THE SWEATING SYSTEM.

HL Deb 09 June 1890 vol 345 cc283-317

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

My Lords, in calling the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee on the Sweating System, founded upon a certain voluminous mass of evidence, I will endeavour, to the best of my ability, to confine my remarks within reasonable limits; but I hope that your Lordships will understand that, in doing so, it will be impossible for mo to enter as fully as I should wish to do into some of the points which it is my duty to raise. On the Motion which I have put down on the Paper— That, in the opinion of this House, legislation with a view to the amelioration of the condition of the people suffering under that system is urgently needed, I propose to say very little. Your Lordships may not have read the evidence, probably few of you have, but you will have read the Report. The picture may not be painted in very brilliant colours, or with too vigorous a brush. That is a fault on the right side. It is vivid enough to give your Lordships a fairly adequate conception of the condition of the people who were the subject of the inquiry, and who were represented in the evidence taken before the Committee. The Report will bring to your notice the almost inhuman hours of work; the miserable pittance for which these people exchange their almost unremitting toil— the scanty fare, barely enough to keep starvation from the door; the horrible insanitary conditions in which they work, the overcrowding in their dwellings, men, women, and children, often not even members of the same family sleeping huddled up on the floor of the dilapidated room in which they live and work, and work and die; the children sick of infectious diseases, covered with half-finished clothing, destined to be distributed and to carry infection through all classes of society; the effect in increasing the national scourge consumption. All these things are set out plainly in the Report, and they make up a picture—a result of our 19th century civilisation and of our manufacturing-age, which is certainly not a pleasant one to look upon, but which is sufficiently familiar to your Lordships. Your Lordships can form some appreciation of the misery—the hopeless misery, the wretchedness—the people's wretchedness of their lives; of the physical, mental, and moral degradation that surrounds them; and, therefore, I will not at all labour that point. I am sure every Member of this House will agree with me that it is advisable that measures should be taken, if possible, to ameliorate the condition of these people. I do not, however, propose to address myself to that. What I wish to address myself principally to rather, is the economic aspect of the question. Considerations more important than philanthropic sentiment are involved in this question. We have to form a correct opinion as to the extent, gravity, and causes of the evils proved to exist; to decide whether they are due to the faults and follies of the people, or to forces beyond their control; and to determine wisely as to what remedies should be tried. We are, in my opinion, my Lords, face to face with a very difficult problem, a problem of much greater importance even than the misery of these people, although that is intensely important, a very difficult problem, and one the difficulty of which is not, in my opinion, sufficiently stated in the Report of your Lordships' Committee. What I want the House to consider is whether "the recommendations proposed by your Lordships' Committee are likely to be efficient; whether they will be sufficient to cope with the phenomena, which were brought out in evidence; whether the conclusions of the Committee are sound and are formed upon the evidence; and, whether the Report presents a true miniature of the picture presented in evidence before the Committee. Now, my Lords, what is the general impression that the Report conveys? I should say that the general impression which the Report conveys is that great and crying evils exist; that considerable numbers of people are living lives of great hardship and misery; that the misery consists of very insanitary conditions, excessively low wages, and exceedingly long hours of work; that with the exception of sanitation the people themselves are mainly to blame for the circumstances of their lives, and that such matters as the abuse of subcontracting, intense competition of capital, and the influx of a certain class of foreign labour, and other matters of that kind, have little or nothing to do with the sweating system. I should gather from the Report that, in the opinion of the Committee, sweating does exist, if by sweating you mean a condition of misery; but that a sweating system—that is, a system of manufacture which produces, or tends to produce, this misery—does not exist. That is a fair summary of the general view of the situation placed before your Lordships' House in the Report. With that summary I almost entirely disagree. I want your Lordships to concentrate your attention upon the question whether the conditions and methods of production and manufacture observed in what is known as the sweating system are natural and healthy; whether they are merely fulfilling in a natural way a natural demand; or whether, on the other hand, they are unnatural and unhealthy, and have merely given rise to an abnormal and unhealthy demand. That point is most important, because obviously the whole attitude of the Government, Parliament, or the country must depend upon the answer given to that question. If the whole conditions are natural, healthy, and beneficial to the community, then obviously there is nothing to be done except to deal with the sanitary aspect of the case, and to hope the people will abandon those habits which, according to the Committee, appear to be responsible largely for the sad conditions of their lives. If, on the other hand, what is called the sweating system indicates a diseased or unwholesome condition of manufacture, then obviously it is the duty of Parliament to address itself with a strong determination to find a remedy, not only for the insanitary conditions, but also for a condition of manufacture, which in itself is vicious, which inflicts great hardship upon the workers, which is detrimental to the industries themselves, and is of no benefit to the community. That is the view I take of the matter. It is on that general estimate that, as it now appears, I have the misfortune to differ from my late colleagues. Until I read the Report I had no idea in what lay the difference of opinion. The objections urged against the Chairman's draft were trivial. No charge of undervaluing or of suppressing evidence was brought against it, nor could it be; and it is only since comparing the draft with the Report, and noticing the passages excised in the former, that I perceive that certain deductions and conclusions are unpalatable to the Committee. I venture to assert that the conclusions of the draft are based upon a sounder foundation of evidence than those in the Report. As to the recommendations of the Report, I will presently point out to your Lordships in what respect I consider them inadequate. I will say at once that, so far as they go, I agree with them. They do not, in my opinion, go far enough; but, as far as they do go, I am in accord with the Committee. In fact, I read the Report of the Committee with some amusement and with feelings of considerable pleasurable surprise. The parental instinct is strong, and I must admit that I was glad to see again the features of my own child. It has suffered considerably, it is true, at the traditionally cruel hands of a stepmother. Its features are stained and even mutilated, and I regret to see that it uses in some cases very objectionable language, but still, after all, it is my own, and I was pleased to see its well-known features again in the Report of the Committee. The Report, my Lords, is a master-piece of the difficult art of adaptation, and I should like to express my compliments, if I only knew to whom those compliments are due. Your Lordships must remember that when the Committee unanimously refused to consider the Chairman's draft they with equal unanimity decided to accept for consideration the draft brought up in substitution by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Thring). That draft, when it was first circulated, consisted of about 2¼ pages, and I think 21 paragraphs. In a very short time, I think in about a fortnight, it had developed to 3 pages, and, I think, 33paragraphs. Owing, doubtless, to the extreme minuteness of its proportions, that draft appears to have been lost sight of altogether, and to have disappeared. I find no trace of it, but, as a matter of fact, that was the draft which the Committee accepted for consideration. On to that, somebody—I know not who— has grafted the major part of the draft which I brought up to the Committee 10 months ago. I fear the Committee became somewhat demoralised by the nature of the evidence brought before them. They appear to have become bitten and saturated with the virus of the sweating system. In fact, the system of middlemen and sub-contractors is well illustrated by what has taken place with regard to the Report. The experienced middleman who was referred to before the Committee as making the maximum amount of profit with the least amount of labour, might be fairly represented by the noble Earl opposite (Lord Derby). The noble and learned Lord Lord Thring took out the original contract. He