Sitting of 26 April 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Rhôs-on-Sea Pier Bill (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed.
St. Andrew's Ambulance Association Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Aberavon, Farnworth, Padiham, Plymouth, Skipton, and Weston-super-Mare," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Cudworth and Liverpool," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  New Naval Construction.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the total estimated sum that will remain to be spent on the armoured ships "Conqueror," "Monarch," "Thunderer," and "Princess Royal," at the end of the present financial year?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The figures asked for are:—

  "Conqueror"

  £114,527

  "Monarch"

  118,261

  "Thunderer"

  116,096

  "Princess Royal"

  169,033

  Mr. ASHLEY: If more than half a million is to be spent on these ships after
  1770
  31st March, how is it possible that the statement in the Estimates of 1909–10 can be fulfilled, namely, that they would be completed by 31st March, 1912?
  Mr. McKENNA: We do not pay the last instalment for the ships until after they are completed. If they are completed on 31st March, 1912, the last instalment will not become due until afterwards, and consequently will fall in the next financial year.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it expected that these ships will be completed by then?
  Mr. McKENNA: As far as I am aware, they will be completed by 1912.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the estimated first cost of the hull, fittings, and equipment of the battleship "Neptune" is shown in the 1911–12 Nary Estimates to be £835,627; that the actual expenditure to 31st March, 1910, is stated to have been £624,596, and that the probable expenditure in 1910–11 is placed at £162,807, making a total of £787,403; and what is the explanation of this discrepancy?
  Mr. McKENNA: The difference between the totals quoted for the hull, fittings and equipment of His Majesty's ship "Neptune" represents the provisional anticipated saving on the dockyard estimates for the construction of the vessel. This explanation also applies in the case of the machinery, and a footnote indicating that savings are anticipated on the total estimates for dockyard work for the vessel appears on page 196 of the 1911–12 Navy Estimates.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Then you hope to save about £50,000?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, on the original estimate—and on the estimate revised in the sense in which the word "revised" is used, we hope to save £50,000.

  Cape of Good Hope Naval Station.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked what was the number and tonnage of the ships on the Cape of Good Hope station on 1st April, 1904, and on 1st April, 1911; and what proportion of the latter ships were in a condition of instant readiness for sea on 1st April last?
  Mr. McKENNA: The following are the figures asked for:—

  Total tonnage.

  1st April, 1904

  …

  7 ships

  …

  21,440

  1st April, 1911

  …

  5 ships

  …

  18,890

  including the "Vindictive" and "Mutine," which were temporarily on the station. The "Forte," "Vindictive" and "Mutine" were ready for sea on the 1st April last.
  Mr. FELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if any vessel has started for Delagoa Bay?
  Mr. McKENNA: It does not arise out of this question, but the "Hermies" is, I think, there.

  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention had been called to an accident to John McCafferty at 12.30 on the night of the 17th April, on the new dock works, Rosyth; and whether he could state the kind of conveyance used to carry the injured man to his lodgings, and the time which elapsed from the accident till the man was seen by the medical attendant?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the accident in question. The man was conveyed in a locomotive to within about half a mile of his lodgings, and, accompanied by two fellow-workmen, walked without difficulty the remaining distance. His injury being slight, he was attended to by the qualified officer in charge of the ambulance staff on the works, who did not consider it a case for the ambulance or immediate attention of doctor. He was seen next day by the doctor.
  Mr. J. WARD: Do I understand 13½ hours elapsed from the time of the accident to the time when he was medically attended?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I understand that would be the case, but, according to the information I have received, I do not think any great hardship was suffered.
  Mr. J. WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention had been called to an accident which caused the death of a young man named Ringsley at the new dock works, Rosyth, on 19th April; whether this workman had any previous knowledge of this class of work; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any action to secure that only competent men are engaged upon these works in the future?
  Mr. McKENNA: Particulars have been sent me of the fatal accident in question. The work upon which the man was engaged was that of signalman to quarry
  1772
  crane, which requires no special knowledge or skill, and is usually performed by a boy. I am unable to say whether he had any previous knowledge of the work upon which he was engaged, but investigation of the matter is complicated by the fact that there is reason to believe that he had found employment on the works under more than one assumed name.
  Mr. J. WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could give the names of the firms of contractors at Dunfermline who informed him that 5d. per hour was a fair wage for navvies working in the trenches at Rosyth, and the dates on which they gave his Department that information?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer I gave to my hon. Friend on the 6th April last was based upon investigations made by the local works officers at Rosyth, who do not give the names of particular contractors.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is it not a fact that no inquiry was ever made of any firm in the locality relating to this subject, and that the information the right hon. Gentleman gave me in answer to the previous question is only the answer he was instructed to make by the contractor himself who pays these wages?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, my hon. Friend is quite wrong in that assumption. The information came to us from a gentleman engaged in our service and not from the contractor; and from the report which I have read it appears he derived his information from the reports of builders and persons engaged in work at Dunfermline. There is no evidence at all that the information was given by the contractor.

