; but I say the prisoner should have the option of being tried in his native tongue.

MR. MATTHEWS

The substitution of Welsh for English in the proceedings of Courts would require consideration on grounds which have not been named, for the change would exclude from Welsh trials English Judges and nine-tenths of the English Bar. The present Lord Chancellor, when at the Bar, for a good many years assisted justice in Wales to the universal satisfaction of the inhabi- tants, and he appeared to possess the confidence of Welsh suitors, who availed themselves of his services, although he could not speak Welsh. Therefore, the suggested change would involve disadvantages to suitors as well as advantages. In Welsh causes and cases there must be many English witnesses, and their evidence would have to be interpreted, possibly by the police. Again, there might be complaints of imperfect interpretation. Another topic which the hon. Member dwelt upon was that of tithe distraints, and he complained of various matters arising out of excessive distraints; but I do not think I need go into details, because the arguments obviously led up to the declaration that the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales could alone give peace and satisfaction to the country. As to the allegations of excessive distraints, the law provides a perfectly good and sufficient remedy without setting up a Welsh Minister. The case of Scotland has been referred to; but there is no analogy between the position of Wales and that of Scotland. I cannot say that, personally, I viewed with any particular enthusiasm the creation of the office of Secretary for Scotland; but still there was a good deal to be said for a Secretary for Scotland, a country which has different laws and institutions from those of England. There are differences in law and administration affecting Poor Law, lunacy, education, and fisheries, and a separate administration was convenient; but no such differences exist in Wales, which on these points is in complete identity with England. The administrative work of a Secretary for Wales would practically be nil. I have inquired what amount of correspondence relating to Wales takes place in the Home Office. The year 1889 was one of feverish activity in Welsh affairs by reason of the tithe disturbances, and yet the number of letters received at the Home Office from county and borough officials in Wales was only 209, while the communications at the Scotch Office amounted to 50,000, so that the volume of business was a sufficient justification for administrative division. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the creation of a Welsh Secretary would gratify national feeling; but I do not see how Welsh national feeling is to be gratified by the creation of a useless institution, or how Welsh Members are aggrieved by the fact that they have an equal right of appeal with all English Members to all the Ministers in the House. The Home Secretary is as much a Minister for Wales as for Sussex or Hampshire. It can hardly be expected that a Welsh Minister could have a seat in the Cabinet, and therefore Wales would hardly gain in this respect by having a Minister of her own. They must not expect the present Ministry to go with them in their views about Disestablishment, or on the tithe question, because these, as I said before, are matters of policy. But every Member of the Cabinet is as much bound to attend to Welsh affairs as he is to English affairs, and speaking for the Home Office, I am not conscious of the slightest difference in the mode of dealing with Welsh and English affairs. No one could desire more than I do that the traditions and the literature of Wales should be cherished; but why should that load to an administrative change which would be awkward and clumsy? I submit that no reason whatever has been adduced for setting up a method of administration which is reactionary, which would be of no good to anybody in Wales, and which nobody in Wales really wants. If the friends of the hon. Member get into power they will be able to pass those legislative changes which they so much desire, and the want of a Welsh Secretary will not prevent their doing so; while, on the other hand, if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not succeed in turning out the Party now in office, the fact of having a Welsh Secretary would in no way help them to get what they desire. There is really nothing in the absence of a Secretary for Wales which ought to aggrieve or cause any pain to sound sensible Welsh feeling, and therefore, I think that this Motion ought to be rejected.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

(9.21.) MR. CUSTINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

I wish in—

MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid.)

I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.

MR. SPEAKER

There are 40 Members present now.

MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM

I wish, in moving the Amendment which I have put on the Paper, to call the attention of the House to the fact that this is not, in my opinion, a Party question. It is one which will meet with as much opposition from a section of the Liberal Members of the House as it can possibly do from the Conservative side of the House, and the reason is not very far to seek. These legislative restrictions, which I hope will shortly be imposed on labour by international effort, will place political parties on their proper basis—a position they are rapidly assuming in Germany; they will divide them into two parties—the workers being on one side and the middle classes on the other. Whether that is a consummation devoutly to be wished for is a point on which I will not trouble the House. You, Sir, have rightly no doubt confined the discussion within narrow limits, and consequently I am precluded from entering on certain aspects of the case, while a Bill brought in by an hon. Member dealing with an important branch of the question also prevents me touching upon that particular subject. But the limitation, I am thankful to say, enables me to make out the strongest possible case for legislative interference with adult labour, for that case is to be found in the aspect of internationalism. I suppose it is incumbent on me to show that there is some demand for legislative interference not only in this country but in the colonies as well as in Europe and America. It is often said that there is no real demand for it from the working classes in Great Britain; and hon. Members will get up and say that they have conversed with the most intelligent of the working classes among their constituents, and have found that they are opposed not only to the measure, but even to the discussion of it. And that is not to be wondered at when one knows how these conversations are conducted. Enthusiastic meetings are held on the Irish Question, at the end of which a few words are said on the Labour Question by hon. Members who themselves stand in opposition to the interests of labour because they are themselves employers. One can easily imagine the nature of the conversation on the exposition of the eight hours question from an employer's point of view. The hon. Member says to the intelligent workman—"My good man, there is a fellow called Cuninghame Graham, and there are others also, who wish to restrict the hours of labour and to prevent yon making good terms for yourself. If you wish these restrictions to be imposed on your labour, I suppose that I, as your Member, must vote for the Bill; but if we reduce the hours of labour you cannot reasonably expect to receive the same wages for eight hours as for ten." And the working man, who perhaps has worked for the Member ever since his boyhood, and who fears he may be thrown out of work if he expresses a different view, says, in reply—"Well, no; if my wages are going to be reduced I not think I am in favour of it." And thou when he leaves the men and meets his pal, the latter says—"Well, Jack, what did lie say? "the reply being, "Oh, the same old game. The Irish Question first; and we don't want to enter into any question of interfering in the relations between capital and labour." A proof that there is a demand in the country for legislative interference with adult labour is to be found in the increased support the movement is receiving in this House. Many more hon. Members are now pledged to the principle than there were a year ago, and this change is alone due to the pressure of their constituents. At every bye-election, too, we find both the candidates rushing forward to support the principle; for political honesty after all is an undetermined quantity. The growth of the demand is equally apparent abroad, for foreign delegates at foreign Congresses vote for legislative interference. It is well-known that when the question was first brought before the Trades Union Congress at Swansea three years ago the delegates of the working class expressed many of them marked disapproval of it. When it was put to the vote only eight delegates were found to have the courage to record their opinion in favour of it. But at the Congress at Dundee last year, in spite of the fact that there had been a delicate and skilful manipulation of the votes when a, plébiscite was taken, it was found that the votes in favour had increased to 68, and there was only a small majority against the Motion. Surely this affords some slight indication of the increased demand for legislative interference with adult labour. I am pretty certain I shall get the votes to-day of many lion. Members, not because they approve the principles I am advocating, but because they know their constituents will withdraw their confidence from them if they place political questions higher than social ones. Some of the trades were represented at the Conference, and some of them were not able to send delegates. It is, however, a matter of notoriety that the battle of the dockers, in which some 60,000 or 70,000 were more or less engaged, was fought primarily on this question of hours; and it ensued in this: that 62,000 men had their hours of labour reduced fron 10½, and in some instances 11½, to eight hours. It is the opinion of the men who conducted that agitation, that in order to enable them to maintain an eight hours day the restriction should have the confirmation of Parliament. I think we may take it as a tolerably conclusive fact that there is a deep-seated desire on the part of the workmen generally for a restriction of the hours of labour, and that this demand is one which is not got up by agitators, and those who speak at street corners, but has been enforced by the accredited delegates of the great Trade Unions, who have represented it to be the wish of the men on whose behalf they spoke that their case should be laid before Parliament with a view to legislative action. Let me now turn to the case of the bakers, among whom there has lately been a severe agitation, not only on the part of those employed in this trade in London, but also on the part of those employed in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and other places; and what has been the result? Why, that their hours of labour generally have been reduced to the extent of some 30 per cent. They wore united and almost unanimous, although perhaps not quite so unanimous as the gas stokers, in desiring to see that the practical outcome of their agitation, obtained by their own unaided efforts, should be confirmed by legislation. Within the last four or five months another agitation has been going on by the railway men in favour of a general restriction of the hours of labour. The right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. J. Morley) seems to differ from me, and to think that it is not the wish of the Executive of the railway men that the 10 hours a day which they are asking should be confirmed by Act of Parliament I am informed that their wish is as I have expressed it; but it is a question, on which it is easy to satisfy oneself, and if on further information I find I am in the wrong, I will tender an apology to the right hon. Gentleman. We have also had the tramway men uniting and agitating for a reduction in the hours of labour, and responsible men at the head of their Union tell me that they would not object to seeing the 10 hours a day, which they are claiming, confirmed by Act of Parliament. It may be argued that this is only a 10 hours question; but surely the principle remains in both cases; and if the Legislature makes up its mind to granting a 10 hours day, it may also on the same ground pass a measure adopting a day of eight hours. It has been objected that this sort of legislative interference would have the effect of driving trade from the country, of reducing the national output, and destroying the profits and capital of the employers. I have always held, both in this House and out of it, that the employers take far too great a share of the national means, and that a larger portion of the wealth created by the men, whether in railways, mines, factories, or any of the other industries, might equitably be given to labour, and that if this were the case trade would not be driven from the country, but a fair margin of profit might still be left to the employers. But if it be argued that by restricting the hours of labour we shall drive trade away from the country, I think I shall be able to show that in some industries at least this would not be the case. It will also be incumbent on me to try and show that the demand for legislative interference is as great in other countries as it is in this. It is often said, and with some show of reason, that it would be impossible for us in this country to maintain our commercial superiority if we were to shorten our hours of labour, because some foreigners are in the habit of working longer hours and are in receipt of smaller wages. All I have to say on that point is that if we are to engage in a mere race of production—if we are to urge our workmen into a sort of universal sweating struggle with other nations as to which can produce articles cheaper than the others, simply in order that the employers may realise great fortunes, I, for one, have no hesitation in stating that I am not greatly concerned in the result, whether the proposed reduction enables us to maintain our commercial superiority or whether it does not. But I think I shall be able to show that not only are we not the country in which most has been done to shorten the hours of labour, but we are a country in which, if we do not bestir ourselves, longer hours will be worked than in any other European country; certainly much longer hours than are now worked in America, Australia, and most of our colonies. If I succeed in making out a case on this point I think I shall have gone some distance in removing the scruples hon. Gentlemen now entertain in regard to this, to me, very plain, but to them most tortuous and difficult question. Now, what is it I am going to ask the House to do? I am not asking the House to pledge itself now and for ever to a cast-iron Eight Hours Bill, rendering it impossible for any man in any trade whatever to work more than eight hours a day. That, I admit, would be a most unreasonable proposition, and one for which I do not think the great bulk of the working men in this country are prepared. What I am putting before the House is a proposition of very different import. I am merely asking the Government, for the honour of this country and the welfare of the working classes, as well as for the national credit as a community of national reformers —because, let an Englishman be a Conservative or Liberal he always claims to be an international reformer—not to place the British representatives either at the Berne or the Berlin Conference in a different position from that of the representatives who will attend to speak on behalf of other Powers. I put it to every man in this House as an Englishman, as a man who respects and loves his own country, whether he can calmly contemplate the idea of the representatives of this country, which hitherto has constantly been showing the way in every reform, social and political, having to take a back seat among the representatives of the other European nations? I think hon. Gentlemen can easily imagine the sneers that would be indulged in by the foreign representatives when, having entered upon the discussion of the important question of an International restriction of working hours, the British representatives felt called upon to retire and leave the foreign delegates to carry on the discussion by themselves, It is for this reason that I have placed my Amendment on the Paper; it is because I hope to show the House there is not only a demand in this country, but a similar demand in America, and in all our Colonies, for International legislation on the subject that I desire Her Majesty's Government to take some cognizance of the invitation addressed both by the Swiss Republic and the Emperor of Germany to Great Britain to unite with the other Powers in considering this important question. It is a fact, which I think is corroborative of my argument, that we are now finding municipality after municipality, Town Council after Town Council, inserting eight hours' provisions in their projected local legislation. What, I ask, is the action of the London County Council on this matter? I believe there are Members of this House who have the honour of holding seats in that assembly, and I ask them whether on every occasion on which questions such as these have come under their discussion strong expressions of opinion have not been given in favour of the insertion of eight hours' provisions in the different local Acts springing from that Body? Gentlemen who have studied the question know that the largest Trades Union in the world is that of the Amalgamated Engineers. That Society has ramifications throughout the three Kingdoms, and if there is any combination that can do anything for the men belonging to it it may well be supposed to be that combination. Well, what do we find to be the case? That Trades Union, which comprises some 655,000 members, sent to Paris last July two delegates, in the persons of Mr. John Burns and Mr. Evelyn, who were instructed to vote for the eight hours day. Those delegates carried out their instructions in the same manner as the other delegates, and it must be remembered that they represented a class engaged in what is well known as skilled labour, and quite as capable of knowing their own wants and wishes as any Member of this House. I believe, Sir, I should be precluded by your ruling from even alluding to the vote of the Trades Council at Dundee with reference to the Bill introduced in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lanarkshire, and, therefore, I will not trench on that ground; but may be permitted to say that the Resolution was voted without one dissentient voice by the delegates present, and was subsequently confirmed by the 365,000 miners whom they represented on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Morley) grounds his objections to this proposal, more than anything else, upon the difficulty of regulating labour in this country when there is no demand for it in other countries, and the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has busied himself with some observations in the same sense, a similar attitude having been adopted by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) who is not now in his place. I will endeavour to deal with the question in an International sense, and to some extent I am able, from personal observation, to afford information on this matter to the House. I was myself sent as a delegate to the International Labour Conference in Paris last year; there were practically two Conferences there. But taking the two Congresses as one they formed a complete body of nearly 1,000 working men. The discussions which took place led one day to the passing of Resolutions in favour of the International limitation of the hours of labour, and those Resolutions were practically passed unanimously. It is often said that our working classes do not wish to join the foreign working classes because their modes of procedure are different. I naturally expected that I should hear some blood and thunder and terrible speeches when I attended the Conference, but Spaniard, Italian, German, Frenchman, and American, made precisely the same class of speech that you listen to in your Trades Union hall or Radical Club on Saturday evening. They complained of the long hours of labour, and of the women of their various countries being engaged in occupations unfit for them They said—"Our employers grow rich and we remain poor; we are half-starved; we work long hours; we come to this Congress to get an expression of the opinion of the working classes of Europe and America upon the most important and vital of any questions with regard to which we can assemble together." While this Conference was sitting, an International Congress of Miners was being held. There was not one dissentient voice in that large representative Congress when the proposition was put that the question of an eight hours day of labour should be made the subject of legislative interference, and we find that during the last few months there has been an extensive strike of miners, and their first demand has been legislative interference in favour of the eight hours day; and similarly in the Austrian Dominions, and in the Belgian coalfields. Surely, these men know their own affairs better than any Member of any Parliament. I find I have received an ally where I least expected to find one—the German Emperor, whom no one will accuse of being revolutionary or Socialistic. His Majesty, for reasons which I do not presume to analyse, has chosen to make a most remarkable pronouncement; it may be for an ulterior motive, but I am quite content to take it on trust, and be thankful for assistance from an unexpected quarter. Far more significant is the return of 21 Socialist Members to the German Reichstag—men who belong to the Socialist Party, to which I belong myself. The first plank in the platform of these representatives is that the working day should be ristricted to eight hours. The increase in. the Social-democratic vote shows that the demand for legislative interference in the question of an eight hours day is assuming proportions far greater than perhaps hon. Members are aware. I find in a Return of three years ago that the total democratic vote was 93,000. I find last week it had risen to 116,000. In 1887, the total social-democratic vote throughout the German Empire was 774,000. I find that last week it had risen to almost a million—an increase which my colleagues and friends, Messrs. Bebel and Liebnechf, attribute almost entirely to their advocacy of the restriction of the hours of labour, because they have by so doing placed before the German people a tangible plank on which men of many sections can unite, instead of losing themselves amidst vague vapourings and talk of hypothetical revolutions. I wish to bring before hon. Gentlemen, and especially the Members of Her Majesty's Government, that other Legislatures have also been called upon to deal with this question. It is not two months ago that the subject of an Eight Hours' Law was introduced into the French Chamber, I need hardly say it was negatived, though it received a modicum of support, clearly showing that it shadowed the minds of the electorate of the country. In the Legislative Chamber of Holland, too, an Eight Hours Bill was introduced, though it met with a fate similar to that of the French Bill. I have received a letter from a friend in the Belgian Chamber this afternoon enclosing his speech on the introduction of a Ten Hours' Bill, which met with the fate of the Dutch and French Bills; but I presume my friend would not be deterred from introducing an Eight Hours Bill, if it was conclusively proved to him that it was desired by the working classes of the country that such a law should be introduced. I wish now, Sir, to turn to the aspect of the question in America and in our Colonies. In some of the States of America Eight Hours' and Nine Hours' Bills have been passed. In Connecticut and Pennsylvania there are special agitations in the State Legislatures to introduce the eight hours' day into those States. In those States the hours are 8½ and 9. [An hon. MEMBER: And 10 and 12hours.] That does not in any respect affect my argument. I have received letters from the leaders of the trades in those States, saying that they were applying to the Legislature to have the eight hours day confirmed, because they feel that the frequent occurrence of strikes was driving away trade and deteriorating their own social position. It is precisely because I agree with these men as to the extreme undesirability of strikes, and because of the enormous waste of energy and capital which they entail, together with the danger of social turmoil, that I advocate this International legislative restriction of the hours of labour, by which these consequences would be avoided. Turn ing to our own Colonies, I find that in Canada, a Royal Commission, has recently been appointed; and it has sat and delivered its Report upon the relations between capital and labour. The Commission has unanimously reported in favour of a nine hours day. I do not know whether the Canadian Government intends to take up their recommendations, but I do know that there is a keen agitation amongst the workers of Quebec for an eight hours day, and there is an equally keen agitation amongst the workmen who already work eight hours to have a confirmation of the system by the Dominion of Canada. By the authority of Sir C. Dilke I find that the workers in Cape Town, Grahamstown, and other towns of the colony are forming eight hours leagues. They are instructing their Members to introduce Bills into the Colonial Parliament, asking for the same for the working classes in South Africa as has been asked for in Germany and France. In the Australian Colonies it is a matter of public notoriety that eight hours is the normal day. In Queensland, a Bill was passed through the Lower House of the Legislature to fix the normal working day at eight hours. It was rejected, naturally, by the vote of the Upper House, just as if we passed a Bill in this House it would be met by the factious opposition of the hon. Member for Northampton, and also by noble Lords who sit in another place. I have what I consider to be much stronger evidence than this in the Colony of Victoria. I find it has become the practice in that colony for Local Authorities to insert an eight hours provision in all the contracts which they enter into. In January of last year, in passing a Tramways Act, the Parliament restricted the hours of work to eight per day. And these are not rash assertions. Anyone can verify them who chooses to do so; and if I have been wrongly informed in what I have stated I shall be in the position of Hamlet—I shall receive my shame and the odd bit. But if I am right I think I have proved conclusively that the foolish terror which exists in this country with regard to the legislative restriction of the hours of labour does not exist in Germany or France or America, and certainly not in our Australian Colonies. In New Zealand eight hours is recognised as the normal day; but the workers of that colony are not satisfied, any more than those in the other colonies, with, this general recognition, and are beginning to instruct their representatives to bring before their Parliament propositions for the restriction of the hours of work. If, therefore, concurrently with the agitation which I have endeavoured to show exists in this country there is one going on in Australia and America, surely all honourable and fair-minded men who wish to do justice to their fellow-countrymen will do what they can to remove the load of toil which is crushing our working classes in many instances to the ground. They will, I think, see that this international movement affords ample opportunity for meeting the wishes of the working classes. By coming to the aid of the large class who are overstrained and overworked the House will atone for many injustices in the past; and I plead on behalf of those who provide us with our hats, our hosen, our food, and even our seats in Parliament, that we may adopt the principle of restricting the hours of labour by international agreement or at least authorise our delegates to be empowered to discuss it. I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper.