obtained the material—well, perhaps the least said about that the better—did a litttle "knifing" himself and then sub-let the contract to certain members of the Committee, who have been content to work under him, and to modestly blush unseen. At any rate, my Lords, I have to convey my compliments to the Committee, and I should like at the same time to express my gratification at the delicately-veiled flattery and great if subtle compliment which has been paid me of first refusing to consider my draft and then making such very generous use of it. I should now like to turn to the evidence. In ordinary cases by far the most important part of a Report are the recommendations; but this is rather an exceptional case. It is obvious that the summary of evidence is, in this case, of the first importance. The Report lays some stress upon the good effect that the inquiry has had on account of the exposure which took place before the Committee, and the good effect produced by public opinion. But all that will very rapidly tend to fad a away. The effect of the exposure will very soon pass away, and the effect of public opinion in calling employers to a clearer sense of their duty will not stand long against the natural desire of money-getting. The evidence is so voluminous that it is out of the question to suppose many people will take the trouble to read it. This Report will be taken as an authoritative statement of the facts, and of the causes and consequences of sweating asset out in the evidence. Upon it public-opinion will be formed and maintained; to it statesmen will look for guidance; and legislation will be founded upon it. I hold, therefore, it is most essential in this case that the Report should be an absolutely true and perfect miniature of the picture that was presented in evidence. I will prove to your Lordships that the Report is not as it ought to be, a true miniature of the picture presented in evidence. I will show that the sweating-system is not merely a harmless development of manufacture. I will show that many of the conclusions of the Report in most important matters are not founded on the evidence, but are directly contrary to it. The witnesses were before the Committee. They could cross-examine them; they did cross-examine them, and failed to shake their testimony. The conclusions of the Report may be right; but, right or wrong, they are not founded on evidence. I will also demonstrate that the case in evidence is not fairly and impartially stated in the Report. I do not, of course, object to the Committee forming and expressing any opinion they think right; but I do object most strongly to the undue prominence given to evidence that bears out their views, and to the omission or relegation to obscurity of evidence that is opposed to them. The Committee are in error in saying that, the use of machinery and the sub-division of work was considered to be a, cause of sweating. Undoubtedly, it was put before us in evidence that minute sub-division of labour and the use of machinery have an injurious effect upon some of the operatives; but it is not correct to say that the working class-witnesses before the Committee held that machinery and the sub-division of labour was the cause of sweating, and they wished for any interference whatever with the natural development of invention, or with the natural development of the processes of industry. To state that would be to give a false impression, of the gist of the working' class evidence upon that point. It is quite true, it was pointed out that the modern minute sub-division of work limited a man's usefulness. Obviously, if a man can work at only one minute branch of industry lie is limited to that particular branch, and if the demand falls off in that branch he is unable to find employment of another kind elsewhere. That was mentioned, and it is certainly true; because it is a mere truism to say that a man's opportunity of making a living and of getting work is co-extensive with his knowledge. The more he knows, the better chance he has. But, my Lords, the only suggestion that was made upon that point—and the failure of apprenticeship was deplored in that respect — was that greater facilities should be given to the people by means of technical education, and that, in my opinion, I am bound to say, is a very sensible suggestion. But there were three matters, the abuse of sub-contracting, the competition among employers, and foreign immigration, which, undoubtedly, were mentioned in evidence as being causes of sweating; and not only-causes but probably the chief causes of sweating. I will ask your Lordships to give attention to what I shall endeavour to say shortly on those three points. I have no intention of comparing the Chairman's draft with its somewhat mutilated remains; but if your Lordships were to read the two, the draft and the Report, you would find that a thread, as it were, has been drawn out of the draft, crumpling it up in some places, tearing it in others, and that that thread is composed of three strands—first, the abuse of sub-contracting; secondly, the competition among employers; and, thirdly, foreign immigration. There are several inaccuracies in the Report with which I will not trouble the House; but there is one which I must call your Lordships' attention to, because it is entirely pertinent to the matter of sub-contracting. The preliminary observations of the Report come at the end. That is a matter of taste, and it has the merit of originality. In paragraph 173 the Report states the nature of the inquiry to be as follows:— The means employed to take advantage of the necessities of the poorer and more helpless class of workers; the conditions under which such workers live; the causes that have conduced to the state of things disclosed, and the remedies proposed. The Report says that the inquiry embraced the means employed to take advantage of the necessities of the poorer and more helpless class of workers, and adds that that was the scope of the inquiry. My Lords, the scope of the inquiry was nothing of the kind. According to that the Committee would have had to inquire into every case where the people claimed to be helpless and miserable, and asserted that their helplessness and misery was taken advantage of. If that had been the character of the inquiry the only question for your Lordships' House would have been whether there was any hereditary obligation to sit on that Committee, because the inquiry could not possibly have been finished within the present generation. As a matter of fact, what the Committee did was this—they decided at a preliminary meeting to confine the inquiry to those cases in which subcontracting', or the existence of middlemen, was claimed to be an important factor in the case. That was the decision which the Committee arrived at, and it was, in my judgment, a wise decision, because it kept the inquiry within reasonable limits. It was my duty, as Chairman, to sift and cull out the evidence that was presented to the Committee, and, acting on that decision, I rejected claim after claim, from industry after industry, and individual after individual, because I held that either there was no claim, or no sufficient claim, that sub-contracting or the existence of middlemen was the cause of sweating. I object to that part of the Report on three grounds—first, because it is not true; secondly, because it places me in the false position of having arbitrarily decided that such and such a trade or individual should not be allowed to give evidence before the Committee; and thirdly, I object to it mainly and principally because it gives a false colour and complexion to the whole of the inquiry. It forces the inquiry out of its natural channel. It states that we inquired into all cases where the necessities of the poor were taken advantage of, and it puts out of sight altogether the most import- ant factor in the whole case —that is, the allegation, the claim, that the abuse of sub-contracting, and the existence of unnecessary middlemen, are the principal causes of the sweating system. Now, my Lords, what is the opinion of the Committee on the abuse of sub-contracting? The Report says that the middleman is the consequence, and not the cause, of sweating, and the Committee appear to treat that matter very lightly. Well, my Lords, the position of the Committee was, I think, somewhat illogical in that respect. The Report speaks of the sweating in the Government contracts as a very grave matter. The charge in regard to the Government contracts was purely that they were not fulfilled by the original contractors, but were sub-let. If that is a scandal in respect of Government work, it is equally so in respect of individual work; if it is immoral in the one case, it is immoral in the other. If it is not immoral—if it is wholesome and a proper means of cheapening production in the case of individuals and private firms, then I say yon have no right to ask the State to interfere in the work of the nation. The Report states to the effect that some witnesses thought the abuse of sub-contracting constituted sweeping; that others thought it had nothing to do with it; that some thought one way, and some the other. My Lords, that gives an absolutely and totally false impression to the House of the weight of evidence. That leaves your Lordships under the impression that the evidence was equally balanced; that some of the witnesses thought sub-contracting was the cause, and other witnesses thought it was not. Now, what are the facts with regard to the evidence