  Royal Dockyards (Suspension of Establishment).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the reason that led to the suspension of establishment in the Royal dockyards; whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to bring the establishment up to the same level as when suspended; and, if so, in what period of time; if not, whether the Government intend to proceed with the cutting-down process in the same ratio as they have done during 1906–11, or in what ratio?
  Mr. McKENNA: During the suspension of the establishment, His Majesty's Government had under consideration the question whether it was desirable to assimilate the practice in the Royal yards to

  1773
  that of other Departments which employ labour on a large scale, and in which the system of establishment does not obtain. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, the numbers of the establishment have now been fixed definitely at 6,500.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that between 1905, when the establishment was suspended, and the present time, the number of men employed in the Royal Dockyards has increased by nearly 10,000, and that the number on the establishment has decreased by several hundreds?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; I believe the information the hon. Gentleman has just stated to the House was given by me in answer to a question on Monday.

  Protection of Commerce in War.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether His Majesty's Government are aware that certain vessels under foreign flags are in a forward state for conversion to commerce destroyers by reason of their constantly having on board guns and certain munitions of war; and, having regard to this fact, whether the Admiralty will take further steps to ensure better co-operation than now exists between the Royal Navy and the principal steamship lines for the protection of our commerce in war time?
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty would consider whether it was desirable that certain specially selected steamers should be permanently partially armed, with a view to enabling them at very short notice to protect our commerce against similar hostile vessels in war time; and would he lay upon the Table of the House a copy of a circular on the above subject issued in 1862, in which the Government offered to provide guns for the protection of selected ships if their owners complied with stated regulations?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty have no reliable information to the effect that foreign merchant vessels have guns and munitions of war on board. If the hon. Member has any definite information on the subject I should be glad to have it and the authority on which it rests. The nature of the co-operation with the steamship lines which the hon. Member proposes is not understood. I have so far been unable to trace a copy of the circular referred to.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will it be any convenience to the right hon. Gentleman if I give him the main details of the circular in question?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall be very glad if the hon. Gentleman will kindly let me have a copy of the circular.

  Warsaw (Imprisonment of British Subject).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could give any information as to the imprisonment at Warsaw of a British subject who has been resident there as a teacher of music; whether she has been set at liberty; and what were the alleged reasons for her imprisonment?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): His Majesty's Consul at Warsaw, who reported the arrest, applied to the Chief of the Gendarmerie for permission to visit Miss Malecka in prison, but this was refused. He has, however, been allowed to write to her in English, saying that her case is being investigated. Miss Malecka is accused of conspiring against the Russian Government; she is stated to be a member of the Polish Socialist party, and has not concealed this fact since her arrest. Shortly after entering Russia, she expressed herself very strongly on political matters, and received a serious warning from the Consul. According to the Consul's information she will be conducted across the frontier after the matter has been investigated, and forbidden to reenter the country. His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has addressed a note to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, asking that the authorities may withdraw their refusal to permit the Consul to visit Miss Malecka, and expressing the hope that the trial may be expedited. Miss Malecka is in contemplation of English law a British subject by virtue of her birth in this country, but it is not at present clear that she is not also by origin a Russian subject in contemplation of Russian law. Further inquiries are being made on this latter point.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask whether the Government, in view of the grave anxiety and distress felt by this lady's friends, will endeavour to secure permission for them to visit her, and whether they will also take steps to see the lady herself is treated in a way I befitting her sex and position?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think His Majesty's Minister may be trusted to do all that is possible in the circumstances.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will this lady be represented by counsel at her trial?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As far as I know.
  Mr. BYLES: Is there any impropriety in a music teacher holding strong political views?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No more impropriety in a music teacher than in any other person.

  Canadian Immigration Returns.
  Mr. CROFTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the latest emigration returns into Canada from the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries, respectively?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am not able to add anything to my reply to a similar question on 9th March.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information appeared in "The Times" this morning?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Then it is obviously available for Members of the House?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If the information is available to the House how is it the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to give it?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot say.

  American Warships on the Great Lakes.
  Mr. CROFTasked whether a request been made by the United States to put another warship on the Great Lakes; whether such permission has been granted; and what are the total numbers of warships on the lakes belonging to the United States and Canada, respectively?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Government of the United States recently informed His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington of their desire to send the "Dubuque" as a training ship for the Naval Reserve of the State of Illinois through the Canadian canals to Lake Michigan, and to withdraw the "Nashville" through the Canadian canals to the Atlantic. The Canadian Government raised no objection, and permission was given to the "Dubuque" to
  1776
  proceed on the understanding that the "Dubuque" was to be substituted for the "Nashville." I cannot say what the total number of ships at the present moment is.
  Mr. CROFT: Arising out of that question may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Rush-Bagot treaty is still in existance, and if not, whether he does not think it desirable that this fact should be known, to prevent any misunderstanding."
  Mr. HARCOURT: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. LEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the provisions of the Treaty are being infringed in this case?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I can add nothing to the answer which I have read out.

