RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 24 March 1893 vol 10 cc1086-126

MR. W. ALLEN (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

rose to call attention to the desirability of the payment of Members of Parliament, and to move— That, as the principle of gratuitous public service upon which the representation of this House is at present based limits the freedom of constituencies in the selection of their Representatives, this House is of opinion that a reasonable allowance should forthwith be granted to all Members of Parliament. Since this Resolution was brought forward a year ago there had, he said, been an increase of opinion in its favour among all classes. In asking the House to accept the Resolution for the Payment of Members, he was asking it to revert to an old custom which existed down to the end of the 17th century. Several times during the present century Resolutions or Bills had been brought forward to endeavour to reestablish the old principle. In 1830 a Bill was brought forward to restore the system of payment of Members; in 1845 a Resolution was moved on the same question. In 1870 it was again brought forward, when only 24 votes was given in its favour, but last year it was supported by 162 votes, giving a gain of 138. In 1870 some hon. Members who had since become prominent in that House took part in the Division, among the minority who were in favour of the Resolution being the present Secretary for War and the right hon. Baronet who represented the Forest of Dean. Before dealing with the arguments for or against the payment of Members, he should just like to notice one Amendment which he took to be a direct negative to the Resolution. This Amendment was that some Members should be paid and some not paid. He believed that the Radicals in that House were strongly of opinion that if any Members were to be paid all should be paid. The Labour Representatives were perfectly unanimous in their opinion that all Members should be paid. They had the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who, in the Debate last year, said he agreed with the view that if there was to be payment of Members they should all be paid. Again, they had the statement of the Prime Minister that he believed in the absolute equality of all Members in that House, and that it would be most detrimental and most damaging if they were to alter that equality and place men on a different footing. It seemed to him, therefore, that practically the unanimous opinion of the House was against any scheme by which some Members should be paid and some Members should not be paid. As to the argument that the dignity of Members would be lowered by payment, he never heard it argued that the dignity of a Cabinet Minister was lowered by his receiving £5,000 a year. He had never heard it argued that a Junior Lord of the Treasury had his dignity lowered by receiving £1,000 a year; and he believed some offices carried with them a lower pay than that. They thus saw that the question of degree was recognised. The services of a Cabinet Minister were considered to be worth £5,000 a year; of a Junior Lord of the Treasury £1,000 a year, and they had only to push this a little further, and they would get the certain value of the services of all Members of that House, and this was what he wished to see done. He wanted to see this principle extended. It was no new idea that remuneration should be given for public services; it already existed, and he wanted to see this idea and principle extended to all the Members of that House, because he did not believe it would lower the dignity or the standard of honour, or the standard of Members, if such a thing were done. As to the argument of cost, he could hardly regard that as a very serious objection when he saw that the House could vote thousands upon thousands to take over some tract of uncivilised country in Central Africa, or to send some expedition through miles of trackless deserts. In face of these facts, he did not see how it could be urged that the State would suffer in doing what many of the poorer States of the world did—namely, paying those who devoted their lives to the service of the State. He believed that in every other civilised country in the world Members of Parliament were paid. It was argued that if English Members were paid the door would be opened to the same frauds and practices that prevailed on the Continent and in other places. He did not think this would really be the effect. The effect would be that they would no longer hear those taunts, jeers, and jibes which had been thrown out against some hon. Members of that House on account of their poverty, and on account of their receiving money to help them to retain their seats. It was said that if Members were paid men who were adventurers—men of straw—would get into the House. No doubt there would be a certain number of these men, but they would be a small minority, and unfortunately they saw that such men could get in under the present system. They had been rare in the past, and he could not see that by paying Members they would get in more of them in the future. He maintained that candidates should be chosen from the largest possible constituency; the greatest number of men who had the ability should be able to offer themselves as Representatives for that House; but they were not able to do so under the present system. Many men were kept out on account of the cost of living. They had enough money to live on when in the country, but not enough to pay the extra cost of being a Representative of the people. The door should be open to as many men as possible to enter that House. The adoption of the Resolution he proposed would open the door to a great many more labour candidates. No one would deny that the present Labour Representatives in the House were among its brightest ornaments. At present, if a labour candidate desired to enter Parliament, he had first to get some strong Union to support him and subscribe sufficient money to keep him here. A man kept in this way was not half so free and independent as he would be if kept by the State. If he were paid by the State, at the end of a Parliament he would be able to appeal not to a Trade Union, but to the general body of his constituents, and would be judged not by one unpopular vote which he might have given, but by all his votes. He believed, too, a great many more Local Representatives would be returned. At present a great many local men, eminently fitted to represent the wants and needs of their constituents, were unable to bear the expense of keeping up the position of a Member of Parliament in London, and so were debarred from entering. The consequence was, that frequently what was known as a "carpet-bagger" came down whom the constituency never heard of, and he got returned, having no knowledge whatever of local needs and requirements; and he submitted that it would be for the vast good of the community and the great benefit of Parliament that a great many more local men should be returned. The principle of the payment of Members was recognised and in force in all our Colonies. They had the opinion of Mr. Munro, who said that in Australia payment of Members had been a success, and, speaking from personal experience of New Zealand politics, he was able to say that in that island it had been a most unqualified success, and had tended to keep thoroughly good men in the House of Representatives. A great deal of cant bad been talked on this subject. Let them clear their minds of this, and consider exactly under the present system who was supported and who was not supported. Nearly every younger son in that House was supported. There was a legend of a great nobleman who, before Home Rule became prominent, thought the Liberal Party was going a little too fast—this, he might remark, was not an altogether uncommon feeling with great noblemen—and the result of his decision was to affect throe seats in this House. Could the younger sons of the great noblemen and brewers vote really as they pleased on such subjects, for example, as bimetallism and local option? No; most assuredly they could not. They were all passed sound before they entered that House, and he maintained they could not give a free and independent vote upon any of these questions. He might, be asked what rate of remuneration would he fix for a Member of Parliament? That seemed to him to be a matter for subsequent consideration if that Resolution was accepted. He would not be a believer in a large rate of remuneration, which would make it worth a man's while to become a Member of that House simply for the sake of getting his pay, but he would advocate such a rate of remuneration as would enable a labouring man to keep a proper appearance in that House. He would give the amounts that were paid in one or two of our Colonies and elsewhere. In New Zealand £100 a year was paid and a free pass over the railways; in Canada and Queensland £2 2s. a day; in South Australia, £200; in Victoria, £300; and in the United States—where they did everything on a large scale—they paid the exorbitant rate of £1,000 a year. He should be disposed to recommend something nearer the pay in the Colonies than that which existed in the United States. Then there was the question how should this be got? He maintained it could be put on the Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might differ with him, and say that it would be necessary to have a Bill. The difference between passing a Bill and putting it on the Budget seemed to him to be this: If it was done by a Bill "another place" would have a say in it; if by the Budget "another place" would not. He could see no possible reason why "another place" should have a voice in what remuneration should be given to Members who represented the people. He wanted to explain one word in his Resolution with which he believed a good deal of fault had been found. It was the word "forthwith." Well, he need not say that "forthwith" might not mean absolutely at once. For instance, it did not mean that night; it did not mean before Easter; it did not necessarily mean this Session; but it did mean as soon as the Government could possibly find time to introduce a Bill respecting this question or to place a charge on the Budget. It meant the very soonest possible time. His idea was that the present time was the best, and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether the charge could not be placed on the Budget this year. He begged to move the Resolution.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.),