upon that point? Out of a total number of 86 witnesses who spoke upon that question, 83 were of opinion that some or other of the evils they complained of were due to the existence of unnecessary middlemen and to sub-contracting. Mark, my Lords, 83 witnesses out of 86. Among those 83 witnesses were Mr. Holland, of Holland and Sons, Dr. Adler, the Chief Rabbi, the officials of the Jewish Board of Guardians, Mr. Burnett, the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade, the Bishop of Bedford, who was for ten and a half years Rector of Spitalfields, the Vicar of Old Ford, Mr. Redgrave, one of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors, and I think, with one exception, every Factory Inspector examined before the Committee. Among them also was Mr. Nepean, the Director of the Army Contracts, and 22 Representatives of Trade Societies. All those witnesses testified that, in their opinion, subletting was a cause of sweating. On the other side were three witnesses, Miss Potter, Mr. Maple, and Mr. Davis, the Factory Inspector of Sheffield. And no mention is made of all this evidence on this important subject. I would ask your Lordships whether that is a fair way of stating the evidence? It is proved in the evidence that the midddleman exists where these evils abound. Almost every one of these witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee agreed that the evils complained of existed in trades and industries in which the system of subcontracting existed, and claimed it to be the cause of them. My Lords, I do not think that to make no mention whatever of the fact that there is an overwhelming mass of evidence, of the greatest importance, given by witnesses of the greatest authority, and who attribute sweating to the abuse of sub-contracting, and the existence of the unnecessary middleman, merely saying that some of the witnesses were one way and some the other, and giving it as the opinion of the Committee that sub-contracting has practically nothing to do with the matter, is placing a fair construction upon the evidence. I think it is placing a false construction upon the evidence, that it gives your Lordships an entirely false impression of it, and is not placing the case fairly before your Lordships' House. The Committee are, of course, justified in saying what they like as to sub-contracting not being a cause of sweating; but they ought to state that the whole body of evidence is against them, and they are not justified in stating that the evils proved in evidence existed in trades where middlemen and sub-contracting did not exist. Now, my Lords, I will turn to my second point, and that is the effect of the excessive competition among employers and capitalists. What is the cause of this sub-contracting that I have spoken of? Why excessive competition among employers. This question of the competition of capitalists goes really, my Lords, to the very root of the matter, because upon it depends the answer to the question whether the sweating system is a natural development of manufacture, meeting a natural and normal demand, or whether it is the contrary. But, my Lords, this question of competition among employers is absolutely and utterly ignored in the Report. There is no mention made of it whatever. No reference is made to the evidence upon it; no quotation is given from the evidence; nothing at all—not one word. And yet it is a matter of the very first importance. The silence of the Committee upon this point would cause your Lordships to infer, and must inevitably cause your Lordships to infer, that the competition of employers has nothing whatever to do with the matter. Now, what does the evidence say upon that point I That is a matter which is so important that I will quote to the House what one or two of the witnesses say. Mr. Holland says— To keep your places going wages must be lowered considerably, inferior goods must be supplied, and all this must be done owing to the competition among employers. Mr. Akers, the foreman of Messrs Arthur and Company, a very large firm of clothiers in Leeds, says— It is the competition in the trade that has caused the reduction in prices, not the competition to get work. Mr. Holley, the late President of the Amalgamated Society of Tailors, a Society whose influence extends all over the United Kingdom, says— It is difficult or impossible for the time log prices to be maintained owing to the competition of the sweaters. Mr. Burnett, the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade, says— Excessive competition, which is the root and cause of most of the evils complained of in the evidence originated in the competition among masters and employers. Mr. Davis, the Factory Inspector of Sheffield, says— The competition is very great both among the workmen, the little masters, and the large masters, and that really is the cause of the low wages, and so on. My Lords, I have taken the trouble to analyse the evidence upon that point, and I find that in speaking of the effects of competition, 41 witnesses, including 15 wage-earners, 14 employers, and 12 independent witnesses, testify that competition among employers is the cause of sweating, and there is not one syllable mentioned in the Report of that fact. My Lords, I could multiply instances of that; but what I want to do is to impress upon you that witnesses of great weight and authority emphatically and at once put down their fingers upon competition, the competition of employers, as a primary cause of sweating, and that is entirely ignored in the Report of your Committee. The sequence of events is very simple, and is plainly enough proved in evidence. The intense competition among employers created a frantic desire for cheap production; that, in its turn, resulted in a tendency to employ unskilled instead of skilled labour, in the introduction of the cheapest and lowest kind of foreign labour, in scamped work and in the use of inferior material. The large employers will allow sweaters to do for them what they will not do for themselves. The intense competition among large firms favours sub-contracting, causes sub-contracting, for the simple and sufficient reason that the small man can produce more cheaply than the factory owner or shop owner, not because ho can legitimately produce more cheaply, but because he is enabled to get an advantage by being able to evade the law or by being outside the law. The small master does break and evade the law; the large master cannot do so. That gives a premium to sweating, it gives a direct advantage to the sub contractor. Sub-contracting flourishes not, as the Report would lead your Lordships to believe, because it is a natural development of manufacture, but because it obtains an illegitimate and illegal advantage over the work that is carried on in the factory and the workshop. I want your Lordships clearly to understand that point, because it is most important. It indicates a distinctly diseased condition of manufacture, which calls urgently for a remedy, and for a remedy it points clearly and distinctly to one of two things, the factory owner and the workshop owner and the sweater must somehow or other be put on an equality. The sweater must not be allowed to have an advantage over the factory owner. Either we must repeal our Sanitary Laws, our Factory and Workshop Acts, and leave the whole thing open to competition, or we must apply the Factory and Workshop Acts to all the places where work is carried on, and so do away with the advantage which the small man and the sweater now enjoy. But, my Lords, does the consumer benefit in any way by this inferior cheap production? According to the evidence he does not benefit by it. The evidence is distinctly to the effect that the cheapness is merely apparent cheapness, merely cheapness in price, and that it has been attained at the sacrifice of quality. My Lords, I am quite aware that the deterioration was denied by a good many witnesses. The Report quotes the evidence of Mr. Giffen to show that there had been no deterioration in the boot trade, because his statistics proved that the trade had expanded. But I think I may point out that Mr. Giffen's figures apply to the whole trade, whereas the allegation of deterioration is only made against a certain portion of the boot trade, principally the slop trade with the colonies. I have no time to weigh and balance all the evidence for and against the allegation of deterioration; I will only say, and I know very well it cannot be denied, that the great mass and bulk of the evidence is to the effect that cheapness is accompanied by scamped work, by the use of inferior materials, and that there is great deterioration in quality in those trades, or portions of trades, in which sweating exists, and which were inquired into by your Lordships' Committee. Then, my Lords, I come to my third and last point, that is the question of immigration. Of course, my Lords, the excessive competition of capital could not have produced the awful results that we have seen proved in evidence if it could not act upon an overcrowded, unskilled labour market. The noble Earl upon the Cross Benches is perfectly right in his Amendment—the overcrowded condition of the labour market is at the root and foundation of the evil, and I hope I shall not only have his support upon that point, but in what I shall have to say about the overcrowded state of that market. The glut in that market causes the open competition value of unskilled labour to be very low; and workers are unable to overcome this natural result, and