  Singapore Municipal Inquiry Commission.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the assessment officer, secretary, and auditors censured in the report of the Singapore Municipal Inquiry Commission, or the officers who insisted upon getting illegal commissions, or the municipal commissioners who spent 520,000 dollars on the Kalang Tunnel, which should have cost only 150,000 dollars, or any of those persons, had a financial interest in the sale of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company's property to the Government; whether any of them have been proceeded against for the irregularities disclosed in the evidence; and whether any of them are in the employment of the Government at the present time?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware whether any of the persons referred to had any pecuniary interest in the Tanjong Pajar Dock Company, and I do not understand what connection there is between the acquisition of the docks by the Government and the municipal administration of Singapore. I am not yet aware whether any legal proceedings have been taken in consequence of the report of the Commission. So far as I know, the only person connected with the municipality who is, or was, a Government servant was the president, who has now been transferred to the Federated Malay States.

  Tanjong Pagar Dock Company.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the price per share paid by the Government for the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company's shares; the lowest price previously reached by those shares

  1777
  on the Singapore Bourse; the methods by which their price was inflated at the time of the acquisition; and the total amount expended by the Government in acquiring the shares and other property, continuing the works, settling contractors' claims for work executed but impossible to utilise, and otherwise, respectively, in connection with the harbour works, docks, wharves, and premises; what independent advice, if any, was obtained before this expenditure was incurred; why the works have been suspended; what use it is proposed to make of the docks so constructed that the steamers for which they were intended cannot enter them; and whether the traders for whose accommodation the harbour at Singapore was intended are now by choice frequenting the rival harbour of Pulo Wey, Acheen Point?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Umpire, Viscount St. Aldwyn, awarded the company a lump sum of 27,929,177 dollars as compensation for the taking over of their undertaking by the Government. I believe that this works out at about 740 dollars a share. I cannot say what was the lowest recorded price of the shares. The Umpire's award was presumably based on the value of the property, and not on the market price of the shares at the time of acquisition, whether inflated or not. The works referred to have not yet been completed, and it is consequently impossible to say what has' been the total cost to the Government. All the work that has been undertaken has been decided upon on the advice of consulting engineers of high standing. The suspension of the work has been due to engineering difficulties, which have resulted in a difference of opinion with the contractors. I am not aware that there is any foundation for the assertion that steamers will not be able to enter the docks, or for the statement that traders now frequent other ports in preference to Singapore.

  Clubs (Excise Duty Payments).
  Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the total amount of the Excise Duty paid on the purchase of intoxicating liquors by clubs under Section 48 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and how this amount compares with the estimate of the yield of this duty?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I must ask my hon. Friend to wait until my right hon. Friend makes his general statement on the revenue of the financial year just closed.

  Civil Service Rules.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether it is the general practice in the Civil Service that no alteration of rules governing the service is, in the absence of other cause, allowed to diminish the income or otherwise injuriously affect those in the service prior to the change?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know what rules the hon. Member has in mind. It is the general practice in the Civil Service, when changes are made, to consider the position of existing officers so far as may be consistent with the proper administration of the public service.
  Mr. GINNELL: Are new rules made to operate injuriously on officials of the service, before they were drawn up apart from any consideration as to how they affect their position?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I really do not know to what rules the hon. Member refers.

  Irish Bank Notes.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether any of the Irish banks have made any alterations in the form or appearance of the bank notes they issued since 24th March, 1909; and, if so, will he give the dates of alterations, nature of same, and name of bank or banks?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I regret that I have no information on this subject.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiry? It is a matter of very great importance.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have made inquiry of the only possible Department I can think of—the Inland Revenue—and they have no information.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. DORISasked upon what grounds the pension officer for the Castlebar (No. 1), county Mayo, sub-committee's district estimated the income of Edward McGowan, Sallagher, Castlebar, as being over £21 per annum; whether he will direct that the basis of such calculations shall be revealed to the public; whether McGowan has been refused his pension book by the pension officer, although the Local Government Board have decided that the claimant is entitled to 3s. per week; and can he state the rent and valuation of McGowan's holding of land, his only source of income?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The pension officer's estimate of McGowan's means was based upon the stock and crops on the holding which he occupies, with an allowance for rent, rates, labour and hay bought for the stock. The rent of the holding is £3 3s., and the valuation £2 15s. McGowan has not been refused a book of pension orders, but he himself refused to accept a book when tendered to him by the officer.

  Income Tax Collection.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether railway companies having their headquarters outside London, as in Inverness, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, may have similar privileges with regard to delay in payment of Income Tax as those who have their headquarters in London?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Income Tax is statutorily payable by railway companies in Scotland on or before the 1st of January, whereas in England and Ireland the tax is not payable until on or before 20th March. There is no authority for extending to Scotch railway companies the special provisions prescribed by Section 95 of the Taxes Management Act, 1880. There would be no difficulty in permitting the Scotch companies, if they needed the relief, the same extension of time as was given in the case of the eight English companies, namely, ten days.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If the circumstances are similar at the end of this financial year will equal treatment be meted out to all railway companies throughout the country?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I shall be very glad to consider any application for an extension of the time of ten days to the Scotch Railway Companies.
  Captain CRAIG: Does that answer apply to Ireland.
  Mr. WATT: Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's Department has been partial in the collection of Income Tax as far as Scotland is concerned?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Did the companies who got the relief apply for it, or was it offered to them by the Treasury?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: On the contrary, I have pointed out if the Scotch companies need it they can get it.
  Mr. FELLasked if the Comptroller and Auditor-General has called attention to the
  1780
  undue delay in the collection of the amount of Income Tax which was overdue at the end of the last financial year?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The reply is in the negative. The accounts for the months of March and April dealing with the transactions in question are not yet ready to be submitted for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