in seconding the Resolution, said he thought that Members of the House who, in season and out of season, had attached supreme importance to this reform might feel eminently gratified at the very favourable position which it now occupied. In past years when the sub- ject was brought under the attention of the House by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick), to whose devotion to the subject the great progress that had been made was largely due, his voice was as the voice of one crying in the wilderness. But it would seem that every reform, political or social, had to undergo various vicissitudes of fortune. First, it was the fad of the faddist; then it became a subject deserving of public inquiry, and, finally, it became a subject for legislative treatment. He thought they could claim for this question that it had reached the final stage; and in bringing forward the subject that night, they demanded and claimed that it should be removed out of the region of Abstract Resolutions, and forthwith be a subject of legislative treatment. They might urge this Resolution on the acceptance of the House simply because it was the reversion to an ancient constitutional practice, but it was not necessary for them to invite history to supply reasons for this Resolution. They were content it should stand or fall upon considerations of justice and expediency. They rested their Resolution upon two propositions: The first was, that under the system of non-payment, representative Government in its true sense was impossible; and the second was, that the public service was deserving of public pay. What was the mode by which candidates were elected at the present time? What was the first question that was thought of when the candidate was going to be elected? Did it concern his knowledge of political questions? Did it concern his fitness to serve in a public capacity? The House knew that it did not. The extent of his social power was infinitely of more importance than his capacity to serve the State. He said without hesitation that in his opinion, with the average Political Associations throughout the country, when a candidate was to be selected, the size of his bank balance was of infinitely more importance, than the size of his brain. Therefore, they said in so many words to the constituencies at the present time, "We acknowledge the supremacy of your political power. By your Totes you may make or unmake Parliaments; you may determine the fate of nations; but in the exercise of your power we make one condition with you and upon that condition we insist, and it is this: that in the exercise of your power you shall choose Representatives only from the professional, from the leisured, and from the wealthy classes." And what was the result? The result was, although he did not overlook the fact, that at the present time they had men in that House who were outside the classes he had named, yet he said those men were there at the cost of pecuniary sacrifice on the part of a section only of their constituents, and that they were there as Representatives of a Trade Organisation, and so unfair was the present system that they condemned those Organisations to a perpetual fine in order that the interests of labour might be even slightly represented in that House. The principle of payment for the public service was one that stood apart entirely from what was done, or might be done, by different Trade Organisations. They said that, there was no absolute defence of gratuitous public service in Parliament. He knew a great deal of respect existed for it, and, he thought, rightly so, because in one respect it was an indication of public spirit that they might well be proud of. When this question was last before the House of Commons, the present Leader of the Opposition contended that if Members of Parliament were remunerated even to a small extent it would strike a blow at this whole system of unremunerative service. Well, he admired the right hon. Gentleman's teaching; but he was sorry he limited it so in its application. Why was it so reprehensible for a private Member to receive a salary, and so admissible on the part of hon. Gentlemen who might sit on the Front Bench? If this system of unremunerative service was such an excellent thing, why were hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Front Bench opposite so anxious to get down from the lofty pinnacle of unremunerative service to the dirty ditch of paid representation? He invited hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Motion to show by what law of consistency this principle was right for Front Benchmen and wrong for private Members sitting on that (the Liberal) side of the House. There were on the Paper Amendments numerous and interesting to this Resolution. The second Amendment on the Paper was by the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones). He saw, with considerable regret and surprise, that an hon. Member, rejoicing in such a good democratic name, should have given notice of such an anti-democratic Amendment. When he saw that Amendment, he wondered whether the hon. Member had entirely forgotten the life and work of Ernest Jones, and he wondered if he had ever heard of such a document as the Charter? There were six points in the Charter. They had got two of them, and the payment of Members was the third, which they hoped they would soon obtain. When the hon. Member led the attack, so to speak, against the proposal, they were entitled to have less respect than ever for the law of heredity. The hon. Member was concerned about the efficiency of Parliament, but was he quite sure that the efficiency of Parliament was now in an ideal state? Did he think the present state of the efficiency of Parliament was incapable of improvement? The case for the Motion rested, to a very largo extent, on improved efficiency, and one result of the Resolution would be that the efficiency of Parliament would be improved. Under a system of payment of Members, Parliament would be less of a rhetorical forum, and a little more of a legislative machine. There was another Amendment to which he would briefly refer, and that was one which had been given notice of by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby). The hon. Member seemed to believe in a system of payment of Members, but would strangle it in its application. He would tell the hon. Member that, so far as he was concerned—and he thought on this point he could speak on behalf of some hon. Friends who sat round him—that they would rather 20 times over have no payment at all than have a miserable, petty system which would allow a certain sum annually for Members of Parliament not, forsooth, because of services to the State, but because they had the misfortune to be poor. They wanted no distinction, so far as social position was concerned, in that House, and the hon. Member had better ponder a little longer before he acted up to this high spirit of political morality. He was concerned as to the attitude the Ministerial Bench were going to adopt towards this question. It had been suggested they were going to "shy" at the word "forthwith." He did not know whether there was any truthin that rumour or not. Personally, he could not believe it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, if he might, use the term, had been a consistent stalwart on this question, and had recognised the importance of it. For himself, he felt considerable surprise that no allusion whatever was made to this important question in the Queen's Speech; and some friends of his, who thought they were more in the secrets of the Cabinet than he was, suggested that perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made such plans as would make mention of the subject in the Queen's Speech altogether unnecessary. During the last few days their anticipations in this respect had been blotted out and their hopes destroyed. They had it on the highest constitutional authority in that House that a question of this character could not be dealt with in the Budget. He thought they might fairly say that while they regretted this reform could not come probably for some time, yet they were prepared to say they were not anxious that this question should be smuggled through the House. They wanted the House to discuss the question and to have a fair opportunity of giving its verdict with regard to it. He thought they were entitled to ask from the Front Bench for a declaration that they recognised the importance of the question, and that at the earliest possible moment, consistent with their public declarations, they would deal with this question. He had never denied that the reception this question would receive from the House must be very largely determined by the attitude which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen took of the functions and capabilities of that House. If the House of Commons was to be behind the age instead of abreast of the age, the case for that Motion was not of such a pressing character as he and his colleagues had been endeavouring to urge; but if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen recognised that, so far as political situation was concerned, the extension of political power had completely altered the duties of that House, he thought they would be prepared to admit that the case for the payment of Members was of a pressing character. As soon as they were able to throw off the Hibernian incubus which was upon them, they would have to face the several questions which were being discussed throughout the country to-day, and in facing these problems it was of the utmost importance that they should open the door of Parliament wide and make it possible for the best minds of the nation to enter the House, so that they might arrive at a just and proper solution of these problems. He hoped there would be no misunderstanding of the issue. Those who voted against the Motion would be denying the right of the constituencies to select their Representatives from any and every class. They would be upholding and supporting a system of class representation, of sectional representation, and of misrepresentation. Those, on the other hand, who would vote in support of the Motion would favour giving to the constituencies the widest possible field for the selection of their Members. They would declare that capacity to serve the State was not the monopoly of any section of the community, and they would say to any man, however poor in pocket, however humble in station, and provided he was equipped with the confidence of his constituency, that he should not be debarred by any artificial or unnatural restriction from realising what was the just and legitimate ambition of citizenship—the right to sit in that House and to contribute, however imperfectly, to its deliberations and its decisions.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as the principle of gratuitous public service upon which the representation of this House is at present based limits the freedom of constituencies in the selection of their Representatives, this House is of opinion that a reasonable allowance should forthwith be granted to all Members of Parliament,"—(Mr. William Allen,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)