(10.5.) MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

In seconding the Amendment, I desire to say that, in consequence of the protracted length to which the debate on the Address has extended, I shall confine my remarks to a narrow compass. [Ministerial cheers.] Well, if the debate has been protracted it is because the administration of right hon. Gentlemen opposite offers so many points of criticism. But in justice to myself and my constituents I must say that though I accept implicitly the terms of the Amendment I by no means concur in the general terms in which my hon. Friend has supported it. I am by no means satisfied that there does exist a sufficiently large demand on the part of our working population for an eight hours day, or any other limit, to justify Parliamentary interference. I have made inquiries in well-informed quarters, and this is the result. Among the Lancashire cotton-spinners the preponderance of opinion is against the eight hours movement. Among the engineers there is a great difference of opinion.

MR. GRAHAM

MY hon. Friend will not deny that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers gave instructions to their delegates at the Paris Conference on the subject. Those delegates were Messrs. John Burns and Evelyn.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

I am not drawing my inferences from what took place at that Conference, but from entirely independent sources of investigation. At the same time, I am decidedly of opinion that the main objections which are urged against legislation for the limitation of the hours of labour, and notably the objections urged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), are not at all sufficient or conclusive. The stock argument used is that combination among the working classes is able to produce the desired result. Certainly, I have heard that in my hon. Friend's own constituency in Lanark the miners, who are in a much less organised condition in Scotland than in this country, have been able by combination to obtain—certainly in the neighbourhood of Hamilton—a reduction of the working days. It seems to me that it is quite open to the Trades Unions throughout the country to combine to secure an Eight Hours Bill if they please. I would like to observe, however, that in certain trades combination, is an absolute impossibility. In small isolated industries, or branches of industries, combination is impossible; and I know of one case recently where an attempted combination af the kind ended in disastrous results to the persons employed. It has been urged as a very serious objection to the proposal that the margin of profit secured by capital at the present time is very small in certain trades where the foreign competition is very marked. I think there is great force in that argument. If you take the cotton trade in Lancashire at the present time you find the margin of profit is very small; and if you were by a compulsory law to reduce the hours of labour there the result would apparently be that the manufacturers would be unable to carry on their production in competition with foreign countries. The object of the Amendment is to see whether we cannot by some international movement reduce the hours of labour so that a particular industry shall not be injured thereby. It is not an unreasonable request to make of the Government. It has received, in principle at least, the co-operation of the great German Empire. It has received the friendly recognition of, I think, most, if not all, of the great Powers of Europe; and there is no doubt a growing feeling among the working classes of this country that it is desirable to establish some more legitimate and fair apportionment of the hours of toil than at present exists among our principal industrial trades. I notice that the noble Lord opposite (Lord R. Churchill) has dealt with this question. I unfortunately did not receive from his speech on the subject the light and leading which I had a right to expect. He intimated that he was inclined to entertain the question favourably. What we want is not empty rhapsodies in favour of this proposition, but solid argument to show what we can accept and what we cannot.