  Government Printing Contracts (Fair Wages Clause).
  Viscount WOLMERasked what steps are taken to ensure that the fair-wage clause is adhered to in the case of printers doing contract work for Government Departments where the present employés have replaced others who went out on strike; and whether any complaints have been received that, in the case of any such printing establishment, wages less than the current trade union rates are being paid to the present employés?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Immediate inquiry is made by the Stationery Office into any complaint concerning the application of the fair wages clause in connection with any of its contracts. Allegations relating to a few cases have been made against contractors doing printing or binding of work being executed by persons at less than the current rates of wages, and these have been made the subject of investigation by the Stationery Office, followed, where necessary, by action.

  Imperial and Local Taxation Committee.
  Mr. HAYES FISHERasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appointed Mr. Harper to represent the interests of the London ratepayers upon the Committee which he has constituted to deal with the question of the apportionment of public expenditure between the Imperial Exchequer and the local authorities; whether Mr. Harper was, until 21st April, an official of the London County Council; whether the London County Council refused to allow the services of Mr. Harper to be given for this purpose, but offered the services of their principal financial officer; whether Mr. Harper has resigned his position at the London County Council in order to oblige the Government; and whether the Government have offered Mr. Harper, or intend to offer Mr. Harper, a position of equal or greater value to that which he has resigned?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in appointing the Committee to deal with questions of Imperial and local taxation, did not intend any of the persons nominated to be representative of any particular locality or interests. The Committee was appointed to advise the Government upon questions needing immediate solution, and in the opinion of my right hon. Friend the advice tendered by any member of the Committee would cease to be valuable the moment that such a member regarded himself as representative of any particular and outside interests. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Harper, I am informed that his resignation was unconditional, but my right hon. Friend will give no pledge which would prevent either himself or any subsequent Government which should desire to utilise that gentleman's services at any future date, or when any emergency arose, from doing so.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Are we to understand that Mr. Harper may be in a position dependent on the goodwill of the Government, and therefore unable to give an independent report or independent consideration?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I imagine Mr. Harper's eminence as a valuation officer, besides any means which he may have of his own, will very soon enable him to put himself in a position where he would not be dependent on any Government.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: If he is to be appointed to some position under the Government, will he not then become a nominee of the Government and not in any way representative of the interests of the London ratepayers who have a case against the Government.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If that position arose I do not suppose he would be any more or less dependent on the Government than, say, the Permanent Secretary for Scotland or any of the other permanent officials on that body.
  Mr. PEEL: Has any suggestion of any kind been made to Mr. Harper by the Government, or any Member of the Government, that there might be some post found for him in the future if he did leave the well-paid permanent post he enjoyed and also forfeited the advantages of pension?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member could not have listened to the answer I
  1782
  read to the House or he would have known that I said the resignation was unconditional.
  Mr. CROOKS: Is Mr. Harper to serve the Government independent of any party in the London County Council?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I sincerely hope so; or if he does not do so his advice will not be so valuable as it ought to be.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the fact that Mr. Harper is the one officer employed by the London County Council who has a complete knowledge of the local circumstances of every borough throughout the Metropolitan area?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Has not the Controller of the County Council much more knowledge than Mr. Harper?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is clearly quite impossible for me, never having been on the London County Council to speak as to the respective merits of these two gentlemen.
  Mr. PEELagain rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of any further question.

  National Debt Commissioners.
  Mr. FELLasked what were the names of the three Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt who signed the minutes of the last meeting and at which meeting the said Commissioners were not present?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I have already informed the hon. Member there are no formal meetings of the National Debt Commissioners. The last meeting of the Commissioners took place on 12th October, 1860, when there were present Mr. Gladstone, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England at that date. The last Minute of the Commissioners was dated 11th April, 1911, and was signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, and the Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England.
  Mr. FELL: Were not the minutes to which the question referred those relating to 18th April; is not that the last meeting of the Commissioners, and did they not meet and sign the minutes of a meeting purporting to be held last January?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member asks me to what minutes his question refers, although there are no dates given in it. I am afraid he must put his dates down in his next question before I can answer.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Is it not the fact that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue attend regularly at the office in Lothbury, and manage the business of the National Debt.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue have nothing to do with the management of the National Debt. That is done by the Secretary and Comptroller, who is specially freed from any dependence upon any person except the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Land Reclamation (Greenock).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that for the last thirty years the Corporation of Greenock have been in the habit of emptying clean rubbish on the ground at Battery Point, Greenock; that this land so reclaimed from marsh was the site for the torpedo factory purchased from a private landowner by the Admiralty for £27,225; and that this process of reclamation still continues; and, if so, will he say whether any arrangement has been made by the Scottish Office as to land so reclaimed being purchasable by the State at a more reasonable figure, if and when it is wanted by the State for any of its departments?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am informed that the Corporation of Greenock has not for the last thirty years been in the habit of emptying any rubbish on the ground at Battery Point, that no marsh land has been reclaimed through any operations of the Corporation, and that no process of reclamation has been made, or is being made by the Corporation. I am also informed that while some unobjectionable material is being used to fill up a disused timber pond to the west of Battery Point, that is being done by private arrangement between the owner of the land and the persons (not the Corporation) placing the material upon it, that that land is about a quarter of a mile from the torpedo factory site, and that that site was always firm ground.
  Mr. WATT: Have the Board of Trade given consent to the reclamation of this part of the sea?
  Mr URE: I do not know.