said, they had listened with interest to the two admirable speeches—so far as any speech could be admirable—on this question from hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. They were all very glad to have hon. Gentlemen professing strong Radical views come and express their opinions on the floor of the House, where they could be answered, instead of airing them on public platforms outside. The last speaker said he and his hon. Friends did not want sympathy; the Opposition could assure him that he would not get sympathy on that side of the House, at any rate. The hon. Member said, in dealing with the question, that the Government had already too much cargo on board. He (Admiral Field) entirely agreed with him. They could well understand that the Government smiled on the efforts of the hon. Gentleman who took charge of this Resolution, for he had relieved them of the considerable duty of having to bring out this new item in the Newcastle Programme. They were getting the Newcastle Programme unfolded to them by slow degrees. The other night they had the Parish Councils—a piece of legislation of the prickly pear description. There was no doubt a very nice piece of fruit inside so long as they first could got through the pricks. Now to-night they had another prickly pear out of the Newcastle Programme. He had listened with much attention to the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Motion, and he was bound to say he delivered a most excellent speech; but as regarded argument or reason in favour of his proposal, they were entirely absent. The hon. Member said that if some Members were to be paid, then all must be paid. He understood, in saving that, the hon. Member was doing violence to the opinion of the Leader of the House, if they might judge from what they road in the papers. The Leader of the House proposed that only that amount should be paid to bring up the income of a person to £400 a year. [Cries of" No, no!"] He (Admiral Field) had no moans of knowing other than what he had read in the papers. He understood the hon. Gentleman and those who sat by his side and keenly supported the Motion had taken exception to the proposal. [Cries of: He never made it!] He (Admiral Field) was stating what he read in the newspapers. He understood that hon. Gentlemen, dissatisfied with that proposal, make a counter proposal that every person should receive £280 a year and a free railway pass. He took it from the hon. Gentleman, on his own showing, that if some Members were paid, then all should be paid. If the Members of that House were paid, then the Members of the other House must be paid. The hon. Gentleman had taken the Colonies as an example, but in the Colonies those who sat in the Council were also paid. [A VOICE: They are elected.] He had been to all those Colonies, and he knew them as well as the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had stated that they now paid their Members, but it was only recently that New South Wales had brought in a measure for that to be done. Ten years ago that was not done, but it was now. The reason was not far to seek. In young communities, which were self-governing, men could not leave their business to undertake Slate duties unless they were compensated for the absence from their work. In an old country the case was entirely different. ["No!"] He emphasised the remark, and said that in an old country the case was entirely different. [Cries of"No!"] The hon. Gentleman alluded to the early stages of our history, when Members of Parliament were paid. No doubt there were sufficient reasons for payment of Members in those days. In those days, as in all young communities, we had no accumulated wealth. In America Members were paid, and would continue to be paid, until, by lapse of time, men had accumulated sufficient wealth. It was only the few people who accumulated wealth in America. As soon as wealth was greater the constituences, would have larger choice, and then payment of Members would be a thing of the past. The proposal which had been made to-night was a stop backward and not forward. The hon. Gentleman said there was a great deal of cant talked on this question. He (Admiral Field) thoroughly agreed with that observation. There was a great deal of cant talked about it. Whether he offended anyone or not he cared not, but he spoke his mind on this question. He had as much respect for the working man as for any other man in this country, and no more. He was neither better nor worse than other people. He (Admiral Field) objected to the idea that working men, because they were poor, were the best form of representative for a great country like England, and therefore we ought to change our customs and laws because the working men, who earned their wages, ought to be introduced into the House. Members were not chosen to this House because they were rich or poor. A man ought to be chosen as the Representative of a constituency because he was a wise man, and because he had something better than wisdom—because he was a man of character, because he was a man of probity and honesty, and also because he was a man of culture and a man of education. In dealing with the interests of a great Empire, it was not ignorance they wanted, although it might be coupled with honesty and integrity; what they wanted in this great Chamber was men of culture and education, as well as men of wisdom, and character and honesty. He was sick of the idea, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the doors of the House ought to be thrown open. God knows they were thrown wide open enough! There was a great mixture of all classes in that House already. There were a great many in it he would like to see out of it. There was no hindrance at the present time to a wise man, a man of character, a man of education, entering the House if a constituency had the mind to return him. Take the case of Professor Fawcett. That hon. and most distinguished man was returned to the House, and his election expenses were always paid. That distinguished man introduced a Bill to cast election expenses on the rates, but he was never rash enough to propose that Members of Parliament should be paid salaries for being Members of the House. The two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on the Motion were very desirous of having representatives of labour in the House. To judge from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House no one was fit to sit in the House unless he was as poor as a rat and as ignorant as a mouse. The hon. Member said it was a misfortune to be poor. Yes, and he (Admiral Field) was beginning to think it was a misfortune to be rich, judging by the taunts that were levelled at men who had wealth, acquired or inherited, and who are trying to use their wealth for good purposes. The hon. Gentleman laid great stress on New Zealand as an example. As he (Admiral Field) had already pointed out, it was a necessity that Members of Parliament out there should be paid, because they could not leave their business to serve their country. New Zealand was an exceptional case. The distances were so great from point to point that they had to change the capital from Aukland to Wellington, so that the Members might better attend to their duties. New Zealand was a bad illustration for the hon. Gentleman to quote in support of this argument. There were geographical reasons why Members there should be paid. He would be quite willing that those Members of this House who had to come a long distance—several had to cross the Channel—should receive something for their expenses. Now, the hon. Gentleman asked that the expense of paying Members should be put on the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member would rather have it on the Budget, because, if the matter were introduced by way of a Bill, the other House would have a voice, but he (Admiral Field) did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very likely to do that. If the proposal were to be brought forward by the Government no doubt it would be in the shape of a Bill. He did not think, however, a Bill would be brought forward this Session. They had already too much work. What with revolutionary changes of one kind and another, they had enough work to last them this Session without taking up this thorny question of the payment of Members. If the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman was adopted, where were they going to draw the line? If they paid Members of Parliament, they must pay Members of the House of Lords; they must go further, and all members of the County Council must be paid, members of Boards of Guardians must be paid, and also members of School Boards, and the members of their new District and Parish Councils. Here would be a chance for the poor working man. The meetings were to be held at night-time, and, of course, they could not allow the poor man to lose his overtime when harvest was on by sitting on Parish Councils; so they were to be paid all round. [A VOICE: "Why not?"] The thing had only to be examined to see that the proposal bordered on the ridiculous. There was an abundance of men with first-class education, men of culture, men of accumulation of wealth, who were proud to serve the country for nothing. As long as the nation had men of that kind it seemed to him a startling proposition that they should insult them by offering to pay them. Oh! it was a lovely Radical idea. He always found his Radical friends most lofty economists except when it was a case of dealing with the payment of themselves. Then the hon. Member referred to the Members of the Government. He said that because Ministers were paid Members ought to be paid. But the Members of the Executive Government devoted their whole time to their work. [A VOICE: "Question."] Well, they do, or ought to do, and it was a different thing, therefore, to pay Members of the Executive Government for their services and paying ordinary Members. They had selected the highest talent from amongst their Body. He hoped they were satisfied with what they had got. If they were satisfied, the Opposition had no right to complain. They had some clever men in their Executive Government, but the Opposition would have cleverer men when they got into power. His side, then, did not grudge Ministers their salaries; but they did not argue that because Ministers were paid that Members who came there partly for the sake of the honour of coming there and partly for the desire to be useful in their way and generation—men who go about like butterflies or bees from flower to flower, with a delight in being of service—should be paid also. They said that there was no analogy between paying Members of the Government and paying Members of the House generally. If this Resolution should be carried by an accidental majority, as it might possibly be, it will not lead to a Bill being passed this Session or for many Sessions to come. He had, as he had said already, as much respect for working men as any Members of this House. He said that they were neither better nor worse than other people. He should be pleased to see them in the House whenever constituencies chose to return them. But the hon. Member spoke also about the existence of class representation. I should like on that point to quote an extract from a letter by the late Mr. John Bright. The letter was written in 1875. Mr. Bright was appealed to in a case in which there was a workman candidate who divided the Liberal vote. The Liberals were angry; they always were angry in such cases. Mr. Bright wrote— I object to a candidate being chosen only or mainly because he is a working man— [Ministerial cheers.] Hon. Members profess to agree with that statement, but those who advocated this policy of pay- ment of Members did it to get Labour Members into this House. Mr. Bright said— I object to a candidate being chosen only or mainly because he is a working man, and that I should I be expected to vote for him for the same reason. I do not vote for a candidate because he is of the middle class or of high family connections, and I refuse to be under an obligation to vote for a man because he belongs to some one class or section of the community. [Cheers and counter cheers.] If the hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered those views, it was a pity that their spokesmen did not emphasise the opinion that class representation should not be aimed at. The doors of Parliament were open now; and if a man could not enter without assistance, it was for the locality he represented to provide that assistance. If they wanted the law changed, why should it not be in the direction of giving localities the power to tax themselves for the purposes of their Parliamentary representation if they choosed? But to tell 670 Members of Parliament that they were all to receive £300 or £400 a year, whether they needed it or not, or whether they desired it or not, was absurd. But would they stop at £300? The practice of the United States had been referred to. He presumed they would not be less generous than the Americans. They would wish to offer £1,000 a year. Then they would propose to pay 670 Members £1,000 a year simply because there were about 10 representatives of labour constituencies, 10 Labour Members, who did not come there without assistance. The proposition had only to be described for its absurdity to be apparent, and it was a proposition which he was sure Parliament and the country would never endorse.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said, he need not detain the House long. It would take very few words to make clear his contention, that there was no necessity for departing from the general practice and noble principle of English public life, whether in Parliament, in the Municipal Council, in the Vestry, or on the Bench—that it was at once the privilege and the duty of those who were possessed of means and leisure, whether great or small, to use them, as far as they could afford it, in the public service, without fee or reward; and, further, to show that neither in principle or in fact was it, or had it been felt to be a disgrace to those who could not serve their country without earning a maintenance in such service, and that such payment had not created, and would not create, any division in the House and in public opinion between those who received such payment and those who did not. He held that payment should be made to those Members who required it to enable them to servo their country in Parliament; but it appeared to him monstrous that the taxpayers of this country should be called upon to pay men like himself for public service, when they owed to their fellow-countrymen and to their country far more than they could ever hope to repay, and when they were not only willing but anxious to work out a part of that debt by public service in Parliament or anywhere else. Did any man contend that wealth and leisure and cultivation and ability were a moral freehold which he was at liberty to use solely for the selfish interest of himself and his family, and not a trust which he was bound, as far as he could, to use in the public service as well? Did not the higher tone and the purity of public life in this country as compared with most others, even with that enlightened Republic, the United States of America, largely arise from this recognition of public duty, and the feeling that a man, whatever his rank was, could not claim the highest title to respect, until he could demand it, through having rendered some gratuitous service to his fellow-countrymen. Look around on both sides of the Atlantic! Do they wish to see such scandals here as had become notorious—even among our own race—both in our Colonies and in the United States? As far as his observation entitled him to judge, it did not seem to him that this general payment of Members had been conducive to purity and public spirit elsewhere. He did hope that this unpaid devotion of time and labour and thought to the public service would continue to be largely the rule in English affairs. He maintained, and he thought he could prove, that this was quite consistent with their providing (and he thought they were bound to provide) means that the choice of the constituencies, and of the working classes especially, should not be limited to those who could afford gratuitous services, and that this can be accomplished without dividing the House into two classes, or throwing any discredit (except in the minds of mere worshippers of wealth) on those who accepted such an allowance. Did the hon. Member for Morpeth, or the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, or the hon. Member for Wansbeck, or other Labour Members of the House, or Mr. Broadhurst, feel themselves in any way humiliated by receiving some such payment, or had they been less respected by the House, or by any Member of it, on account of such payment? Had not the Labour Members of the House been felt to be among its most respected Members, and listened to with most careful attention? Certainly, no set of men had shown themselves less anxious 1o profit by their position as Members, in obtaining social distinction or collateral gain of any sort by it. No one thought or asked about these men, whether they received such payment or not. And now he would quote a precedent which, though not precisely the same, was in principle strictly applicable to this case. He believed a Cabinet Minister, after he had served a certain time, if he ceased to receive public money as a Cabinet Minister, had a right to demand an allowance—he believed it was some £2,500 yearly—if such an allowance was necessary to maintain his position in Parliament while out of office. Did anyone ever cast it up against Mr. Disraeli—perhaps the most honoured Loader of the Conservative Party of recent years—that he had accepted that allowance? And did anybody care to inquire which Ministers had thought it right to accept it, as long as it was necessary for the maintenance of their position? It did not divide ex-Ministers into two classes, and it would not divide Parliament into two classes. He ventured to assert that if there were any men seeking the suffrages of their fellow-countrymen as Members of Parliament, who were so weak and foolish as to care for the opinion of anyone—if such existed in the House—so mean and contemptible as to think the worse of a man for not having wealth enough to serve the public without reasonable payment for his time and maintenance, then he hoped the working classes of this country, guided in the future as they had been in the past by a wise instinct in the choice of men to represent them, would say that such weaklings were not safe or worthy to represent the manly, self-respecting classes of this country in Par- liament. They would be the very men most open to the influence of social position or office or other allurements. A fatal objection to the proposed Resolution was that it postponed indefinitely what he thought ought to be carried at once. He believed that a provision, limited to the payment of those Members who required it, might be carried at once, as they all admitted that the strength and character of the House would be not only maintained but improved if they could see a larger infusion into it of men similar to those working-men Representatives whom they had hitherto seen in the House, and who, with very few exceptions, had, he repeated, tended to raise and strengthen the position and character of the House. Therefore, if the Forms of the House would permit him, he begged to move as an Amendment to the Motion— To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and add "while otherwise maintaining the principle of gratuitous public service in Parliament by those able and willing to render it, arrangements should be adopted similar in principle to those existing for ex-Ministers of the Crown, in order to meet the case of those who cannot without reasonable allowance serve their country in Parliament.