force wages up above the open competition market value by combination. For the glut and the effects of it the actual or potential results of foreign immigration are mainly responsible. So long as this destitute, cheap, foreign labour has free access to our shores the unskilled labour market is, for all intents and purposes, coterminous with the supply of that cheap labour all over the world. The mere fact that employers can, if they choose, bring over 200 or 300 destitute Russian, Roumanian, or Polish Jews at any time must tend to depress wages down to the low level of wages and standard of life which those destitute foreigners are able to subsist upon. The Report makes very light of this matter. It admits that certain trades have been affected, but it says that undue stress has been laid upon the injurious effect of foreign immigration, and then the Report goes on to preach to these people about their imprudence, the result of their early marriages, and their low standard of life. What is the use of talking to them of their low standard of life if you insist upon leaving them at the same time in competition with a class of foreign labour with a standard of life so low that the native born cannot exist under it? Is it not mere mockery to talk of their raising their standard of life? How are they to do it if they are subject to this competition? What is the use of talking about their early marriages, and the congested condition of the labour market, when you know very well that as long as this foreign immigration can flow in unchecked to fill up any gap, nothing that the people can do themselves, either by self-control or emigration or in any other way, can have any effect whatever in relieving the congestion or benefiting their condition? Mr. Tillett, the Secretary of the Dock Labourers' Union, mentioned a case where a party of 500 emigrants went out of Tilbury Docks, and at the same time 700 foreign labourers came in; and he added that ho knew several cases where men had been contemplating emigration, but had given up the idea when they saw the foreign labourers coming to fill their places. In one case, the man had actually applied for his passage, but having received this information and learnt these facts, he would not go, saying, "I do not want to go out of my country as long as these other people are coming in; it is only making room for them." I commend that to your Lordships' consideration most earnestly, because it contains a vast deal of truth. As long as these men can and do come in so long will it he impossible for our native labourers to do anything which can have any effect upon their present miserable condition. My Lords, do you think it is a good thing that our native labour should be pitted against this class of destitute foreign labour? Do you think it is a desirable thing that it should be so? Do you think it is likely to improve the characteristics or the moral, mental, and physical development of our people? Do you think it is a good thing to encourage this struggle for existence, and survival of the fittest, when the fittest is the one who can subsist on the lowest possible diet, amidst the greatest possible amount of filth, and surrounded by the greatest possible amount of misery? My Lords, the Committee recommend combination. What is the use of recommending combination to these people? How are they effectually to combine? How are they to make an effective combination when at any time they may be flooded by this cheap, destitute, unorganised, foreign labour, which can break down any combination they can possibly make? There is no use blinking at facts, and the truth is that if you choose to allow British labour to be placed in competition with this kind of foreign labour, you must make up your minds that the British working man and working woman must and will be brought down to the level of subsistence and methods of life of the foreign labourer. It must be so; it cannot possibly be otherwise. On the other hand, if you desire that British labour in these trades should be put on something like a footing of decent existence, and especially if you desire that that should be brought about in the best of all possible ways, by self help among the people, and by mutual combination among themselves, then, my Lords, it is absolutely certain that some check, or, if necessary, a full stop should be placed upon the importation of this cheap, destitute, and unskilled foreign labour. That, my Lords, is my opinion; the Committee appear to hold the opposite opinion. Well, the Committee are, of course, perfectly entitled to hold any opinion they choose upon the subject. I do not object to that; but what I do object to, and most strenuously protest against, is the way in which the evidence upon this point has been treated. The Report mentions foreign immigration in connection with two trades only—the tailoring and the boot making trade. In the tailoring trade it mentions one witness only, Mr. Hollington, as being of opinion that foreign immigration had an injurious effect upon his trade; and against him it sets up Mr. Stephany, Mr. Alexander, and Miss Potter. In the boot trade it mentions five witnesses as holding that immigration is injurious, and it mentions, in the margin, six witnesses as holding the contrary opinion. My Lords, in a matter of such importance as this, I think I am not only justified, but that it is my duty, to examine and look into the character of the evidence which the Committee have put, as a setoff to the evidence as to the evil consequences of the foreign immigration. Their principal witnesses are Mr. Stephany, Mr. Alexander, and Miss Potter. Mr. Stephany and Mr. Alexander are the honorary and paid secretaries of the Jewish Board of Guardians—a most excellent institution—an institution conducted, on the whole, so admirably that it may serve as a model to similar institutions anywhere. But, my Lords, I think it is only right and just to remember that, practically, the whole of this foreign labour consists of Russian, Polish, and Roumanian Jews, and the officials of the Jewish Board of Guardians not unnaturally look upon them with a sympathetic and a favouring eye. As a matter of fact, Mr. Stephany and Mr. Alexander said very little upon this point. They quoted principally from the reports of the institution; they said scarcely anything of themselves. They admit they had no knowledge of the volume of this foreign labour, and they admit that they had no means of obtaining any knowledge of it; they said, in their opinion, it was not sufficiently large to have any great effect; but, at the same time, they stated that they did their best to check it by trying to prevent destitute foreigners coming over here, and by either sending those who did come over here home again, or by endeavouring to pass them on to the United States. Then Miss Potter's name is mentioned. Miss Potter has done admirable work in the East End and has had considerable experience there. It is stated in the Report that Miss Potter herself worked in the sweaters' houses in order to obtain practical experience. That is, no doubt, perfectly true; but what I wish your Lordships to note is that, according to her evidence, Miss Potter worked in only the superior branches of the clothing trade and in superior shops, and her practical experience was confined within the not very largo limit of three weeks. I have no desire whatever to minimise the value of Miss Potter's evidence. It was very valuable. But I do say this: that it ought to have been balanced and weighed against the evidence of other people of greater experience in the trade, and that it does not merit the position of almost exclusive importance that is assigned to it in the Report. Now, my Lords, as to the boot making trade, the principal witness quoted. Mr. Craig was the salaried secretary of the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers' Association, and he admitted he had no practical knowledge of the trade himself. Of the witnesses referred to in the margin as supporting his views, Mr. Flatau, a very large manufacturer, admitted that it was difficult to say whether or not the trade was passing out of English hands into the hands of foreigners. Mr. Maddey, the foreman at Messrs. Salomon's, admitted, in cross-examination, that the foreigner does sometimes push the Englishman out of work. Mr. S. Moses said he did not employ foreign sweaters, because "there are a number of good workmen out of work that are glad to get into a respectable third or fourth-class shop, and they will take low wages for the sake of their families." Mr. Darnell did not give evidence upon the subject at all, but spoke upon the subject of competition of foreign-made goods—quite Knottier thing. One witness only, Mr. Salomon, can be truthfully said to bear out the conclusion of the Committee, and that witness was directly contradicted by his own foreman. That, my Lords, is the kind of evidence—that is the kind of ricketty scaffolding upon which rests that part of the structure of this Report, which states that the fall in prices has nothing to do with this influx of foreign labour in regard to sweating. Then, there is an equally astonishing conclusion in paragraph 71, where the Committee say that they can form no opinion as to the course of wages in the lower branches of the boot trade. The Report states that in the higher branches the wages are as good as ever they were. There was evidence to that effect, and I believe it to be perfectly true; but that was only in respect of the very highest