  Development Fund (Scotland).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish Office is responsible for the five months' delay in forwarding the application from Anstruther, St. Andrew's, and Pittenweem for a grant from the Commissioners of the Development Fund; and if he will do his best to expedite the matter?
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a delay of five months has occurred in the forwarding of the applications of Anstruther, St. Andrew's, and Pittenweem to the Commissioners for a grant from the Development Fund for their harbours, which applications were received by the Treasury last November and sent by that Department to the Board of Trade; and whether, seeing that the claims of Findochty and Lossiemouth, and other harbours in Scotland, have been or are being already dealt with by the Commissioners on the spot, he will endeavour to secure for Fife harbours equally fair and expeditious treatment to those of other places?
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the delay of five months in forwarding the applications from Anstruther, St. Andrew's, and Pittenweem has been caused by the necessity of communicating with the Scottish Office; whether he can now say when these applications are to be forwarded for consideration; and whether he will do his best to expedite the matter?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: In answering the question addressed to me, I may, perhaps, be allowed to answer at the same time the other two questions of the hon. and gallant Member on the same subject, addressed to the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade. I should explain that the procedure under the Development Act necessitates the consultation by the Treasury of the Department interested before applications are disposed of by the Development Commissioners. In the case of applications on behalf of Scottish fishery harbours it was decided, after consultation between the Scottish Office and the Board of Trade, to which the applications had been referred by the Treasury, that, when sufficient time had elapsed to indicate the probable number and scope of early applications, it would be expedient that inquiry should primarily be made through the Scottish Fishery Board, which has large experience

  1785
  in such matters. In pursuance of this arrangement the Fishery Board has recently made local inquiry into the applications from the Moray Firth; and similar inquiry will be made into the applications in which the hon. and gallant Member is interested. There has been no preferential treatment for any locality; but with applications coming from numerous quarters it is obvious that inquiries cannot all take place at once. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that priority of inquiry does not in any sense indicate a preference for grant, and that the applications from Fife have received and will receive the same full consideration which is given to others.

  Official Solicitors for Lunacy.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Attorney-General for Ireland if he will say whether the official solicitor for lunacy in Scotland is paid a salary; what is the salary paid to the official solicitor in England; will he consider the advisability of assimilating the practice in respect of remuneration in Ireland and England; and, if necessary, will he make suitable representations in the proper quarter?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): There is no paid official solicitor for lunacy in Scotland. I am not aware of the amount of the salary paid to the official solicitor in England. I have had inquiries made, and I do not think there is any reason for making a change in the practice existing in Ireland.

  Eastern Central Post Office (Head Porters).
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that porters are employed at the Eastern Central district office on work belonging to the head-porter class and which was formerly performed by senior postmen and lobby officers; whether the maximum weekly wage of the porters now doing this work is 30s. per week, whilst the maximum wage of the senior postmen and lobby officers formerly doing identical work was 52s. per week; and whether he will take steps to promote porters to the head-porter rank so that the work may be performed by the class to which it properly belongs?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Perhaps this matter could be most satisfactorily dealt with if my hon. Friend would arrange for one or
  1786
  two of the officers concerned to call on the Second Secretary of the Post Office, and discuss it with him.

  Irish Telephone Directory.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Irish Telephone Directory is printed in England and the advertisement department is managed in England, whereas it could be printed more cheaply in Ireland, and a larger revenue could be obtained from advertisements if the advertisement department were managed by someone who knows something about the country; whether any firms in Ireland were allowed to tender for either the printing or the advertising; and, if not, whether such tenders will be invited on all future occasion?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Under the contracts made by the National Telephone Company the Telephone Directory for the United Kingdom, including the Irish section, is printed in England, and the arrangements for advertisements are in the hands of a London firm who have agents in Ireland. In order to facilitate the conduct of the company's business after its transfer to the Post Office at the end of this year it has been necessary to arrange to continue these contracts for short periods, with some improvement in the terms in favour of the Post Office, When new contracts have to be made the question of obtaining tenders from Irish firms for the whole or part of the Directory will be considered.

  Telegraph Superintendents.
  Mr. CROFTasked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to fill a possible vacancy for a telegraph super-intendentship at Bournemouth by the selection of a man from another office; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that a similar method was adopted on the occasion of the last vacancy at the Bournemouth office, he would consider the possibility of selecting a member of the local staff?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I can only say at the present time that when a vacancy arises at Bournemouth the claims and qualifications of the staff there will receive full consideration.