MR. C. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

said that, as he had taken some interest in this question ever since he had obtained a seat in the House, he wished to offer a few observations upon it. He was exceedingly glad that the subject in which he had taken so much interest for several years had now found so many more able supporters than himself that he could afford to quietly listen. He should like, however, to say a few words with reference to some observations which fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Admiral Field) opposite, whose speeches were always exhilarating, but who had never delivered one more exhilarating than his speech that evening. The hon. and gallant Member said, "You want no sympathy, and you will get none from us." He was sure that the hon. and gallant Member, at all events, would be the last man in the House to deny them a simple act of justice. They did not ask for sympathy—they asked simply for justice in the matter. Again, the hon. and gallant Member said that there was a lot of cant talked about Working-men Representatives, and that they had no more right to enter the House than any other men. But the hon. and gallant Member would surely not deny that they had, at least, as much right as any other men to enter the House of Commons. If as much were admitted, then his contention was, that if they made arrangements whereby a certain class of Representatives could sit in the House and discharge their duties to their constituencies and receive remuneration for their services oven in the capacity of private Members, other private Members were equally entitled to an extension of that principle. That principle had already been acknowledged by the House, and was now acted upon in the case of many hon. Members who were serving in the House in the capacity of private Members. He might be told that the hon. and gallant Members to whom he referred received their remuneration for services rendered in one or other branch of the country's defence, but they would not deny that while they were in the House they were exempted from duties they would otherwise have to discharge, and his contention was that while ostensibly these hon. and gallant Members were paid for services in either the Army or the Navy, yet, as they were, when in the House, exempt from the discharge of public duties, they were in reality paid for representing their constituencies. The hon. and gallant Member said that if private Members were paid in one House, they must be paid in both Houses. He should not object to that if the Members of the other House would submit themselves to the verdict of the constituencies. But there was one very strong reason in favour of the payment of Members which in the many Debates on the subject bad never been courageously faced or effectively or logically answered by the opponents of the principle, and that was, that the working-men were the only class in the country who, in order to secure Parliamentary representation, were compelled to directly tax themselves for that privilege. He considered that Members were there to discharge a duty to their constituents and collectively to the country, and that their right to sit in the House and legislate was in no sense whatever a privilege that was conferred upon them as individuals. That being so, he maintained that the country had a right to pay for that service. When they remembered that Members were drawn from various parts of the United Kingdom, some at very considerable expenses for travelling, coming 500 or 600 miles for the discharge of their duties, it must be admitted that great inequalities existed between Member and Member such as did not exist—and he challenged contradiction on the point—in any other legislative country in the world. Then, again, no logical argument could be urged why a distinction should be drawn between private and official Members of the House. He was glad to have as an authority on that point the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who, he was sorry to see, was not then in his place. The right hon. Gentleman, in an article on the labour question in the Nineteenth Century of November last year, said, dealing with this subject— There is no conclusive reason why Members of Parliament should not be paid like Members of the Government, and we know that this is the practice in almost every other representative Legislature. He was sorry that in the able and conclusive argument set forth by the right hon. Gentleman in favour of payment of Members, the right hon. Gentleman should have thought fit to insinuate with regard to certain hon. Gentlemen who, like himself, claimed to be direct representatives of labour, that their interest in this question arose largely from personal motives, and because of the difficulties which he said their eagerness to serve the State had brought them into. Their eagerness to serve their constituents had brought them into no difficulties for which they needed to blush or to hang their heads. For himself he would say—and he trusted he was saying what was true of his colleagues—that their readiness to serve the constituencies which they had the honour to represent in the House was not born of any selfish motive. They had been called by men whose confidence they possessed, and they could not refuse to obey the call. It could not be gainsaid that the present practice of gratuitous representation did restrict the constituencies in their choice of candidates, and he hoped that whatever might be the position taken up by the Government to-night they would not lend their sympathy to any proposal for the partial payment of Members. It would at once set up an invidious distinction between Member and Member which could not be tolerated. He did not for a moment deny that hon. Gentlemen of wealth who represented constituencies in the House would welcome a large number of Labour Representatives. That was an opinion which was generally held on both sides of the House. But at the time of a General Election, what would be the position of the working man? Men of wealth would, of course, be anxious to secure the plum. There would be men of wealth and labour candidates running side by side, and great capital would be made out of the fact that if one man were returned, he would require remuneration from the State, and if the other were returned he would be able to support himself. He sincerely hoped, therefore, that the Government would not favour any system of partial payment. If they could not see their way to adopt the principle of the Motion, he hoped they would reject all the Amendments.