Amendment proposed, at the end of paragraph 16, to insert the words— And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the increasing desire of the working classes in Europe for legislative restriction of the hours of labour renders it desirable that this subject should be discussed by the representatives of this Country who are to be appointed to attend the International Conference on Labour Legislation at Berne or Berlin."—(Mr. Cuninghame Graham.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

(10.15.) MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend has the inconvenience which attaches to all Amendments to the Address, which are not intended to challenge by a direct Vote of Censure the existence of the Government. It forces discussion upon the House under exceedingly inconvenient conditions. The Mover of the Amendment more than once intimated that he was confined in his remarks because important parts of the question were fixed for discussion in this House. That was a reason for not moving it at all at a time when it cannot be properly discussed. I have been a little puzzled since I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who so ably did not second the Amendment. Had I not known that he would be perfectly inca- pable of any such artifice of the Bar, I should have thought he had risen for the purpose of damaging the case of the Amendment as much as possible at the very earliest stage of the discussion. I would point out to the House that we do not know at present—or I do not think we do—that there is to be any Conference at all at Berlin which will deal with the question of the hours of adult labour. No doubt the Mover of the Amendment is much better acquainted with facts that have not happened than I am; but he must pardon me if I express a doubt as to the accuracy of his information respecting what the German Emperor meant by the language he used.

LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

The limitation of the hours of labour was one of the first subjects in the programme of the Berlin Conference put before the public by the newspapers.

MR BRADLAUGH

I am afraid the noble Lord has not given the subject that attention which he usually bestows upon matters, for though the rescript is hardly capable of that construction, there are limiting words addressed by the Emperor to his State Council which are capable of an absolutely opposite construction. Until I have some official information on the subject I prefer not to commit the House to a declaration as to something which is to happen at the Conference at Berlin—a Conference as to which I understand no official invitation has yet been addressed to Her Majesty's Government, and certainly none has been communicated to the House. The matter is now, according to the newspapers, before the Council of State on the invitation of the Emperor, and some of the questions to be considered will, if they are considered, prevent any dealing with the hours of adult labour at all. As to the Conference at Berne, I understand from the usual sources of information that the Swiss Government, in the declarations they have issued respecting the hours of labour, have not dealt with anything but the labour of women and children. I notice that the world "adult" is omitted from the Amendment, and I am not sure what the Mover of the Amendment means by that omission. Indeed, I am not sure that he knows what he means himself, because on a previous occasion he said he would not be so unreasonable as to prevent any man working more than eight hours a day.

MR. GRAHAM

What I said was that I did not propose at present to come before this House and ask for a cast-iron Eight Hours Bill, and that I merely asked the House to empower the delegates sent to the Conference to discuss the question.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Of course, I should not press on the lion. Member words which he did not mean to use; but I thought I heard him say—and I took it down at the time—that he would not be so unreasonable as to prevent any man working more than eight hours. As the hon. Member did not mean that—

MR. GRAHAM

Or say it.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Or say it, I must apologise for the defectiveness of my memory. But I do not understand the phrase "cast-iron" Bill. Either it means eight hours or it does not. If it is more, then it is not eight hours; and if it is eight hours, why then it is eight hours. I object to language being used to people up and down the country which means one thing, and when the speaker is tackled about it is found to mean something else.

MR. GRAHAM

I will explain to the House what I did mean.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I must really object to the hon. Member's interruptions.

MR. GRAHAM

I have been accused with using language which means one thing at one time and another at another.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Mr. Speaker—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! Mr. Cuninghame Graham.

MR. GRAHAM

What I meant was this: I did not wish now, even if I had the power, to pass a Bill which would prevent people working more than eight hours. I wished to apply a Bill of the kind, by steps, to miners and workers in Government workshops, and then to trades and industries throughout the Kingdom which should declare themselves in favour of it,

MR. BRADLAUGH

I am afraid that we are now much in the same place. Miners and Government workmen are shut out of the discussion to-night, because of other notices standing on the Order Book, and I do not know what is meant by proceeding by steps in the restriction of the hours of labour to trades and industries throughout the Kingdom. I would ask the House to note how excessively necessary it is to be careful on matters of detail. The hon. Member said that of the delegates who attended Paris one represented a Trades Union which numbers 650,000 members. The number of members of all the Trades Unions registered in the country—and the majority are registered—is nothing like that. The Trades Union of which he spoke is a very powerful one, and I think it has some 46,000 members. If you have to knock 600,000 odd off such a number, it shows that it is possible to have some carelessness of statement. Now, Sir, I trust that I have the interests of working men of this country at least as much at heart as any other Member. I have always been in favour of shortening their hours; but I have never been in favour of ruining their industries. The hon. Member said that one of the delegates at Paris was sent to represent that powerful Union, the Amalgamated Engineers. Well, he only claimed to be sent by one branch of the Union, namely, the London branch.

MR. GRAHAM

I wish to explain. I am aware that there is no Trade Union that has 600,000 members. I must frankly confess that I made an error in the figures. I took one figure for another, and read 600,000 for 60,000; and I apologise to the Hous3 for making the mistake. As to my statement about the representation of the Amalgamated Engineers at the Conference, all I can say is that Mr. J. Burns, whom I have seen this evening, was my authority, and Mr. Burns distinctly told me that the delegates represented the entire engineering trade.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I will leave it there, only saying that, as far as my information goes, the delegate just mentioned represented his own branch, and his own branch alone. These, however, are matters of detail so trifling that one would not deal with them in this House were it not that they form part of the general exaggeration which characterises the statements made on this subject. With regard to the wording of the Amendment, I do not think it is, or ought to be, the duty of any Government to send representatives of this country to a Conference to discuss possible law-making in which they have no intention of taking part, and which they may intend to oppose. I thoroughly and heartily approve of the position taken up by Lord Salisbury last year: that, while willing that a discussion should take place on various topics expressly stated in which representatives of this country should join, there were two matters to which only vague reference had been made—the restriction of adult labour and the question of output—which our representatives should not be empowered to discuss. Unless the Government wilfully means to fetter this country in its industry, it would never be mad enough to give our representatives any power of discussing the restriction of that marvellous output which has carried this country so far in advance of all other nations. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that there were countries, such as the United States, where such laws, as he proposes are already in force. For my own part, I think it would have been fairer to the House if the hon. Member had utilized the Parliamentary paper laid on the table last year on my Motion and had told us that there are several States in which eight hours is the normal day except, when otherwise agreed, and others where overtime work is to be paid for as extra. But there is overwhelming evidence in the Report of the Commissioners of Labour that in none of the States have these laws been enforced, and the percentage of eight-hour day labour is less than it was 50 years ago.

MR. GRAHAM

Quite true.