  Telegraph Service (Great Britain and Norway).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Postmaster-General whether the British Government

  1787
  has purchased from the Great Northern Telegraph Company their interst in the working of the telegraph service between Great Britain and Norway; whether a new cable has been jointly laid by the British and Norwegian Governments; whether it is in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the two countries that the working of these cables should be farmed to the Great Northern Telegraph Company on the British side only; and whether he will state when arrangements will be made to institute direct interchange of telegrams between the two State services and to place the British telegraphists employed in the working of these cables upon the establishment of the postal telegraph service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the case that the telegraph service between the United Kingdom and Norway has been acquired by the British and Norwegian Governments and a new cable has been laid jointly by the two Governments. The relative agreement contemplates that the working of the service in this country shall be entrusted for a term of years to the Great Northern Telegraph Company, in whose hands the working of the remainder of the Scandinavian system still remains.

  Salford Post Office.
  Mr. BYLESasked why the royal borough of Salford, with a population of 250,000 persons, has not the advantage of a post office of the first rank but is subordinate to the head office of an adjacent city?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The royal borough of Salford already enjoys all the postal facilities which it would be likely to have if the post office were a head office instead of a branch of the Manchester office. The existing arrangement is convenient from an administrative point of view, and I do not see that any advantage would accrue to the inhabitants of Salford from a change.
  Mr. BYLES: When the right hon. Gentleman says "convenient from an administrative point of view," he means convenient to those who administer, not to those administered to?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It makes no difference whatever to the people who are adminstered to, but a considerable difference to the people who administer.

  Explosion (Holt Town, Manchester).
  Mr. SUTTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given at the inquest upon the bodies of three men who were fatally injured by an explosion and fire at the works of Messrs. J. Laing and Son, Holt Town, Manchester, on Tuesday, 21st March, 1911; whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the coroner; and, if so, will he state whether it is the intention of the Home Office to hold a full inquiry into the cause of the explosion?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I have received a report of this case and of the proceedings at the inquest. I am advised that the circumstances point to the explosion having been one of starch dust, caused by the fire which had burst out in the adjoining premises. Any fine dust of a combustible nature is liable under certain conditions to explode, in the same way as coal dust will explode in a mine or flour dust in a flour mill. There is no record of any similar explosion in a starch factory; but explosions of starch dust have been produced experimentally. The subject will receive the further consideration of the officers of the Factory Department.

  Removal of Convicts.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a party of convicts, numbering about twelve, were removed from Leicester by a train leaving there at 2.45 p.m. on Thursday, 20th April; and if he can see his way to order that when convicts are removed from one prison to another such removal shall take place at a time when they are less likely to be exposed to the public gaze?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Ten short-term local prisoners were removed from Leicester to Derby by the train mentioned in the question in order to make room for ordinary commitments. The compartment was reserved for them, and they were not exposed to view more than is unavoidable in crossing the platform. Such removals are carried out, if possible, at hours when they are least likely to attract attention, but it is not always possible to avoid making the removal in the middle of the day.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that these men

  1789
  were exposed on Leicester platform for more than a quarter of an hour? I saw them myself.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tender susceptibilities of these men might be met by their not becoming convicts.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think every reasonable effort should be made to avoid the transport of prisoners in public, but it is not possible always to prevent their being seen, and if society metes out punishment to them we should not be too squeamish.

  Westminster Abbey (Coronation Ceremony)
  Mr. BOOTHasked whether the Government had taken over the fire insurance policies of Westminster Abbey during the erection and maintenance of the special stagings; and whether any sum had been added to cover the extra property at stake or the greater liability temporarily incurred?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In accordance with the general practice of the Department, no sum has been added to cover the extra property at stake.
  Mr. BOOTH: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the gross sum for which Westminster Abbey is insured?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No.
  Mr. LEE: Has the Department been able to make any estimate as to the value and cost of replacement of the fabric and its contents in case it were destroyed?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No, I think not.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman consider insurance any protection for the graves of the mighty dead?

  Government Buildings (Insurance).
  Mr. BOOTHasked whether it is the practice to insure against the risk of fire and tempest any public Government buildings; and whether there are any such national buildings constructed in whole or in part by means of loans, the repayment of which has not been completed?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part the reply is in the affirmative.

  Census Box Making (Government Contracts).
  Dr. ADDISONasked whether Messrs. Priddy and Hale, case-makers, of Wood-field Road, made census boxes under contract for the Government; if so, what rate of wages was paid to the male case makers employed in their manufacture; whether any of the cases were made by girl labour; and what is the rate of wages paid to the girls; and how do these rates of wages compare with those paid by good employers to members of the City Case-makers Society?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The census boxes were made for the Local Government Board under contract with the Commissioners of Works by Messrs. Priddy and Hale. The rates of wages paid were from 7d. to 8d. per hour, and, as there was no-skilled labour entailed in the work, which was of the simplest description, the wages were considered not unsatisfactory. So far as the First Commissioner is aware no female labour was employed in the construction of the boxes. The foregoing rates of wages compare favourably with those paid by good employers of this class of labour. It has been ascertained that the minimum rate in the rules of the London Wood and Tin Packing Case Maker's Trade Society for woodmen is 8½d. per hour, and for tinmen 8d. per hour. It is not possible to make any such comparison as that mentioned in the question

  Royal Gardens, Kew (Gardeners).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the gardeners employed at the Royal Gardens, Kew, only receive a subsistence allowance, he will give instructions that in future, if any of these men are unable to follow their employment through sickness, they shall be paid the full allowance and not half as at present?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): The regulations as to the sick pay to be allowed young gardeners at Kew were settled by the Treasury at the time of the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. The Board have not since received any representations on the subject from the men concerned. If any such representations are made they would receive careful consideration.