MR. ATHERLEY-JOXES (Durham, N. W.)

said, he would not be guilty of the impertinence of intruding his own individuality on the House by replying to the somewhat personal observations of the hon. Member the Seconder of the Resolution, but he could assure that hon. Member, as he could assure his brother Liberals, that it was not from any disloyalty to the principles of Democracy that he occupied the position in relation to the Amendment that he occupied tonight. He frankly admitted that it was with reluctance he opposed the Resolution. Payment of Members had long been a cardinal article of the Liberal Creed, and his hon. Friend was quite right in reminding him—though he did not require reminding—that it was one of the points in the People's Charter. But conditions had changed since the Chartist Programme was formulated. In those days the House of Commons was composed almost exclusively of members of the landed aristocracy. In those days it was almost impossible for a man to get access to the House of Commons unless he was possessed of fabulous wealth. But now they need only look at the Benches on either side of the House to see that the condition of things had completely changed, and that there was now no real bar to the entry to the House of any honest, though humble, man. Even on the Front Benches—at any rate, on the Ministerial Front Bench—there were marked illustrations of how men had risen, and deservedly risen, to the highest position in the State who owed nothing to birth, rank, or wealth. But his hon. Friend had adverted to the historical view of this question, and he had said that in ancient times in England there was payment of Members But the circumstances under which payment of Members existed then were totally different to what obtained now. The cost of attending Parliament was great, and there was no wealthy class outside the nobility and the higher clergy, and the honour of a seat in the House was practically nil, as the House had nothing to do but register the decrees of the Sovereign and vote subsidies at his command. As soon as the position of Member of Parliament became one of honour and dignity, the payment of Members disappeared, the last instance being, he thought, at Hull in 1681. Reference had been made to what obtained in the Colonies and in foreign countries. In foreign countries the payment of Members did not by any means generally obtain. Where it did obtain it was a survival of mediaeval times. ["No, no!"] Yes, with the solitary exception of France it was so. In the German Parliament, in the Hungarian, in the most democratic Parliament of Europe—namely, the Parliament of Italy, there was no payment of Members whatever. In regard to those Parliaments in which Members were paid, he would give a few figures. In Denmark the payment was 7s. 6d. a day for three months of the year; in Norway it was 13s. 4d. for three months in the year; in Portugal it was £80 a year; and in the Netherlands £150. In no country except France did the payment of Members, so far as he had been able to ascertain, amount to anything more than a nominal sum, which could not in the slightest degree operate upon persons as an inducement to become Members. What was the position with regard to America and our Colonies? They found that in the American House of Representatives men were paid the prodigious sum of £1,000 a year, but the reason of that payment was the distance which men had to travel and the absence of a leisure class, which made it absolutely necessary that men should receive payment. Without payment it would be absolutely impossible to get Members to attend. They would not leave their businesses—it might be thousands of miles away—unless they received a handsome remuneration. The same thing applied in the Colonies with more or less force, and, of course, as the House was aware, in the Colonies the payment of Members only dated back from the year 1869. Therefore, he submitted to the House that no inference in favour of the Resolution could be drawn from historical precedents. He did not suppose hon. Members contended that there ought to be payment of Members for the sake of getting good men in the House. It was argued that the constituencies should have a freer hand and to enable them to elect working men, who at present were excluded. Was that not really at the bottom of the whole matter—namely, the contention that the working classes were at present excluded from representation? But if they gave a man £300 a year, the area of choice would be left as limited as ever. ["No, no!"] Yes; they would not get a middle-class man to neglect his business—a man who was bent on making a fortune—and come up to serve in the House of Commons for the sake of a paltry £300 or £400 or £500 a year. Therefore, the area of choice would still be limited; and, again, he submitted that the root of this argument was to be found in the contention that the working classes were excluded from the House of Commons. He gladly recognised the admirable character of the speech to which they had just listened, and he frankly admitted to the hon. Member and the House that if he thought the payment of Members would load to working men being brought into the House of Commons in larger numbers, instead of walking into the Lobby against the Resolution, he would support it. But he did not think there was any warranty for the belief either in the experience of foreign countries or from what obtained in England at the present time. Curiously enough, there was only one man sitting in the House at the present moment—the hon. Member for Middlesbrough—who sat there in the capacity of a Labour Representative in the strict sense of the term. He was the only man who had stood on the labour platform solely without combination with any other. ["No, no!"] Well, he should like to have an illustration afforded him to the contrary.

An hon. MEMBER

You will have it.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough was the only Member returned as a labour candidate who was not accepted by the local Liberal Association.

MR. JOHN BURNS

The hon. Member is misinformed.

MR. ATIIEULEY - JONES

would ask whether any Liberal candidate had gone to the poll against the hon. Member for Battersea? All the labour candidates who stood on their own bottom, as it were, were rejected with the single exception of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. What was the inference that was to be drawn from that? It was a melancholy inference—one which, to his mind, was one of the most unhappy signs in the country—namely, that there was no desire for anything like a free election of Labour Representatives in the proper sense of the term. But the same thing was observable in foreign countries and in the Colonies. He believed he was right in saying that there was not a single Labour Representative in the House at Washington.

An hon. MEMBER

Wrong again.