MR. BRADLAUGH

The hon. Member says quite true. If so, he should have told it to the House, instead of referring to matters which instead of telling for the Amendment, as he wished the House to believe, told against it. What does eight hours mean? Take the textile trade. The hours in that are about 56½ per week. Are you going to reduce them to 48 hours, giving the same pay for 48 as for 56½ hours? [Mr. GRAHAM was understood to dissent.] I wish you could be restricted now, if you will permit me to say so. I feel the need of asking some indulgence of the House, and I hope I may ask the indulgence of my hon. Friend. I hope he will permit me to complete my poor argument in any own way, because it is a subject on which I neither wish to make jokes or to administer rebukes. We owe something to the Labour Statistical Department of the Board of Trade for the information given by it; and I hope that in future all Returns will give the number of hours worked in different trades in this as compared with other countries. The hon. Member did not say whether the men whose hours were restricted to 48 were to receive only 48 hours' wages, nor did he explain how the margin of profit would enable anything else to be done, especially as in the textile trades there is said to be no sufficient margin to bear this increase. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment suggested that we should negotiate with other co an tries to keep ourselves in the same position of advantage as that in which we now are. This show a confidence in the generosity of other nations which we have not always shown to them. Do you think that the men will consent to have their pay reduced? The case of the Mover of the Amendment is that the working men are so badly paid now that life is unendurable. Are you going to take an eighth or a sixth off their wages so as to make their life still less endurable? The hon. Member said that there was, or ought to be, a margin, and that if not it did not concern him, even though the manufacturers were driven away. But if the manufacturers go the manufactures go to. It is a question of giving enough employment to a population which, crowded in big centres, sometimes becomes unmanageable when misled by thoughtless enthusiasts, who tell them that the Government should find them food and clothes. I do not know that it would be at all needful to address the House at any length on this subject, because the Mover of the Amendment has been demolished by his Seconder, were it not that I have some suspicion there are statesmen who look with favour on the hon. Member's proposal. The noble Lord (Lord R. Churchill) is entitled to rank among the statesmen of this country, and he is looking with a sympathetic eye, and perhaps with some slight favour, on the movement. In Germany the looking at the question with some slight favour has led to playing with it on the one hand, and repressing the movement on the other. The poor wages, the long hours and the terrific burdens of the great populations of Europe, seem to me to be due more than anything else to the pressure upon them of exaggerated armaments, which diminish the purchasing power of the wages earned by the working men, and take away a large number of men from the circle of producers, making them only consumers. One of the best courses we could adopt, if it were possible—which I am afraid not—would be to preach to the nations of Europe not to have their peace establishments higher than their war establishments used to be. It is said that in Great Britain there is a demand among working men for the restriction of the hours of labour by law. I deny it. I do not deny that there is some demand; there are demands for everything. I deny, however, that there is a general demand. I regret that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has alleged that there has been skilful manipulation of figures at the Dundee Conference. The hon. Member is well aware that out of more than 300 Trades Unions making returns to the Registrar—and there are some that are not registered—only a very small minority took any pains to vote at all, showing that the bulk of them were indifferent to the expression of any opinion upon the subject. Although Circulars were sent out to every Trade Union, only a very few replied; certainly 250 did not reply. I think that in fairness this should have been stated to the House. My own means of judging the opinion of working men has not been limited to conversations with my constituents after speeches on the Irish Question. I hear the hon. Member say that he did not specify me; but certainly there were certain allusions to factious opposition on the part of the junior Member for Northampton. I know they were kindly meant, or not meant at all. Well, both internationally and nationally for the last 25 years of my life, outside the Trades Unions—for having, I am sorry to say, never learnt a trade, I never had the right to belong to any Trade Union—I have mixed in these questions at least as much as any living man in this country; and I say that, even if the Trades Unions were unanimous on this subject, which they are not, you must remember that the bulk of the labourers, skilled and unskilled—I am sorry for it—do not belong to any Union. Although I cannot speak in the same familiar way as the hon. Member of the leaders of popular movements abroad, I have come across a good many of them, and amongst them M. Yves Guyot, the French Minister of Public Works, and he has given me an entirely different view from that stated by the hon. Member of the feeling in France on this question. I would ask the House to judge of the accuracy of the hon. Member's statements by one little instance. He told us that last year there were in Paris two Congresses on trade matters, but that they were practically one. Well, that is practically just what they were not. They were practically two. They would not work together, or do anything together. They both voted, for what?

MR. GRAHAM

For an eight hours day.

MR. BRADLAUGH

For an eight hours day for everyone? Well, that would put an end at once to the textile industries of this country. It would close at once some of our best foundries; it would close the bulk of those great works that have placed England in advance amongst the workshops of the world. It is not friendliness to the poor man to propose what you are proposing. His wickedest enemy could not do worse, for you are proposing to render impossible the industries in which many men gain their livelihood. Nor is it true that the working man's lot is unendurable, or is becoming more unendurable. There is distress, too much distress; long hours, too many long hours; but the hours are far shorter than they were when I was a lad—far shorter than they were when I commenced to be active amongst the people. The people's homes are better in the majority of instances. It is perfectly true—and I admit the great difficulty surrounding the fact—that in a huge collection of population such as you have in London you get extremes of poverty and misery that are appalling. But your eight hours will not touch that. It has nothing whatever to do with it. You talk of hypothetical revolution, and you tell us accurately enough that in the Marxist Party, to which you belong, this Eight Hours Question is one of the first planks. One of the features of the Marxist policy approved by the hon. Mover was the destruction of the bourgiosie. But these are vain words, or wicked words, if they are words which really mean that you can destroy one class in the interest of another in any civilised community at all, much less that you can do it here. I know more both of the workmen and their employers than the hon. Member. It has been my good fortune to hear many men of different trades speak well of their employers, and to hear them speak sympathetically of the difficulty in trade crises of carrying on large industries in which large amounts of capital are sunk. It is perfectly true that by some happy accident, or by some skilful enterprise, an employer occasionally amasses an enormous fortune; but that is the exception and not the rule, and many an owner of mills, or an employer who is engaged in some other great branch of manufacture, has to watch with the greatest care the narrow margin which enables him to conduct his business. If Parliament wore to sanction such a proposal as this, it would mean that we can regulate the conditions of labour, and regulate them better than they can be regulated between employer and employed. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Atherley-Jones) to suggest that whatever in combination the men may be able to effect between themselves it is open to Parliament to secure by process of law. My hon. and learned Friend is a good lawyer, but he is a bad legislator if that is his view. It has been urged that sanction of this kind given by Parliament helps to form public opinion. It is no part of the duty of Parliament to form public opinion on this question. It is the duty of Parliament to legislate for the prevention of crime, to prevent frauds of all kinds, to protect the weak, where they needed protection, against injury from the strong. It is the duty of Parliament to legislate where the conditions are such as to endanger life or limb. It is not the duty of Parliament to interfere between employer and employed in the conduct of their own business. Neither is it true that this proposal involves an international question capable of decision by an international law. The standard of comfort differs in various countries; the wages are not the same, and values are not the same. I am in favour of shorter hours of labour; but I do not believe that any Statute Parliament can pass will have the effect of shortening those hours. The hon. Member (Mr. Cuninghame Graham) referred to the Returns relating to this subject in America; but he did not quote from it, and very wisely so, because he would have had to quote exactly the opposite to what he told the House, and the test is easy, the Return is on the Table. In the Library there is that magnificent volume on Work and Wages, which forms part of the last Census Return of the United States of America; and in the Reports of the Commissioners of Labour published by the most advanced and most settled States, there is evidence, over and over again, from the men themselves that the law has failed to shorten their hours of labour that combination has done it. In one case—in the Federal Law—and in several of the State laws there has been an enactment that men should only work for a certain number of hours a day. The men themselves have rebelled against that because it shortens their wage by one-fifth per day, and they absolutely made arrangements to break the laws by making enactments for hour labour instead of day labour. They engaged to work for periods of hours at so much per hour, with special stipulations to evade the law which it is said they are so anxious for. I do not think the hon. Member dealt quite fairly with the House. He talked about eight and eight and a half and nine and nine and a half hours of labour in European countries. He surely must know, if he has taken the pains to read the Return laid on the Table of the House to which I have referred, that there is no country in Europe in which the average hours of labour are as short as those he has quoted. He must know that even if there are compulsory laws, as there are in one or two countries, those laws are evaded with the connivance of the working men. This proposal will, in my opinion, have a most de-moralising effect upon the labouring classes. Let the working men encourage a spirit of self-reliance, and settle their hours of labour for themselves. Parliament cannot make backbones for men who have not got them, and to legislate for the weakest and most helpless would discourage the strongest and most vigorous in the continuance of their efforts they have hitherto made, and which have advanced this country before the other nations of the world. What is the real object of these plans for the restriction of the hours of adult labour? Restriction of output. What does that mean? It means that we shall stimulate foreign endeavour in every case where foreign nations have access to raw material —and I know no case in which we have a monopoly of it—we shall stimulate them to drive us out of every foreign market in the world. If that is what the hon. Member is contending for it may be one of the weapons of the Marxist Party of social revolution; but even if I am to be denounced as factious and to be told that the whole of my constituents will vote against me, which I do not believe, I will vote for what I believe to be the benefit of the people and I will not allow any illusionary will o'-the-wisp to be danced before their eyes, which will only lead them in a quagmire from which the Marxist Party would not rescue them. I was astounded at one phrase that fell from the Mover of the Amendment. I under stood him to say that on purely economical grounds the workmen have been agitating in their Trades Unions and their clubs. I have heard that some of the advocates of an Eight Hours Bill are rather hard on those who stand on economical grounds. I am inclined to traverse the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I do not mean to say the hon. Member has been purposely incorrect, but I think he has been most unfortunate in misunderstanding the expressions of opinions of those he comes in contact with. It is true there is a Party which had its origin in Germany and which was driven to this country by the brutal coercion of some of its members some 30 or 40 years ago. It is true that that Party of social revolutionists exists; but I do not believe that its methods have taken deep root in the hearts of our people. It is perfectly true that if you go to men and say— "Would you like the 5s. you receive now to be paid for working half the time," you would get a vote "Yes"; and one of the advanced members of the Marxist Party, in a book sent to me this week for review, says that the hours of labour are to be reduced to a minimum of two and a maximum of five. Let the working men in their organisations, without our help, settle for themselves what they want. Our duty as legislators is, when they are unfairly treated, to speak for them here; when we find them cheated, to bring in laws for their protection; when we find their lives endangered, to legislate if we can to diminish the danger, although we can do very little in that way, and we should do very much more if we can to make them more sensible of the danger they run, and more impressed with the necessity of combining to protect themselves from the consequences of danger. It is certainly no part of our duty to regulate the conditions of labour. The Mover of the Amendment said this is no Party question. I hope it will not be. Social questions will grow fast enough in this country without their being made the battledore and shuttlecock of personal ambitions and Party exigencies. I appeal to Members on both sides of the House—do not give any hesitating vote, and do not, for fear of offending somebody at the moment, vote in favour of this Amendment unless you are prepared to go much further still, and put the clock of England back to the time when this Parliament or its predecessor did regulate the hours of labour, as was thought in the interest of employers, and failed, masters and men combining against it. If the feeling of the working classes is in favour of short hours, we shall have them; if the feeling is hostile to such, your laws ought not to go against that feeling. If you are going to shorten the hours of labour and restrict production, where will you find the new wealth that is to keep the ever-increasing millions of this country? I can understand those in favour of Revolution voting in favour of this Amendment, but I, always in favour of Reform and against Revolution, will give my vote in the Lobby against it.