class of bespoke goods—that is to say, the very best class of hand made boots that can possibly be made. But the Committee can form no opinion upon the point as to whether wages are going down in the lower branches of trade. They might, I think, at least have informed your Lordships that there is an overwhelming body of evidence which assorts that in the trade generally the higher branches are shrinking and shrinking, and the lower branches are expanding and expanding; that the general tendency is for wages to go down in those lower branches, and that this cutting down of wages is attributable largely to the increase of foreign immigrants. I should like your Lordships, if you will, to turn for one moment to paragraph 55 of the Report, because I want to give it to your Lordships as an example of the way in which the evidence upon this point is treated. The contention in this paragraph is that the introduction of the greeners in the boot trade has cut down wages, because the greeners do not know what price to ask for their work, and, in fact, do not ask any price for their work. Against the statement of Mr. Solomon the Committee adduce Miss Potter and Mr. Maddy. They drag Miss Potter into this question in reference to the boot-making trade, in, I must say, a most unceremonious and unjustifiable manner. Miss Potter knows nothing, and never pretended to know anything, about bootmaking. It is true that the Report says she testified that the greeners in the tailoring trade soon learn better, and in a few months can earn as much as anyone. But that leaves your Lordships to infer that, because that occurs in the tailoring trade, it also occurs in the bootmaking trade. What right has the Committee to ask your Lordships to believe that there is a close analogy between these two trades, and to suppose that, because Miss Potter says so-and-so occurred in the tailoring trade, therefore, what Mr. Salomon said with regard to the boot-making trade, is incorrect? Besides that, the Report makes those two witnesses put forward statements, and puts words and opinions into their mouths which they never uttered or entertained. Miss Potter never said that in the tailoring trade greeners could earn as good wages as anyone else after three months, and Mr. Maddy never said a word in corroboration of such a statement. What Miss Potter did say was this— The actual raw greener cannot be used in the tailoring trade, he must at least have done tailoring at home to be of any use. Then he comes into the workshop, and he serves for about three months, perhaps for a very small wage, and at the end of three months he can command as good a wage as anybody. What Mr. Maddy said was that a greener might, not after three, bat after 12 months, be able to earn as good wages as anyone else. My Lords, I do not think that such a loose and careless treatment of evidence as that will find favour in the eyes of your Lordships' House. Now, my Lords, what does the Report say as to the evidence on the other side? What kind of summary or Précis is there of the evidence in favour of the contention that foreign immigration has a bad effect? It mentions the matter in a very few places indeed. This question of immigration came up before us only incidentally. There was a Committee of the other House, inquiring into that particular matter, and every witness who desired to give evidence upon that particular point I turned over to the Committee of the House of Commons, and he was not heard before the Committee of your Lordships' House. It came up incidentally only; but so important was it, so all-pervading was the effect of this foreign immigration, that it was constantly being alluded to by the witnesses. I have taken the trouble to analyse that evidence also, and I find that, out of 20 working-class witnesses who alluded to the subject, 17 were of opinion that their trade was injured by foreign immigration, and three of a con. trary opinion. Of 14 employers, small employers who make use of this cheap foreign labour, nine believed that it was injurious to the trade, and five that it was not injurious; four out of those five being themselves Jews. Of 18 uninterested witnesses, entirely independent witnesses, not engaged in the trade at all; 14 spoke strongly of the bad effects of foreign immigration. Among those 14 were the Bishop of Bedford, Mr. Lakeman, Mr. Giffen, Mr. Burnett, the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade, and many others. Mr. Giffen, it is true, said that the effect of these people Remaining for settlement in the United Kingdom would not apparently be very large compared with the whole number of people in this country. Well, my Lords, that, of coarse, is absolutely true; but Mr. Giffen added— It might no doubt be important with reference to particular localities and with reference to particular trades. That was all that was claimed with regard to it. Mr. Henderson, the Superintending Inspector of Factories for Scotland and the North of England, said—and this, my Lords, is most important, and I ask your attention particularly to it. He said, with regard to foreign immigration— It does not affect us in the North at all, only indirectly. The rate of wages paid in London for the manufacture of clothing no doubt practically regulated the rate of wages paid everywhere else in the country. The fact that the rate of wages is borne down in London would bear down the rate of wages everywhere else in this country. Dr. Adler, the Chief Rabbi, while refusing to allow that foreign immigration was the cause of sweating generally, admitted that it might be the case in certain trades. Then, my Lords, on the other side, those who say it has no particular effect, are Miss Potter, whom I have already alluded to, Mr. Stephan, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Cohen, all officials of Jewish Boards of Guardians. I ask your Lordships ought all that evidence to have been practically sup-pressed? Should no mention have been made whatever in the Report to this great mass, this great weight and body of evidence which was given in favour of the contention that the influx of this cheap, unskilled, destitute, foreign labour, has a very serious effect upon our British industries, and is one of the principal causes of sweating. The Report makes no recommendation on that subject. I do not find fault with it in the least for that; indeed, I have not myself thought it right to suggest any interference with this stream of foreign immigration, and for these reasons. In the first place, there is a great body of evidence before us which, while fully admitting the gravity of the evil, shows that the witnesses shrank from any interference whatever. But my principal reason was that, as I have said, a Committee of the other House was inquiring into this subject, and it had not made its Report when my draft was circulated. I thought, therefore, it would not be proper, under those circumstances, for any suggestions or interference to be made by your Lordships' Committee. But to abstain from suggesting direct interference by the State is a very different matter from stating that the effect of foreign immigration is much exaggerated, and omitting or suppressing all the evidence to the contrary. Now, my Lords, those are the three points which I wished to deal with. Those are the chief criticisms which I have felt it my duty to make upon this Report. I find the Report is faulty in respect of the effect of the abuse of subcontracting; I find it is faulty in respect of the effect of excessive competition among employers; and I find it is faulty in the respect of the effect of foreign immigration. It is faulty, in fact, wherever capital is involved. In all those questions I have mentioned the conclusions of the Committee appear to me to be not only founded upon insufficient evidence, but to be directly opposed to the great weight and bulk of the evidence which was given before the Committee. My Lords, I set out with certain propositions to make good, and I hope I have succeeded in doing so. I hope I have succeeded in proving to your Lordships that there is a sweating system; that there is not only sweating, which is another term for misery, but a sweating system, a system of manufacturing which produces misery. I hope I have proved to your Lordships also that the sweating system is not merely a natural development of manufacture, a natural and wholesome means of meeting a natural and wholesome demand. I hope I have shown to your Lordships that sub-contracting, forced into unnatural exuberance by the excessive competition of employers, is one of the chief causes of sweating; and that that sub-contracting results from the excessive competition of capital acting upon an unskilled labour market which is too full—which is filled to repletion by the influx of foreign unskilled labour, or dominated and controlled absolutely by the fear of an influx of foreign labour. My Lords, I hope I have succeeded in proving those propositions, and I believe I have at least succeeded in demonstrating that the Report is not in line with the evidence; that it is not founded upon the evidence; and that in many most important particulars its conclusions are directly opposed to the evidence; that a great body of evidence is left entirely unnoticed; and that an enormous mass of evidence, including the opinions of witnesses of great authority, is entirely omitted, and is omitted in those cases, and in those instances, where it proved to the contrary the opinions formed by the Committee. My Lords, I will only