MR. ATIIERLEY-JONES

said, the hon. Member would have an opportunity of contradicting him. He would not pledge himself that there was not a single Labour Representative in the House of Assembly at Washington, but, at any rate, one could count the Labour Representatives in that House on one's fingers. They did not find Labour Members in France, where Members were paid, but they found them in Germany, where there was no payment of Members; and it was effected there through the foundation of institutions for the maintenance and support of such Representatives. If we adopted the system of payment of Members in this country the result would be that we should get the same class in Parliament as they got in France and in our Colonies—briefless barristers, peripatetic lecturers, the secretaries of the thousand-and-one Societies, and journalists. These men would seek election not for the honour of serving their country, but in answer to the advertisement that £300 a year would be paid for their services. It was for that reason that he opposed the Resolution. But it was said that the constituencies would be able to differentiate between the good men and the bad men; but what means had the consti- tuencies to differentiate? They could do so if the candidates were local men; but when there were a multiplicity of candidates, and where in many constituencies they did not get local men and could not get local men, the result would be that, the only means of differentiating would be by the guinea stamp of the caucus bearing the effigy of Mr. Schnadhorst or Mr. Middleton. He did not say that hon. Members came into the House without personal motives of aggrandisement. They had all got their axes to grind, more or less. If a man were a rich landowner or a brewer, he looked for a peerage; if he were a successful merchant, he expected a baronetcy; if he were an energetic and enterprising shopkeeper, he might be contented with a knighthood. Those who were barristers looked forward to Judgeships. But though these motives might have a strong influence, they had not the same overpowering influence as the difference between penury and comparative affluence. If a man came from a condition of comparative squalor and found himself suddenly transported by means of this £300 a year to a neat little villa out in the country with a neat little maidservant, he would hesitate long before he sacrificed that comfort at the promptings of conscience. In 1886 some Members must have known that in voting against Home Rule they were risking their seats, and that the probability was that if once rejected they would never return to the House again. Would men who were dependent on the amount they received as Members of Parliament be likely to act as independently? He sincerely trusted that some means would be found to meet the case of the working men. Organised labour could, if it chose, secure adequate representation in the House, and it would not baffle the wit of man to devise some means by which the great Trade Organisations of the country might be assisted in securing that result. He would not suggest what that assistance should be. In conclusion, he wished to say that it had been the glory and the pride of this country that its citizens in municipal life, or in the wider fields of Imperial politics, freely and ungrudgingly, without fee or reward, gave their services to the State. If the Resolution were embodied in a Bill, and that Bill were passed, all that glory would be gone. To rich Members it might matter little; it would not injure his self-respect, but with the poor man it was different. He would no longer be able to go and look the constituency in the face and say he was actuated by no sordid interests. While with the one hand he received from his constituents the sacred trust of a free and independent Representative, with the other he would take from a State official a purse of gold for which he would sell that freedom.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