(11.2.) MR. BEAUFOY (Lambeth, Kennington)

I shall not for a moment attempt to follow the hon. Member for Northampton through his very elaborate arguments, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a very few words from the point of view of practical experience which, from an Assembly of practical men, may claim attention. I disclaim the character of a thoughtless enthusiast, but I have given careful consideration to this subject upon which we are engaged, and, having put my opinion into practical operation and in position, to give some sort of judgment as to the result. First, we are told there is no general desire on the part of workmen throughout England for any restriction of the hours of labour. To this I can Say that I represent a constituency which includes a large number of gas workers, railway employés and others with whom I am in constant communication, and I find there is a most anxious desire among those two classes I have mentioned that there should be a limitation of the hours of labour to eight hours a day. Then we are told that the result of such limitation would be a great decrease in the output of manufactures. Of course, I should be unwilling to say this might not be the case in some trades, but I may venture to give the practical result within my personal knowledge. For six months the hours of labour of my employés have been reduced from nine and three-quarter hours 'to eight hours, and the result, in this instance, has been to secure a larger output than before and to reduce the overtime by 75 per cent. I may safely say, in a general way, that the output has not been diminished, but has rather increased. I cannot say if this would hold good of all trades, but there is the result of my experience. We are told that it is no part of the duty of Parliament to stand between masters and men, and how far that may be so I am not prepared to say; but inasmuch as this Amendment only raises the question whether it is possible and desirable to consider the hours of labour, it would be most unwise for Government to refuse such a discussion. Many working men must be dissatisfied with the present condition of things in England; on the one hand, we have hours of unusual length and low pay, and on the other hand, we have no work at all, and the only resource left—the workhouse. From the workmen's point of view this is a matter of the greatest importance, and it would ill become the friends of labour to set themselves against a full and fair discussion.

(11.7.) MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)

I was rather sorry to hear the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Graham), for while I agree with his Amendment I am in the unfortunate position of being unable to agree with his speech in support of it. The Amendment is in favour of the Government taking part in the Labour Conferences at Berne and Berlin—the speech was in favour of a general Eight Hours Bill. Now, what inclines me to vote for the Amendment is this: A Committee has taken a vast amount of evidence in regard to the Sweating System, and that evidence tends to show that there are trades in this country in which work is carried on for terribly long hours. A large number of persons in London work not for 10 or 12 hours, but for 16 and 20 hours out of the 24. We have not yet had the Report of that Committee on the Sweating System, and it is probable or possible that when we do get it, it will contain some recommendation for shortening hours of labour. But if this Committee appointed by the present Government should make such a proposal, and if the Government reject the proposition now made, their hands will be tied and they will be unable to give any effect to the recommendation in the Report of the Sweating Committee. Taken in connection with the possible recommendation of this Committee, it seems to me the proposal of my hon. Friend is an eminently practicable one. It is a proposal that we shall try to find out if foreign workmen will agree with our workmen to limit the hours of labour. The result of such a Conference may be attended with the greatest possible benefit for the working classes, although the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who, I am sorry to see has left his place after delivering his speech, says of the proposal that from the wickedest enemy of the working classes no proposal could be worse. That is what the hon. Member says of a proposal that the working men of this country should have the opportunity of knowing if foreign workmen will co-operate for limiting the hours of labour. The hon. Member made another astonishing statement. He said, as regards labour, the only duty of Government was to protect the lives and limbs of the workers. I should have thought the duty of the State went a little further than that, and included protection for the health of labourers. But the hon. Member in his desire, I suppose, to get cheers from the other side, which he is always doing now—I am glad to see him return to his place—says the only duty of the State is to protect the life and limbs of the labourer. Would he not include protection to health?

MR. BRADLAUGH

Certainly, from diseases that may be serious.

MR. PHILIPPS

I am glad to get that extension of the definition. Further, the hon. Member says, "You cannot supply backbone by law to the weaker members of the community." Can't you? I think the hon. Member supported the Ballot Act, which was to supply backbone to those who needed it, and nothing else. If the hon. Member is consistent in his desire to get cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite he should move to repeal the Ballot Act and similar legislation. Then the hon. Member said that if we reduce the hours of labour we stimulate foreign competition. Yes, but that was unworthy of the hon. Member, for he begs the whole question. We are debating an Amendment which embodies the proposal that we shall try and find out, if we reduce hours of labour here in England, whether foreign manufacturers and workmen would co-operate with us, and, by international agreement, make this reduction of hours general throughout Europe. That is in itself an important thing upon which to be satisfied, and it is a matter not disposed of by a few words from the hon. Member behind mo. The hon. Member endeavours successfully to got cheers from the other side of the House; but in spite of anything he has said, there are many Members who will support this very moderate proposition, a proposition which commits nobody to anything, and which is, therefore, in our present state of information a very excellent proposition. It is a proposition to find out if there is any truth in the statement that if British workmen reduce their hours of labour foreign workmen will take advantage of that to take the bread out of their mouths. I do not believe that foreign workmen will do anything so stupid. Generally speaking, they work longer than our people do; and I believe if we reduced our hours foreigners would reduce theirs in proportion, still keeping the relative distance. At all events, there are doubts about the matter which this proposal is intended to solve, and I hope the Government may be able to tell us that they propose to accept the invitations sent out from Berlin and Berne.