  Squirrels (Damage to Timber).
  Captain MURRAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, looking to the damage done annually by squirrels to Scots fir and other growing timber, and to the loss occasioned thereby to individuals and to the State, he can take steps in the interests of the timber supply of this country to impress upon those concerned the necessity for treating squirrels as vermin where necessary, and for destroying them as such?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

  Foot-and-Month Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the President of the Board of Agriculture received the resolution passed by the Central Chamber of Agriculture regarding foot-and-mouth disease; whether the Board has made any observations to the Foreign Office to enable them to carry out the terms of the resolution; and whether they will be able in the future to give the information desired to the public?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have received the resolution to which the hon. Member refers, and are in communication with the Foreign Office on the subject.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the number of small holdings which have been and are being constituted by landowners who sympathise with the small holdings movement on the occasion of farms falling vacant on their estates and of the misleading character of official statistics, which take no account of holdings so constituted, the Board will take steps, prior to the issue of the next Report of the Small Holdings Commissioners, to obtain information which will render possible the inclusion in them of such holdings?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am afraid that it would be impracticable to obtain the information suggested. As the hon. Member is aware, the Agricultural Returns show the changes which take place from year to year in the number of holdings of various sizes. As I informed the hon. Member last Monday, the Board have no means of obtaining the information.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Has the hon. Baronet considered the possibility of giving these figures?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: If the figures could not be obtained with absolute accuracy it would be no use granting them.
  Mr. MORRELL: As the figures now given are misleading, would it not be best in future to leave out the returns of small holdings provided by private landlords?
  Earl WINTERTON: Would it not be possible to grant a return of those single farms which since January, 1911, have now been relet in two or more holdings?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think it would not be possible to do so.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked if, in appointing new small holdings commissioners or inspectors, care will be taken to select qualified land agents; and if favourable consideration will be given to the official qualifications of, and work done by, county land agents to county councils?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Section 2 (1) of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, provides that small holdings commissioners shall foe persons possessed of a knowledge of agriculture. Applications by county land agents will receive careful consideration.

  Financial Relations (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether, in view of the announcement that the Secret Committee, consisting of six British members and one Irish, is now investigating Ireland's financial relations for the sole benefit of the Cabinet, if the Irish people, who are gravely concerned in this subject, appoint a Committee to investigate it for their own information, will their Committee be afforded the same facilities for doing so as are afforded to the Secret Committee?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No information will be withheld by the Government from any persons seeking knowledge on the question referred to by the hon. Member.

  Election Petitions.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister, whether he is aware that the trial of election petitions is exclusively confined to puisne judges of the King's Bench Division, and that, under the provisions of the Election Petitions Act, chief justices, even though not Members of the House of Lords, and puisne judges when Members of the House of Lords, are incapable of taking part in the trial of such petitions; whether, having regard to the

  1793
  fact that the exclusion of chief justices and Members of the House of Lords from the trial of such petitions was due to the desire that gentlemen who, before their elevation to the bench had been actively engaged in party politics, or who, while members of the bench, were likely to be engaged in politics, should not take part in these proceedings; and whether, in any contemplated legislation for the purpose of ensuring public confidence in the decisions of election petition judges, the Government will consider the advisability of limiting the selection of puisne judges for appointment as election petition judges to such members of the bench as have been appointed to that position without reference to official or political claims, and without previous active intervention in party politics?
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Prime Minister whether he will give this House an early opportunity of discussing the present method of trying election petitions?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As I stated a clay or two ago there are features in the present procedure for the trial of election petitions which seem to the Government to call for serious reconsideration. The matter will not be lost sight of, but I cannot at present give any more specific assurance.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the letter written by the Chief Patronage Secretary to Sir Thomas Borthwick implies any change of view on the part of the Government in their intention to reintroduce and pass into law the Scottish Small Landholders Bill, as passed previously by this House; and, if so, whether a compromise on the Bill is being arranged with the Scottish landlords?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I would refer him to the full answer which I gave to similar questions on 3rd April. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that those who have experience of the working of the English Small Holdings Act would deprecate the introduction of the purchase system into Scotland?
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Small Landholders Bill will be re-introduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No; I cannot say at this moment.

  Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill.
  Mr. MILDMAYasked the Prime Minister whether ho proposes to furnish an opportunity for the discussion of the Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am very anxious to see this Bill (which is entirely non-contentious) passed as early as possible, and I hope that an opportunity may soon be secured for the Second Reading.

  Second Chamber (Reform).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake to proceed with the Bill to reform the Second Chamber in accordance with the Preamble of the Parliament Bill before introducing his proposed Home Rule Bill for Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give any undertaking on this subject.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact when he is considering the subject in future that the futility of introducing a Home Rule Bill is so apparent to everyone that he had better proceed with the Preamble first?