say a word or two more as to the recommendations. The Report confines itself in its recommendations to sanitation. As far as that goes I am entirely in agreement. In my opinion, the recommendations as to sanitation are admirable, and if carried out would have a very good effect, and I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to carry them out. But, my Lords, you are not going to cure this morbid, unwholesome condition of trade by the application of lime wash and paint; you must have more searching' and more drastic legislation than that. You must ensure equality between the sweater and the legitimate manufacturer. That must be attained by some means. As workers are protected in a factory or in a workshop, they must be equally protected wherever work is carried on, and under whatever conditions the work is carried on. Those illegitimate advantages which the sweater enjoys must be taken away from him and the factory owner, and the workshop owner must not be allowed to work at a disadvantage. If the existing factory legislation could be applied to all places where work is carried on, if then this sub-contracting continued to exist, and the sweater continued to flourish, I should say there was a good à priori ease for supposing that this subcontracting, and this sweating middleman were a natural and normal development of industry. But, my Lords, if the law were applied and enforced everywhere, I am very certain that you would sec the tendency would be for the work to gravitate to the large workshops and factories; the tendency would be for the sweater to decay and die out. That, my Lords, is what I wish to see take place. I wish to see the State interfere effectually, but interfere only within what I believe to be its legitimate sphere of action. I wish to see it interfere in the question of sanitation. I wish to see it interfere also in giving a wider application, and as far as possible a universal application, to the provisions of the Factory Acts, regulating the hours of labour for women, young persons, and children. Protected persons should be protected everywhere. If that were done, two of the evils which are complained of would be dealt with. The excessive hours would be prevented to a large extent, and the horrible insanitary conditions of labour would be cured, and you would have placed the people in a position, perhaps, to cure the third evil complained of—the utterly inadequate rate of wages. That, my Lords, is a matter that can only be dealt with by the people themselves; bur the State may do something to put them in a position to themselves deal with it. Whether the people can do so without some check being placed upon foreign immigration, without something being done which will enable us to deal with that immigration, I very greatly doubt. I believe that the question of foreign immigration will force itself upon the attention of Parliament. If a commencement had been made in dealing with the whole subject of sweating 10 or 15 years ago there would have been very little trouble in the matter now. The longer it is allowed to be unchecked the greater the difficulties that you will have to deal with will be. I hold it to be true statesmanship to anticipate a coming necessity, and I should like to see this question of foreign immigration dealt with before it is forced upon the attention of Government by popular clamour. My Lords, I see no way in which the law can be universally applied, or more widely applied, other than in the recommendations which I venture to make in paragraph 191, and the two succeeding paragraphs, of the draft which I had the honour to bring before the Committee. If these recommendations were adopted—and I do hope Her Majesty's Government will, at least, consider the advisability of doing so— of course a number of consequential Amendments in the Act of 1878 would become necessary. That Act, my Lords, is simply a miracle, a masterpiece of confusion. Nobody understands it. I venture to say that if you were to shut up the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Thring), and all Her Majesty's Inspectors in different rooms, and ask them to write down separately what they held to be the powers which are given under that Act, and who the people are who come within its jurisdiction, and who do not, no two of them would be able to agree. The Act requires amendment. What can be more absurd, for instance, than the provision in Clause 15 of that Act which allows women to work during a period of 15 hours, provided they are allowed four hours and a half for rest and refreshment; and there being at the same time a provision in another clause, 61, which makes it absolutely impossible for an Inspector, or any number of Inspectors, to see that the women get their four hours and a half rest, or to ascertain whether they are not compelled to work 15 hours out of the 24. Sections 77 and 78 are also sections which are liable to great abuse, and I would draw attention to them. The matter of overtime, too, requires careful consideration. Overtime was granted in order to meet sudden demands, but there was a great deal of evidence given in proof of the allegation that the privileges of overtime are abused, that practically the full time allowance is worked on consecutive days, that is to say, the overtime allowed is worked out in about two months, and produces a period of brisk trade, that period of brisk trade being followed by a period of comparatively slack trade. I think, therefore, that the question of overtime is very important, and deserves very careful consideration. Then, my Lords, the term "workshop" requires to be more clearly defined, and if the word "family" continues to be used in the Act, that also requires to be more carefully defined. At present what may be included in the word "family" is very vague, and I suppose in Scotland it might be made to comprehend almost the whole country side. Then, I think, a minimum penalty ought to be imposed for all breaches of the Act. Those are the alterations and Amendments which I would venture to press upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The number of Inspectors also requires to be increased. It came out very strongly in evidence, and very greatly, I think, to the credit of Her Majesty's Inspectors, how very strong a sense of duty they evidently entertain, and what great exertions they make to fulfil that duty, but their numbers are utterly inadequate and must be largely, supplemented. They ought also, in certain cases, to be assisted by men who have practical experience of the various trades, and who have at their fingers' ends all the dodges which are practised in the trades. My Lords, that is practically all I have to say to your Lordships. I think it is a pity that all mention of the dock labourers was omitted in the Report. It is impossible to say that a prècis of the very voluminous evidence which was given upon that subject would not be of great value. I think it is a great pity that there is no reference to the tailoring trade in the West End of London; and I should personally be glad if some Member of the Committee would explain what they mean by the opinions, sentiments, and statement of facts attributed to the Bishop of Bedford in paragraph 44 of the Report. My Lords, before I sit down I should like, though it may be unusual, to express upon my own part, at any rate, my thanks to some of the witnesses and others who were of the greatest assistance in the inquiry. As your Lordships may well imagine, considering the character of the witnesses that we wanted to bring before the Committee, the inquiry was, at its inception, exceedingly difficult to set in motion. Mr. Arnold White, at the request of the Committee, gave us very valuable assistance at the outset in setting the inquiry going. It is true that in a very short time the inquiry gained a momentum that was exceedingly difficult to check, but at the beginning it was exceedingly difficult to set in motion, and I think Mr. Arnold White deserves the thanks of the Committee and your Lordships for the assistance he gave. A great many of the witnesses before us who were not in the least interested on one side or the other, came long distances, at great inconvenience, and at the sacrifice of much valuable time, to give information and assistance to the Committee. I should like also to say that we derived the greatest assistance from Mr. Oram, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors, who assisted us in the very difficult task of obtaining, reliable witnesses from the Provinces. My Lords, the task which I have set myself has not been a very agreeable one. It is not very pleasant to have to make criticisms in a case of this kind, but feeling, as I do, very strongly that the case which was presented in evidence before the Committee is not clearly, fairly, justly, and impartially placed before the House in the Report, feeling, as I do also, that although improved) sanitation will do something if the recommendations of the Committee are carried out, things will remain very much as they were before, and believing, as I do, that if that is the case, the consequences will be serious, I think I should have been very much lacking in a sense of duty if I had not endeavoured to the best of my ability, to lay before the House what I believe to be the truth.

Moved to resolve— That, in the opinion of this House, legislation with a view to the amelioration of the condition of the people suffering under the sweating system is urgently needed."—(The Lord Kenry, E. Dunraven.)