(11.15.) MR. S. SMITH (Flintshire)

I will only intervene for a few moments, and that m reference only to one particular industry—the cotton trade of Lanca- shire. Several speakers have referred to the effect of shorter hours on this great industry. I have been connected with the trade all my life, and have taken considerable pains to discover the length of the hours of labour in the different countries engaged in this industry. I would call attention to one matter which has not been touched upon in the discussion to-night, and that is the growing competition this trade has to meet from Asiatic labour. The trade of Lancashire has suffered immensely in the last 10 or 15 years from the growing competition of the cotton factories of India. A large business has been wrested from us, and there have been occasions when both employer and employed have suffered loss and distress through this cause. The House will realise the nature of the competition when I mention that while the Indian mills work 80 hours a week—and I may call the attention of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) to this fact—it supports the argument in his speech, to which I listened with much interest—at the present moment the Indian factories work 80 hours a week, while in Lancashire we are restricted to 56¼ hours. One result of this is that the Indian cotton trade has been growing by leaps and bounds, while our trade has been stationary in comparison. In the last 20 years the consumption of cotton in the factories of India has increased 1,000 per cent., while the increase in England has been 25 per cent. During the same period the increase in the Continental factories of Europe has been 120 per cent., and in America 130 per cent. Further, not only are the hours of labour so much longer in India, but the rate of wages is just a quarter of the rate in Lancashire. Cotton mills in India have, in several instances, paid dividends of 30 and 40 per cent., while the average rate of profit in Lancashire in the last few years has not been more than 3 per cent. We have in the town of Oldham 90 cooperative concerns; their accounts are published and open to public inspection, and the works are largely owned by members of the working classes, and I can say, after having studied the accounts with some care, that if you take the figures for five years back, and take profit and loss together, you will find that these concerns have not paid, on an average, more than 3 per cent. Now I ask the House, would it be possible to put any additional burden on a trade already so heavily handicapped? Remember, the hours of labour are also longer in Germany, France, Switzerland, and even in America. I went through Central Europe two years ago, and I inquired specially in all the principal towns as to the hours of labour in factories, and I found that, as a rule, those hours were from 15 to 20 per cent, longer than the hours in England—while wages was 20 to 30 per cent. less. The great difficulty in compulsorily shortening the hours of labour would be that you would cripple our foreign trade. If we did not depend upon our foreign trade, you might make a good many experiments, perhaps without very much risk; but we have a total import and export trade of 2,700 millions sterling; the life of our people, in fact, depends upon it, and we cannot afford to make such experiments with it. It is carried on under the hottest and closest competition, and no country competes with us more severely than Germany. I have very little faith in any International agreement for shortening the hours of labour being carried out. No agreement has ever been carried out for reducing the armies of foreign nations. Mutual jealously prevents any such International agreement, and so long as you have France and Germany filled with hostility to each other you cannot expect any arrangement for shortening the hours of labour being honestly carried out. I I believe, on the whole, the scheme is illusory and impraoticable, but I hope and believe that the influence of public opinion and the higher moral sense of the community will steadily tend to a wholesome reduction of the hours of labour. I shall rejoice to see the hours of toil lessened and the toilers get more of the product of their labour. Though I cannot agree with the hon. Member's Motion I recognise the high motives that have actuated him in his endeavour to carry out a principle that is a credit to his humanity.

(11.20.) THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSION,) Manchester, N.E.

Considering that the terms of the Motion contemplate particular action on the part of Her Majesty's Government abroad, it is perhaps desirable that some statement should be made on their behalf. From one point of view I think it will be conceded that this discussion will not be without its use. I would be the last to remark unfavourably on the differences of opinion which have been expressed on the other side of the House, as the question so nearly affects the welfare of large masses of the community in this country, and is one to which the attention of the deepest thinkers has been directed. It is, therefore, not surprising that men equally actuated by the most benevolent and patriotic motives should take different views. It cannot but be useful that on a question of this kind opinions should be expressed by gentlemen who have deeply studied the subject, and who have given materials for future thought and for careful consideration of this question when it comes before the House in a more concrete form. It is unfortunate that I shall be obliged to deal very restrictively in the reply which I make on the particular form of the Amendment, for Her Majesty's Government have received from the German and Swiss Governments invitations to Conferences on the laws affecting labour, and the replies to those messages cannot be communicated to Parliament until they have been received by the Govern- ments to which they are addressed and the consent of those Governments has been obtained to the publication. It is in no narrow or technical spirit that such reserve is maintained. It must be evident that in negotiations on such momentous questions the invitation itself might be subject to modification in consequence of views expressed by other nations. The premature announcement of the intentions of one Government might thus prejudice the interest at stake, and consequently, I think I need not offer an apology for reserving a statement as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government until a fitting time. A question has been given notice of for to-morrow, and then I hope I may be able to state what reply has been made to the German Government. Her Majesty's Government have received information to-day that the Swiss Government, in view of the proposals of the German Emperor, and of the parallel lines on which their own proposals have moved, have resolved for the present to abandon the intention of holding a Conference at Berne. But as to the Conference at Berlin, it is impossible for mo to state at present the purport of the reply made to the invitation, and I cannot but think that in those circumstances the House will not press on the Government an Amendment which would fetter their liberty of action. This I can say, that the German invitation has been replied to in no unsympathetic spirit. The questions involved deeply concern the welfare of our own population, as well as the populations of other countries, and the invitation has been considered by Her Majesty's Government in a spirit suitable to that in which it has been tendered.

(11.25.) LORD R. CHURCHILL

Mr. Speaker, it has been my for tune to listen in this House to many statements and explanations made by Under Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs. I have always thought there was a great deal of unnecessary pomposity and secrecy about the attitude which the Foreign Office—no matter which Party is in power—adopts on these occasions. All my experiences, however, which have been varied and numerous, have been put into the shade by the performance of the right hon. Gentleman who now represents the Foreign Office in this House, for although the debate has been going on for some time, and notice was given of the Amendment more than 10 days ago, the right hon. Gentleman is only able to inform the House that in answer to a question which is to be put to him to-morrow he might be able to say what reply Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Berlin. The position of the right hon. Gentleman is this. The right hon. Gentleman intimates that one word said to-night indicating the tenour of the reply which Her Majesty's Government have made to the German Government might be of the greatest possible danger to the question at stake, but he added that to-morrow he might be able to reply without any danger accruing there from. I have heard many Foreign Office answers, but I never heard one to come near that. Then the right hon. Gentleman went further and said that Her Majesty's Government had received news to the effect that the Swiss Government have decided to abandon their project of holding a conference at Berne. The right hon. Gentleman was very candid, but that information was announced this very morning in every newspaper. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the reply to the Government of Berlin had not been unsympathetic. I really do not quite know what to make of that. I can quite understand that negotiations with Foreign Powers, or matters which might at any moment cause International disputes, ought not to be prematurely made public. But this is a matter of a totally different character. On social questions of this kind, on which diplomatic negotiations have taken place before, and a certain attitude has been taken up, it does seem ridiculous that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is not instructed by the Foreign Secretary to tall the House frankly and plainly what has been the upshot of the invitation which has been sent by the Government of Berlin. Everyone must think that there is not the slightest rhyme or reason in concealing from the House whether the Government has adopted, with regard to the Berlin invitation, the same attitude as they adopted with reference to the Conference at Berne. From the answer of the Under Secretary, I suppose there has been a modification in the terms of the answer. I thought there would have been, and I think that this declaration might as well be made in this debate as at question time in the House. I cannot, of course, vote for the Amendment, as it is an Amendment to the Address. I regret the practice of bringing forward on the Address Motions which have no legitimate connection whatever with it, but which ought to take their chance with private Members' Motions. But, as the subject has been raised, I will put in a plea for discussion of the matter. If the eight hours movement, or a movement for some restriction of the hours of labour, is an unsound one, nothing could demonstrate its unsoundness better than Parliamentary discussion, and in a great manufacturing country like this for the Government to say they will not discuss such a subject appears to me to be the most foolish and most short-sighted attitude they could take up. I could understand the Government sending a delegate to a foreign country and instructing him to argue against such a proposal. At any rate, then, by taking such a course full information on the subject would be at the disposal of Members of Parliament and everyone else. The speech of the hon. Member for Northhampton has been a mixture of banter, rhetoric, and assertion The banter was not first class, but so far as the hon. Member himself is concerned it was effective. The rhetoric, too, was not first class, and the assertions were very loud and strong, and more or less appealed to the emotions. The speech called forth loud manifestations of feeling on the Government side of the House. In fact, while the hon. Member was speaking, and as I took the part of a philosophic observer, the interesting problem passed through my mind—which would be the first Member of the House to take his seat on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Northampton or the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The hon. Member for Northampton said that the Government had no right to take part in any foreign Conference on social questions unless they were prepared to legislate upon those questions. That seems to me a most untenable proposition. If they will not discuss those questions in a Conference at Berlin, they will have to do so in the House of Commons. The hon. Member has alluded to the state of affairs in America, and has said that laws regulating adult labour in that country have either been evaded or been futile, but the fact that such laws have been passed proves, at least, that they were adopted with popular assent and approval. Therefore to take up the dogmatic position that there is no demand is both childish and unsound. The hon. Member has carefully omitted all reference to Australia, to which we are bound by nearer and closer ties than we are to America, where the people are not inferior to us in ability, resource, education, or knowledge, and yet where the eight hours system has for a long time been adopted. In that very valuable work by Sir C. Dilke, Greater Britain, this passage occurs: In the Australian Colonies the eight hours day prevails and is all but universal, as in the towns of South Africa the nine hours day is as far as European labour is concerned.…The eight hours day of labour has the full approbation of the whole community. It may be said, perhaps, that the eight hours day has been obtained by custom and not by law, but a further passage from the same book shows that in the Australian Colonies it is customary to insert in public Bills dealing with work carried out by Government a provision relating to the hours of labour, and that in some private Bills clauses fixing the day's work at eight hours have been inserted. Sir C. Dilke said with reference to the result of this eight hours system:— In Australia the effect of the eight hours and at the Cape of the nine hours day is socially conservative—that is to say, the comfort conferred by it on the working classes prevents agitation and revolutionary tendencies. This was written by a student of modern history and society who did not attempt to excite public opinion for any object of his own, but wrote to demonstrate facts and facts alone. These references were worth infinitely more than the speech of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire and the fervid rhetoric of the hon. Member for Northampton.

MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM

I should like to inform the noble Lord that in my humble way I have already quoted the passages which he has read to the House.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I am glad to hear it, because a twice told tale is more likely to impress than a once told tale. Now, I will refer to the extraordinary position taken up by the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member says it is not the duty of Parliament to form public opinion. How many Members of the Radical Party will support the hon. Member in that assertion? I have always thought that it was the proudest boast of that Party that the greatest reforms of the last century have all been owing to the way in which it has formed public opinion in this House. I shall be surprised if it is possible to find one Radical Member who does not express profound disagreement with that opinion. Then the hon. Member said that it was not the business of Parliament to interfere between employer and em- ployed for the regulation of adult labour. Why, for the last quarter of a century the operation of the laws passed in this House has been to restrict, modify, and control adult labour directly and indirectly. From the day when the first Factory Act was passed Parliament has been regulating the hours and time and operation of adult labour. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] I cannot argue with the hon. Member who dissents; I can only advise him to enlarge the scope of his studies and not to intervene rashly in the discussion of subjects of which he evidently has an imperfect knowledge. Then the hon. Member for Northampton said that it was the duty of Parliament to protect the weakest against the strongest. Have I quoted the hon. Member correctly?

MR. BRADLAUGH

No, I said more than that; I stated what it was the duty of Parliament to protect the weakest against.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I put down the words at the time. But is the hon. Gentleman prepared to assert positively at the present moment that labour is stronger than capital?

MR. BRADLAUGH

I made no such assertion at all. I will, if necessary, repeat what I did say.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I am not perfectly clear that the hon. Member did not say that capital and labour did not respectively represent the strongest and the weakest.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I am sure the noble Lord does not intend to misrepresent what I said. Shall I repeat it?

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I prefer to rely on my own recollection. I listened with concentrated attention to everything which the hon. Member said, and I am not certain that labour with regard to capital is not occupying the relation of the weaker to the stronger. We have heard a great deal about the narrow margin of profit and the extreme danger of doing anything that will cut down for the capitalist the margin of profit on which he conducts his enterprise. But I have not been able to detect lately where that narrow margin exists. The income-tax and revenue Returns certainly' do not show a narrow margin of profit in trade, and we must also bear in mind the enormous number of limited companies started every day, and such matters as the dividends of railway companies, which are now very largely in excess of those of former years. Do these undertakings show a narrow margin of profit? This narrow margin of profit is a fine assertion when it is put forward, and I admit that the eight hours movement is a cutting of profits, but it does not mean a lowering of wages. I cannot, however, accept the narrow margin of profit on the assertion of the hon. Member or on the indignant assertions of the hon. Members behind me. In these social questions I believe in a sympathetic attitude. The hon. Member did not allude to the mass of unemployed in the country, and yet the mass of employed to unemployed is a feature of great social importance not paralleled abroad. Do not, therefore, let us adopt a dogmatic attitude in these social questions, but let us, for one party as well as for the other, adopt a sympathetic attitude; let us examine the demands of the labouring classes and look at the matter from their point of view, and, having done so, if we are obliged to disagree from them, let hon. Members endeavour to show their reasons for doing so by means of instructed and enlightened argument and by a total absence of anything like dogmatism.

(11.52.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,) Strand, Westminster

I wish to make an appeal to the House on this question. There will be ample opportunity during the course of the Session for a renewal of the discussion on a much wider scale. The Government are anxious, but are unable, to take part in the discussion as freely as they would wish to to-night, and seeing that time is now so important to the interests of the country, and that it is also desirable, in the interests of the working classes, that fuller discussion should be allowed on this matter, I do trust that the House will agree at once to come to a decision upon this Amendment, and enable us tonight to dispose of the Address.

(11.53.) MR. CREMER, (Haggerston)

I do not propose to prolong the debate so as to prevent a Division being taken, but I wish just to say a few words before we go into the Lobbies, to explain the reasons why some hon. Members on this side of the House intend to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I wish it to be clearly understood that they are going to vote for it because it simply proposes that an inquiry should take place, and that by voting for the Amendment they are not necessarily pledging themselves to the principle involved in the Eight Hours Bill. I regret that so much time has been taken up in discussing the Eight Hours Bill rather than the principle involved in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I hops the Government will accede to the principle in the Amendment, because while I have very little faith in the good likely to result from such a Conference, it shows that we are getting on when a Monarch of a first-class power steps down from his throne into the popular arena and practically says to his subjects:— I admit your grievances, and I am prepared to discuss them with you; I will do more, I will invite other Governments to assist me in the discussion of your grievances with a view, if possible, of mitigating the evils from which you suffer, I think the Government ought to assent to the invitation and to reject the advice of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, by accepting the principle of the Amendment. The noble Lord made some extraordinary assertions. He said that the Government of this country were in a better position than any other Government to dispel any illusions on the question of shortening the hours of labour, and then he wound up with the extraordinary declaration that he should vote against the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It seems to me that the position taken up by the noble Lord on the question is utterly illogical, and I hope that the Government will not take his advice, but will accept the principle embodied in the Amendment. I admit that personally I have not much faith in the inquiry which will take place at the Conference because of the quarter from which the proposal comes. I have no particular faith in monarchs or in the prescriptions which they, from time to time, propound for the social and economic grievances of the mass of the people. But, seeing that machinery has multiplied the power of production to such extent as to render unnecessary prolonged hours of labour, I hope that the Government, will agree to take part in the inquiry which it is proposed to hold at the instigation of the Emperor of Germany.

(11.59.) MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM

Are we to clearly understand that the Government during the Session will give us a further opportunity for discussing this subject?

^*(12.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 198.—(Div. List, No. 9.)

Main Question put, and agreed to; the humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty by Privy Councillors.