said that occupying, as it was well known he did, practically a unique position with regard to the question of the payment of Members, he ventured to offer a few practical reasons why the House should adopt the Resolution, and not listen to the most reactionary speech of the Member for North West Durham—a most cynical and derogatory speech against the incorruptibility of Parliament, and one which brought Parliamentary representation down to the lowest level it was possible for a public speaker to bring it. When the hon. Member suggested that the House might possibly adopt some scheme for subsidising the Trade Unions he recognised one of the most insidious forms of political corruption it was possible for the House to adopt. If the payment of Members was a bad thing, if it was immoral and pandered to selfish and the lowest personal feeling of men with axes to grind, why did not the Mover of the Amendment take up the logical and consistent attitude of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Admiral Field)—who, however, did not practise what he preached—and be against the payment of Members altogether. He denied altogether that the payment of Members was a survival of mediaeval times. He was inclined to think that as Society progressed, as the time demanded of Members of Parliament increased, so did the necessity for the remuneration of Members of Parliament become more urgent. Honest Andrew Marvell, Hampden, and others, in the most glorious period of the history of that House, received remuneration for their services, and it was not thought dishonourable that they should do so. The references of the hon. Member (Mr. Jones) to America were singularly inappropriate. He ought to have known that in new countries the race for wealth had taken the men who, in this and other countries, had gone into politics and law, and because in America, at the earliest stages of its history, the best men, unfortunately, went in for money-making, and not law-making, was no argument against the Motion, for, as America grew older, these men who had left Parliament and politics for the purpose of making money had returned buck to Parliament and politics and had not renounced the principle of the payment of Members, as the speech of the hon. Member would imply. The hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne said that this House wanted men of standing, education, and culture. He agreed with the hon, and gallant Gentleman to a great extent, and he hoped and trusted men of standing and culture would always be returned to Parliament, not only in this, but in every other country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must also admit that "Honour and rank from no condition rise;" but why did he not go a bit farther and say, "Slow rises worth by poverty depressed." They asked for the adoption of this Motion because the poor were deprived of their right, and not their privilege, to get represented on the floor of the House of Commons; because they were too poor to subscribe, in the overwhelming majority of instances, to secure such representation; and even if they were able to subscribe from their limited incomes and paltry earnings, he said, as a matter of duty and principle, they had no right to throw upon one section of the community that burden and that financial pressure that ought to be discharged by the whole community, for whom the Member of Parliament worked in the multifarious duties that he discharged in that House. They were told they required men in that House of accumulated wealth. On the contrary, property had had a monopoly of representation in that House too long. The House of landlords was powerful for evil and was mischievous for good, not by virtue of the character, culture, and standing of the average Member of that House, but because of the fact that that House was composed of men who drew their incomes, and who had accumulated wealth, and who simply were powerful because they had that possession of property that poor men were determined they should not accumulate in the future as they had done in the past. It had been said by many outside that poor men had no right to quarter themselves on the State, and that the payment of Members in other countries had demoralised and corrupted many Legislatures. He altogether denied this. If they traced the history of that House, what did they find? They found that for centuries that House was governed by a number of rich men who derived their incomes from land, and, what was worse, by a number of gentlemen who derived their incomes from what was perhaps the least honourable profession—namely, the law. After them came the manufacturers and capitalists, who, brimming over with patriotism and disinterestedness, sought to sacrifice themselves on the altar of their country, and incidentally had earned an honest penny. This may be denied. But, in spite of this disinterestedness, he saw with regret the other day, when they were discussing a Railway Bill, an hon. Member get up and speak distinctly in the interests of Railway Companies. He found also Directors of Water Companies getting up and defending their particular interests, and he found no disposition on the part of lawyers to simplify legal procedure in a way that was likely to diminish the numbers of the army of the unemployed. But when Labour Members asked for the payment of Members it was implied that they had an "axe to grind." He thought they were justified in asking not only that Labour Members, but that every Member of that House should be paid, and for the reasons he would give. He was prepared to traverse the statement that payment of Members would not lead to honesty, and to prove to that House that attempts had been made even in that young Parliament to corrupt and demoralise Members of the present House simply because they happened to be poor. He had in his hand a letter, copy of which he sent to the Patronage Secretary, and this was the kind of thing which a poor man had to put up with, but to which a rich man was never subjected. This was a request from a commission agent of Belfast, whose name he would not give, and who was seeking the position of collector of Income Tax. He wound up a letter by saying— Dear Mr. Burns, trusting you will give my most urgent claim your most careful consideration and support, and privately, if you can, secure me the position I seek, I shall be happy to hand you a £50 note for your trouble in pressing my claim on the Government. He believed he received the letter because there was a suspicion that his wages fund was depleted, and that he was probably the poorest man in the House. His representative position was insulted, and this attempt was made to corrupt the honour and dignity of that House simply because he would not shelter himself behind that amount, however small it might be, that would stand between a poor man if he was inclined to yield, and this temptation that was put on poor Members. It was needless to say he sent this reply— Dear Sir,—You are an unscrupulous scoundrel. Your villainy is only accentuated, by your contemptible Presbyterian hypocrisy. You can consider yourself fortunate that you are not within reach of my boot. If that had been the only letter he had received he should treat it as a somewhat humorous incident, but it was not so. He had with him two out of some 50 or 60 letters that in the past four years, since he had been in receipt of wages from the wages fund, he had received from different men, and which showed they believed that a poor man could be corrupted and demoralised. He had in his hand another letter from an Insurance Company, which offered him £300 a year to lend his name to the Company, to give it ten minutes of his time four days a week, with an office and two clerks placed at his disposal; and the reason assigned for the offer was that the title of "M.P." would induce men of his own class to take up policies in the Company. It was because there were some men who were determined not to betray their representative position, even though payment of Members should not take place, that he said they ran a risk that the House certainly ought to protect them against. Beyond these strong reasons they had another reason for asking for the payment of Members of Parliament. A Member of Parliament to-day had practically to give eight or ten hours a day to his Parliamentary work. He had been in the House for nearly 10 weeks, and his average time of service had been 7¾ hours per day for every day that the House had sat. That meant that Members had hundreds of letters, to answer all of which a poor man like himself could not afford even the postage. Again, they were compelled to neglect many of the interests of their constituents, for the simple reason that they could not afford the secretarial help which payment for their services in the House would enable them to procure. He did not intend to be at all modest on this question. He believed that modesty was only made for those who had no beauty. Four and a-half years ago he was taken from the workshop by his constituents. The bargain they made was that he was to have, for representing them on the Council and subsequently in Parliament, his working wages as an engineer, plus those out-of-pocket expenses, such as postage, telegrams, and travelling necessarily incurred. What did he find now? He found that the wages fund was continually rising and falling, and if anyone thought that an agitator's life was a happy one he should be glad to change positions with him. A man who started to give eight hours' work a day for other people ended by working 18 hours himself. But there might be times when, through trade depression, or through a difference between him and the constituency, or the men who paid him, his wages might be stopped, and he would find his Parliamentary career cut short. Personally, he should go back to the workshop with the greatest pleasure rather than submit to temptations of the character which he had referred to; but they had no right to subject the average poor man who was a Member of that House, or to permit him to be subject, to the probable temptations that unscrupulous men might impose upon him, temptations that would be all the stronger to a lazy man, or a man who was indisposed to go back to the poverty and discomfort of the class to which he belonged. And what was the alternative? He had the alternative of doing what? Of neglecting his duty to his constituency, and becoming, perhaps, what was known as a blackleg journalist, betraying the secrets of his Party for £6 or £10 a week, which he probably would not do if we had that payment of Members that would save him from this dishonourable occupation. Worse than that, he would run the risk of becoming what too frequently some Labour Members bad shown a disposition to do, that was, become a guinea pig, the instrument, the plastic material in the hands of company promoters, and thus offend against the character and dignity of that House. He would further say that such a man might become a Resident director of jerry-built property not 100 miles from a seaport town, and thus prostitute his own position as a leader of the working classes, and bring that House into disrepute by his indirect connection with bogus companies. During the past four years a poor man like himself had been inundated on every side by offers and appeals from Insurance Companies, Melodeon and Concertina Companies, lozenge purveyors, and Building Societies. Insurance Companies were continually trying their best to sap and break down the honour of a poor man who stood in the public position of a Representative of that House. He would give another and a more directly personal reason in favour of the proposal. What right had every rich man to get into his brougham and ride homo at night after sitting till 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning in that House, or the middle-class man to hire a cab, while the poor men, like him, who were determined to crawl through a common sewer on behalf of the working classes who sent them to that House rather than that this class should go unrepresented, had to wade home for miles on foot in the rain, snow, or sleet, because their incomes were insufficient to enable them to ride? It had been said by someone that every officer of the Government was respected just in proportion as his salary happened to be high. He did not altogether believe in that theory; but he did say that the honour of that House demanded a minimum payment for every one of its Members—a payment sufficient for his out-of-pocket expenses, and perhaps for some of his secretarial work. It was nonsense to say that the people were against it. The people were becoming more censorious of the conduct of that House and the action of their Representatives. They knew when their Members were present and when they were absent, and there was no excuse a constituency was inclined to take for the neglect by a Member of Parliament of the business of the affairs of the country. It was because that House was inclined to break down the barriers which kept poor men outside, it was because payment of Members was the political complement of an extended suffrage, that he cordially supported the Resolution moved by the hon. Member, and in the interests of the honour, the dignity, and the incorruptibility of that House, it was its duty to revert to the ancient practice of paying its Members, and he trusted it would say so that night by an almost unanimous vote.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I have listened to this most interesting and important Debate with the greatest attention. Everybody in this House has welcomed the speech of, I believe, one of the youngest of its Members, who moved the Resolution, and also the able speech in which it was seconded by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. I could not hear these speeches without being struck with what has struck me more than once, and that is that, in all the Parliaments I have sat in, and I have sat in many, I have never known a House of Commons which has shown so much ability and capacity in its new Members. I shall not occupy the time of the House at any length, and for this reason, I do not know what I have to answer. What are the speeches made against the Motion? We have had that charming style of quarter-deck argument which we are accustomed to hear always with satisfaction, always with amusement, and sometimes with instruction. I hardly know how to deal with that argument. The hon. and gallant Admiral said that the objects of this Motion would find no sympathy with him or his friends. I am not in the position of the hon. and gallant Admiral on this subject. We have heard one other speech from the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones), and I must say, if the character of this House is such as he estimates it, the sooner we introduce some change into its constitution the better. If the Members of the House of Commons are influenced by the motives of so low a character as have been attributed to them, the sooner we try to introduce some other class into it the better. Then, what is said against the Motion? What is to be said in favour of the Motion is so obvious, and has been said so well and so often to-night, that it is unnecessary that I should repeat it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that practices of this kind were very well for new countries, but that old countries did not require them. I differ altogether from that view of the hon. and gallant Admiral. A country that is worth anything is always renewing its youth, and if an old country is falling into decadence and has not the power nor the inclination to renew its Constitution that country is doomed to decay. Again, I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, gentlemen who are always declaring their sympathy with democratic principles—I refer especially to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington; he has always declared, and I have no doubt sincerely, his sympathy with the democratic principle—I ask you, do you believe you can adopt democratic principles and admit a democratic suffrage, and then refuse to accept the consequences which naturally follow? This House of Commons has gone through various changes. The unreformed House of Commons represented the wealthy classes of whom it was composed. It was natural, it was inevitable, and you can hardly condemn these men for selfish-Bess, because it belongs to human nature that men should consult the interests of the class to which they belong. But after the Reform Bill the balance of power began to incline towards the middle class in the community, and from that period for half-a-century, no doubt, the interests of the middle classes of the country became, I do not say predominant, but extremely powerful, and properly powerful, in the House of Commons. Do you believe that when abandoning that limited suffrage, that when you gave household suffrage to the people, you would not have a demand from another class to enter the walls of the House of Commons to represent the interests of the class to which they belonged? Those causes are slow in their operation. After the Reform Bill of 1832, it took a good many years for the middle class to become predominant in the House of Commons. It seems to me to be absolutely impossible in the circumstances that you can resist a demand of that character, a demand which seems to be founded, not only in justice, but in the natural and inevitable consequences of your present political constitution. It is one besides which has been adopted in other parts of the world, and, as far as I know, adopted without injury and even with great advantage. [Opposition cries of "Oh, oh! "and "France."] France? I am not at all prepared to say that the unfortunate circumstances that have occurred in France are due to the payment of Members. You may have gigantic bribes equally well in an assembly where there is no payment of members. Before I sit down there is one thing I desire to say. A question has been asked as to whether in this matter there is to be equality of treatment of all. I have no hesitation in saying that that is my opinion. How is it possible, with respect to the dignity of the individuals who are disposed to receive a salary, you can make a distinction, which I believe would be invidious in its character, and which would make their position more difficult in this House. I desire to express that opinion very strongly. I myself see great advantages on the grounds stated by an hon. Member opposite, that there are great social questions coming to the front, that they must be discussed in this House; and I have never believed in the theory which I know is entertained by some people, that you should take the wise and the good in order to administer the affairs of other people. That is the principle of a patronising aristocracy or of a beneficent monarchy; that is not the basis of Representative Government. The principle that lies at the foundation of Representative Government is that you should not have Government for the people, but Government by the people, that each class should be represented. That appears to be an intelligible principle. I know that it is said that because you give men honest wages for honourable work they are likely to become corrupt. That is an opinion I do not entertain. I believe there is nothing in this proposal which is likely to diminish the honour or corrupt the character of this great and famous Assembly, and, therefore, I for one shall heartily vote for this Resolution. Something has been said by the Mover of the Resolution upon the subject of the word "forthwith;" and the reasonable explanation was given that that word meant that this Resolution should take effect as soon as practicable. That is what I understood by the word "forthwith." [Laughter.] I suppose that the hon. Gentlemen who laugh think that measures should be taken to carry it out when it is not practicable. I do not join in that opinion. I feel bound to state, in consequence of what has been said in this Debate and elsewhere, that we are of opinion that tin's is a measure which ought to be carried out by Act of Parliament. We perfectly admit that the proposal is one of serious constitutional change in this country, and it ought to be regarded and dealt with as such. It is not a thing which is to be hurried through by any side-wind or by any bye-stroke. We take the responsibility of accepting the principle on that ground. In respect to the word "forthwith," my hon. Friend must remember that there are two considerations involved in this Motion—one is time and the other is money. I vote for the Motion in the sense given to it by the Mover—that it should be carried out as soon as practicable, when we have at our disposal the time and the money which is necessary. [Opposition laughter.] I really do not understand the hilarity of hon. Gentlemen. Do they expect that this is to be done without time and without money?