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl has ranged unavoidably over so great a variety of subjects that I am afraid it may not be as easy as I could wish to answer it in a connected and consecutive manner. The noble Earl says he has performed a disagreeable duty in criticising the Report of his Colleagues upon the Committee. For my own part I am quite willing to accept any criticism which is fair and well founded, and I have this consolation that if the noble Earl has found considerable fault with what we have said' and done, or rather with what we have not said or done, his criticism was confined to assertion only, and he did not think it necessary to follow it up by proof. The noble Earl said, and it is almost the only charge he made which is definite enough for me to take hold of, that in every case where capital was concerned the Report showed a prejudice in favour of capital and against labour. He did not put it in those words, and I should be sorry to misquote him, but I think that was the effect of the statement he made. I will leave it to your Lordships to consider what are the probabilities of the case in that respect. Who are the capitalists with whom the Committee have been dealing? They are the men called sweaters—not rich men or employers on a great scale, but for the most part small men, very often working for themselves, driven very hard by competition, and, therefore, driven to press very hardly on those whom they employ. There are subcontractors with whom I do not suppose it is alleged we are likely to have any particular sympathy here; and there are foreign immigrants who come in and compete with our native labour. I think it would be very difficult for the noble Earl or anybody else to show there was an animus in the minds of anyone upon an inquiry of this kind in favour of any of those classes. Then the noble Earl has gone to another charge, also one of a very vague character. He says the Report is not founded upon the evidence, and that some part of the evidence has been left unnoticed by it. Well, my Lords, that some part of the evidence has been left unnoticed is undoubtedly the truth, because if we were to compress the Report within such limits as that anybody would be likely to read it we could not have made a complete abstract of those 2,000 to 3,000 pages of evidence which probably not many of your Lordships have looked at, and which probably very few of your Lordships have read. Then it is said that some particular cases have been left unnoticed. The noble Earl explained that he meant by that to refer specially to the dock labourers. Well, we left out advisedly any mention of the evidence that had been brought before us with regard to the dock labourers, and we did so for this reason, that the state of things had entirely changed between the time when the evidence was taken and the time at which the Report came out. That great strike had occurred which is in everybody's recollection, and to have referred to the state of things which existed in 1888, before the time of the strike, would have been simply time and trouble thrown away. Then, when the noble Earl says the Report is against the evidence, he knows perfectly well, and your Lordships must know, that where a great mass of evidence is taken and it is very contradictory nothing is easier than to say "Your Report does not follow the evidence." That is a charge which can very easily be made, and which is very difficult to disprove; but, unless it is accompanied by some proof, I do not think it requires much consideration. Then I pass over what was said by the noble Earl about our having borrowed from his Report. I have not the smallest objection to acknowledge that fact. I have always thought, and I believe my colleagues upon this Committee thought, that the Report of the noble Earl was very valuable, that it contained a great deal of valuable matter, and I do not think we could have shown our opinion better than by embodying it in part of our Report in connection with the evidence to which it refers, though in a somewhat different form from that which he adopted. Then I come to the definite question which the noble Earl has raised, and as to which he finds fault with what we have said, and with what we have recommended or have not recommended. My Lords, in the first place we took the question which he raises of competition among employers. He says a great deal of distress, arising from what is called sweating, is caused by an excessive competition among employers; and he further goes on to say that that is ignored or insufficiently mentioned in the Report. Well, my Lords, it is only ignored in this sense, that the effect of the very keen competition among the East End employers did not require to be mentioned and emphasised, because everybody is well aware of it. It cannot be unknown, and it certainly did not require to be more emphatically stated. But I do not understand quite what the noble Earl proposes as a remedy for this undue competition among employers. I listened to him with the greatest interest, and I thought some recommendation was coming; but, although he mentions this as an unsatisfactory state of things, he does not in the least suggest anything that can be done either to prevent or lessen it. I think that the doctrine which he lays down is not one which your Lordships or the public are likely to accept, when he tells you that it is the excessive competition amongst employers that is the cause of low wages. I should have thought every child would know that excessive competition among employers would operate, as far as it operates at all, to raise wages, and not to lower them. Then, my Lords, the noble Earl speaks of the illegitimate and illegal advantages gained by the sweater. He tells us that the sweater gains his advantage by breaking the law. I wish the noble Earl had explained what are the illegal advantages gained by the sweater, and what is the law that he breaks. He did not mention that.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

If the noble Lord will pardon me, I said that the sweater had advantages in respect of either being outside the law and consequently not being affected by it, or of being able to break and evade factory legislation that cannot be broken or evaded by the owners of factories and workshops.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I thought the noble Earl spoke of the sweaters actually breaking the law, and not merely of their advantages in evading the law. But if that means that the Factories and Work shops Acts are to be applied to all labour performed by people in their own houses, that raises a question to which I will advert presently. I would point out that the illegal advantage which is referred to seems to imply that the person called the sweater actually breaks some existing law. Now, if that is so lie can be dealt with without any change in the law, and I presume that the additional inspection, which we quite agree with the noble Lord in recommending, would meet the requirements of the case. But when the noble Earl goes on to say he wants to put the sweater, the worker, and the employer on an equality, I think he is suggesting that Parliament should do that which is utterly beyond the power of any legislation whatever to perform. Unless you are prepared to say that no work is to be taken home by workers or done in their own houses, and that all work is to be done in registered factories and workshops, there will be undoubtedly a greater freedom from restraint on the part of those who work in their own houses than there is elsewhere. I do not think the noble Earl can really contemplate such an alteration of the law as this, that a woman, for instance, is not to be allowed to take a piece of work homo, and so contribute to her own and her husband's earnings, because by so doing she would commit a breach of the Factories and Workshops Acts. I do not think that is intended, and if that is not intended I do not see what it is that the noble Earl means. I am not prepared to deny that there is an excessive desire for cheap articles, and a very keen competition among employers, but if the noble Earl or anyone else will tell us how that competition is to be dealt with by Parliamentary action he will be able to do what nobody has been able to do before. Then, as to the case of subcontractors, the noble Earl says that we have entirely put out of sight and ignored the abuse of sub-contracting and the number of unnecessary middlemen. He tells us that 83 witnesses spoke of the existence of unnecessary middlemen as being the cause of the evil. Now, as to our having ignored the subject, I would refer to paragraph 181 of the Report, in which we say that the employers are to blame if they leave to the sub-contractor the duty of selecting the workers exclusively. This is what we say— But it seems to us that the middleman is the consequence, not the cause of the evil: the instrument not the hand which gives motion to the instrument, which does the mischief. Moreover, the middleman is found to be absent in many cases in which the evils complained of abound. My Lords, that is a very simple and dispassionate statement, but I believe it represents the literal fact. I do not believe that the unnecessary middle man is the cause of low wages. I do not pretend to explain the cause or the manner in which the number of middlemen has become so great, but I should think it must be obvious to anyone who considers the matter, that if it is the employer's object to pay as little as he can, and if it is naturally the object of the worker to receive as much as he can, they have both a strong and identical interest in getting rid of the middleman who is interposed between them, and who takes a share of the profits of both. Presumably, therefore, the middleman exists because he is found in some way necessary, or, at least, useful. But, my Lords, when the noble Earl objects to the number of unnecessary middlemen, and to the abuse of sub-contracting, I observed that he very wisely stopped short of suggesting any means by which the practice to which he objects can be put an end to. He does not suggest that sub-contracting should be forbidden. I do not go into that question, because he has not raised it, but I think it would be easy to show that the prohibition of sub-contracting would be utterly ineffective, besides being in many cases extremely unfair. If you cannot put an end to the system, and if it has grown up in the ordinary course of trade, I think there is no us3 in denouncing that which after all is not, as we believe, a cause, but is a symptom of an unhealthy state of things. My Lords, I now come to the more important question which the noble Earl has raised, I mean that of foreign immigration, and the overcrowded state of the labour market. The noble Earl finds fault with us for minimising that grievance. He says that we make too little of it, and he refers to the Committee of the House of Commons, which reported very fully upon the subject. Now, my Lords, it is quite true that we did not go fully, or in detail, into this question of foreign immigration, and we did not do so for three reasons. In the first place, we were aware that that Committee of the House of Commons was sitting; in fact, it reported before we did, and we did not think it desirable to go again over the ground which had been thoroughly traversed by those who were dealing with the subject in the other House. The noble Earl himself referred to the fact of that Committee sitting, and admitted that it was a reason why we should not deal at length with that part of the subject. In the next place, the subject is an extremely important one, no doubt, but it is a very large one, and it only in a slight degree concerns the subject of our inquiry. No doubt foreign immigration does affect the labour market; so, no doubt, does almost anything and everything that bears upon the habits and life of the working classes; but the question of foreign immigration has many other aspects besides that which we have to look at. It would have been quite impossible for us to go fully into it, or to make a recommendation upon that subject, without taking into consideration a very large number of questions which were not within our order of reference, and which were not, in fact, in any way before us. For instance, there was the question whether, if we were to put checks upon the immigration of working men from foreign countries those countries might not retaliate, and object to our working men being employed there; and, if so, it is not at all certain that we should have the best of that bargain. Then, again, it is admitted by all the witnesses that these foreign workers who are so much complained of do not come upon the rates. They do not live upon charity, they maintain themselves, they are not paupers; and the objection taken to them is not that they are helpless, or idle, or incapable of getting their living, but that they are too industrious and too frugal, and therefore dangerous competitors for our own people to encounter. I think Parliament will pause before it says that on such grounds as these working men from other countries are to be excluded from this country. And let me point out here that that question involves the much larger one of protection to native labour; because if Parliament ought to interfere to prevent the cheap foreign workman coming into this country and working here, it would obviously follow that that cheap article which he produces abroad is equally to be objected to. Therefore, the question raised is no less than this, whether we are to revert to the principle of protecting native labour by putting exceptional taxes upon articles imported from abroad. But, my Lords, I do not know that I need labour this point, because, in point of fact, the noble Earl has himself given up the case. He says we ought to have laid much more stress upon this matter, and I expected to hear him say, but he stopped short of that, that we ought to have recommended Parliament to put restrictions on foreign labour. But when I look at his own Report, paragraph 180, I find these words— On the evidence before us we do not feel justified in suggesting any legislative interference with immigration. If the noble Earl thought that there should be no legislative interference with immigration, which is exactly the view we take, I do not see what advantage there would have been in our calling attention at greater length to the subject. My Lords, I am bound to mention, though in saying this I am only stating my personal opinion, that it came out in the evidence taken before us, and before the other Committee, that the effect of this foreign immigration is very much less than it is popularly supposed to be. We all know that the real difficulty—the real danger—is the rate at which the poorest class are increasing in London and in our great towns. Compared with that natural increase, which it is not suggested we can check, the very slight addition which is made by foreign emigration is practically without appreciable effect. Well, my Lords, I have touched on the three points to which the noble Earl referred. What ho objected to, as I understood, was that though we had dealt with the sanitary part of the question we had not dealt with the economical part of it. Now, it is quite true, and I quite agree with him, that what we call sweating means two things: it means work done under unsanitary conditions, and it means work done at very low and inadequate wages. We have dealt with the first point to the best of our judgment, and the various recommendations we have made will be better discussed in detail, when, as I hope may be the case, the Government brings in a Bill upon the subject. But with regard to the economical part of the question, I am bound to say that I think we should only be deluding the public if we held out any hope that the evil of inadequate wages could be directly dealt with by legislation. It is hardly necessary, I think, to prove what everybody is agreed upon; but surely it is obvious that if a man, driven by necessity, is willing to take is a day, it would be utterly impossible to say he should not be allowed to work for less than 2s. In the first place, you could not enforce such a law if it were passed, because both parties would be equally interested in breaking it, and nobody else would be concerned in the matter. In the next place, if such a law could be passed and enforced, the only result would be that the man who gets low wages—inadequately low wages if you please—would get no wages at all. When things are in the state in which they are unhappily at the East End of London, there are only two ways in which the remedy can be applied. Labour is in excess of the demand, and therefore it is exceedingly cheap. What you have to do, if you can, is either to increase the demand on the one hand or to lessen the supply on the other. I do not know how or by what process legislation can increase the demand for labour. Nothing except relief works or public works of some kind would do it; and even if that extreme remedy were adopted, the only effect after a short time would be that you would have drawn a larger number of workmen to share in the expenditure going on. Then as to the diminution of the supply of labour. I am afraid that no direct remedy by legislation is possible. It may seem a hard thing to say, but it is better to look at things as they are. Indirectly, we may hope that a higher standard of civilisation, the increase of education, the diminution of those exceedingly early marriages, and in some degree emigration, may act as a palliative and remedy; but that there can be within any short period of time a radical cure is, to my mind, beyond hope. But we do not think that because you cannot effect a radical cure that is any reason why you should not endeavour to apply such palliatives as you can. That is what we intended to do in dealing with the sanitary part of the question; and if anybody thinks that the Committee ought to have dealt with the economical part of the question also, and that they should have devised or suggested means by which these unfortunate underpaid workmen should be more regularly employed, let him bring forward his scheme, and let us see whether any working result can be produced from it. The noble Earl has none, and I do not believe any can be found. I only ask your Lordships to believe that in going through this vast and complicated subject we have endeavoured to deal as fairly as we could with the evidence. I have not seen a trace of any prejudice or feeling on one side or the other in the course of this Inquiry. I believe the object of every member of the Committee was only to get at the facts; and though the zeal of the noble Earl may have led him to feel some disappointment in that we have not gone as far as he is disposed to go, yet, if he looks at what we have recommended, and remembers that he himself has abstained from making any precise recommendation in reference to the matters on which he has laid stress here, I think he will see that the difference between us is not as wide as to him appeared when he retired from the Committee. My Lords, I feel that I have very inadequately defended my colleagues who acted upon this Inquiry; but, of course, I was not aware, and could not be aware, what the particular points would be upon which the noble Earl would touch. However, if any further occasion should arise, I am happy to think that there are other Members of the Committee who will b3 able to do justice to the subject.

Moved, that the further debate be adjourned till To-morrow, and be taken first.—(The Lord Wemyss, E. Wemyss); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.