MR. HANBURY

"Forthwith."

SIR W. HARCOURT

What does the hon. Member imagine "forthwith" means?

MR. HANBURY

This Session.

SIR W. HARCOURT

That is not the legal interpretation of the word. "Forthwith" means this instant. However much the hon. Member may deride, I am sure hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House will believe that that assurance is given in good faith. They believe that in accepting this Motion we accept it with the honest intention of carrying it out as soon as we are able to do so. It is in that sense I support the Motion, and I, for my own part, will dc my best in the future to give effect to it.

MR. G. N. CURZON (Lancashire Southport)

Hon. Members who art specially interested in the passing of this Motion and in carrying out the suggestions which it contains will have derived I hope, some consolation from the conclusion of the speech to which we have just listened. We now know that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to carry out this change—to which, for the first time I believe in our history, has been given the assent of the Front Ministerial Bench—as soon as he is in command of the requisite time and money. But are those commodities in which Her Majesty's Government are very rich, and do hon. Members below the Gangway expect an early fruition of their desires? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes!] An hon. Member says "yes," but I recollect that the hon. Member who introduced this Motion had much more accommodating and elastic ideas than the legal interpretation which has been put upon the word "forthwith" by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was so anxious to get anything from the Government that he is prepared to interpret the word as either this year, or next year, or the year after. The hon. Gentleman appears to me to be not only accommodating but sanguine; but it appears to me there are a good many Members in the House who anticipate that, whatever may happen this year or next year, the year after there will be other occupants of the Front Bench. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had nothing whatever to answer, but hon. Members on his side of the House have occupied so much time that only one speaker on these Benches has been able to rise. Within the short space of time that I am compelled to compress my remarks, I will endeavour to put before the House the reasons why I cannot vote for the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman based his main support of the proposal upon the ground that it was the logical corollary of the democratic franchise. But when was the democratic franchise first given to this country? In 1867; and yet I find, on referring to Hansard, that the right hon. Gentleman four years afterwards was of an entirely opposite opinion. The right hon. Gentleman told us that if you give payment to Members, the last thing that would be likely to arise was that a charge of corruption could be levelled against any Member of the House. The House will not be surprised to hear that the right horn Gentleman was of an entirely different opinion in 1871. Upon that occasion he said— Once pay a Member for his votes collectively and he will very soon find a market for his individual votes. The House of Commons, which the right hon. Gentleman told us is improving at a great speed, must indeed have rapidly advanced in its moral qualifications, if the fears which the right hon. Gentleman entertained as to its corruptibility 20 years ago are now looked upon as so ridiculous. I must say I waited with consuming interest to hear the really interesting part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he stated the line of policy which he, as the spokesman of the Government, was going to adopt in regard to this proposal. It came, as so many things do, in the postscript of his speech, and, I imagine, speaking for the Government of which he is one of the principal Members, he declared that he was in favour of equality of treatment for all all round. I agree entirely with him, but from communications we have had in the Press, I imagine that that was not the opinion entertained by the illustrious statesman the Prime Minister. I understood that there had been communications in the Press in which the right hon. Gentleman had clearly expressed an opinion in favour of differential treatment. ["No; not true."] At any rate, that was my impression. It is quite possible I may have been misinformed. I can, then, only take the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the spokesman of the Government on this occasion. I hope to be able to answer some of the speeches which have been made this evening, and to lay before the House also the reasons why we ourselves object to this scheme. But I think I shall be consulting the convenience of the House if I pass over subsidiary matters and state what is the main ground upon which we are prepared to meet the Motion with an emphatic negative. We are told that the choice of a constituency is limited by the present system, and that the Public Service is deprived of competent men who might be willing to enter Joe House, but who do not possess the requisite means. I am glad to see the Home Secretary present. I had the honour of following him four years ago in this very discussion, and he then said it was as easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle as for a working man to enter this House, and the Secretary for Scotland said that candidates for this House were drawn from one class alone. Now, is it true that working men do not and cannot enter this House? Why, we have had in this House this evening conspicuous instances to the contrary. We have had a most frank and manly speech from an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fenwick), our admiration of which was as much stirred for its straightforward simplicity as for its literary style. We know that labour, as labour, has even planted itself upon the Front Ministerial Bench, and I am glad to see there the hon. Member for Morpeth, who is associated with that labouring class from which, I believe, he himself is drawn, and there are other Representatives in various parts of the House. Can it be said that labour is inadequately represented here? I do not blame the Labour Party for a moment for announcing their intention of adding to their strength; it is a perfectly proper and human desire on their part. The Labour Members in this House remember the history of the late Mr. Parnell, and they know pretty well the squeezability of the Front Ministerial Bench. They know that if they want anything they must have a sufficient number of men in this House to put the Government in a minority if they choose. I doubt whether the contention that this House is based upon wealth, birth, and privilege can be fairly sustained. I doubt whether there is a man on these Benches who is not prepared to open the door as wide as possible to any Member who comes into the House with the stamp of the constituencies upon him, and if we reject the idea of payment it is because we believe it will not have the good effect that is claimed for it, but that it will have a disastrous effect. [Cries of "Divide!"] Considering that the speeches made from this side of the House have scarcely occupied 20 minutes, hon. Members might, at least, restrain their impatience for a modest five minutes. Most of us on this side of the House have, I believe, no fear whatever that Members would be demoralised or degraded by the receipt of a gift or a wage, nor do I shelter myself behind the plea that it would have the effect of introducing professional politicians or unworthy and self-seeking men into this House. I know that that view has been expressed with regard to the American Chamber by a Member sitting upon that Bench; but I do not think we need have any fear of that here. But what we do say is that the chief credit of this House is that service here is, and always has been, voluntarily rendered. ["No, no!"] Allow me to explain myself. I do not say rendered with no arrière pensée at all, for there are." certain advantages resulting from Membership of the House; but service here is rendered for nothing, and rendered very often at considerable cost both of time and money. I do not believe that a system of payment of Members would detract from the dignity of the House, or that the Debates would be lowered in quality, but that it would detract somewhat from the character which has been gradually built by the system of gratuitous service. Foreign countries have been alluded to, but I say, from some experience of foreign countries, that in no one foreign country that I have visited have I found that the position in which Members of Parliament stand, can be compared with that enjoyed by Members of Parliament in this country. That is a great advantage, and I hope that neither by assenting to this proposal nor by carrying a Bill will this House ever take the line of impairing or sacrificing the advantages which the present system affords to their country.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 276.—(Division List, No. 36.)

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

MR. ROBY (Lancashire, S. E., Eccles)

Can I move an Amendment? [Cries of "I object."]

MR. SPEAKER

That would be Opposed Business, and objection is taken.

MR. SEXTON

On a point of Order, Sir, I wish to ask whether the further question arising after the Division is not to be regarded as part of the matter under discussion?

MR. SPEAKER

Objection has been taken to further progress. No hon. Member moved the closure, and, therefore, the Debate must stand adjourned.

It being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.