  Road Board.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked when the House will have an opportunity of discussing the work and policy of the Road Board?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The matter can be discussed to-morrow on moving the Speaker out of the Chair.

  Coronation (Holidays).
  Mr. MARTINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the 22nd and 23rd June will be holidays within the meaning of the Factories Acts?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not compulsory under the Factory Act to give these two days as holidays, but it is permissible for an occupier either to give them as additional holidays outside the Act or to substitute them for two of the holidays or four of the half-holidays allowed in his works in pursuance of the Act.

  Conditions in Canada (Mr. Grigg's Report).
  Viscount WOLMERasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the date of the covering letter forwarded by Mr. Grigg with his official Report on conditions in Canada?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): In November, 1910, Mr. Grigg forwarded a report on conditions in Canada, covering the period ending March, 1909. The covering letter to this report was dated 30th October, 1910. Mr. Grigg was asked to extend his report so as to cover the year ending March, 1910, and ho did so. The completed report reached the Board of Trade on 8th March, 1911, and was published on 31st March.

  Public Loans (Purchase of Manufactures).
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that when loans are raised in France for foreign enterprises, involving the purchase of manufactures, the law of that country provides that such manufactures shall be purchased in France; if he can state in what other countries such conditions are in force; and if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to protect British interests, where necessary, in a like manner.
  Mr. BUXTON: The information at present in my possession as to the law and practice of the principal commercial countries in the matter referred to in the question is incomplete, but I am taking steps to supplement it, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Imports (Conditions of Labour).
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to prohibit the importation of goods manufactured abroad under unrestricted conditions of labour in the case of those goods which, when manufactured in this country, are subjected to Government restrictions?
  Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir.

  Employers' Liability Act.
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in some cases where persons have been awarded large compensation under the Employers' Liability Act the money so awarded is frittered away, with the result that recipients of compensation frequently become a burden on the rates; and whether he would be willing to introduce legislation to provide that all sums payable under the Employers' Liability Acts should be vested in the Public Trustee, or some other responsible body,
  1796
  and paid to recipients, without deduction, according to their requirements?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A copy of a resolution to this effect, which has been adopted by a number of Boards of Guardians, has been forwarded to me. In the case of compensation awarded to dependents of a deceased workman, or to an injured workman under legal disability, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, provision is already made for its administration by the court, and the difficulty can only arise in cases where lump sums are paid to adult workmen in commutation for weekly-payments, or in the comparatively few cases in which damages are awarded under the Employer's Liability Act of 1880. It would be too soon to consider the question of the amendment of the Compensation Act, which was only passed in 1908, but the point will be borne in mind when the time comes for reviewing the operation of the Act.

  Longevity (Ireland).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what proportion of the population of England and Wales for the five years last past have attained the age of seventy years; and if he will give the figures for Ireland, and show how they compare with the figures for France and Germany?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The results of the recent Census being as yet unknown, the latest information respecting the number of persons living at different ages in England and Wales is that furnished by the Census of 1901. Assuming the proportional number of persons living over seventy-years of age to have remained unchanged since that date, 2.73 per cent. of the total population in England and Wales is aged seventy years or upwards; in Ireland the proportion is 4.20 per cent.; in the German Empire, 2.75 per cent.; and in France about 4.88 per cent.

  Mercantile Marine (Training of Seamen).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked if it is contemplated to grant subsidies to shipowners for training boys to become seamen in the mercantile marine; and, if so, will Parliament be afforded an opportunity of discussing such a policy before any action is taken in the direction of granting public money to private shipping: concerns?
  Mr. BUXTON: The question of training of boys to become seamen in the mercantile marine is at present under consideration. My hon. Friend may rest assured that no action will be taken in the direction indicated by him without an opportunity being afforded for Parliamentary consideration.

  Pistols Bill.
  Mr. GREENEasked the Home Secretary whether he can give an assurance that there shall be no provisions in the Pistols Bill likely to discourage miniature rifle clubs or throw increased expenditure upon their members?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; the Bill will relate only to pistols.

  House of Commons Gallery (Upholstery).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that an inspector from the Office of Works stated that the firm of Messrs. Hampton and Sons, in reference to a complaint that the horsehair in the seating in the Gallery of the House had not been properly treated and purified, stated that he was satisfied with the explanation of the firm, notwithstanding the fact that the complaint was still under investigation at the time; what steps have been taken in the matter; and whether any answer will be given to those who lodged the complaint.
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No such statement as is suggested in the question has been made by any officer of the Commissioners of Works. I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to answer the last part of his question in connection with the other two questions on the Paper on the same subject.
  Mr. POINTERasked whether complaints had been made against the firm of Messrs. Hampton and Sons, in reference to the upholstery seating in the Gallery of the House of Commons; whether, in the renovation of such seating, it was found that the horsehair had not been properly treated or purified; whether the firm is still on the list of contractors to the Department; and what steps, if any, have been taken in the matter?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Messrs. Hampton's have admitted defective work as regards the horsehair. At present no further orders are being entrusted to them. As regards the last part of the answer, a
  1798
  final decision can only be made after the conclusion of the legal proceedings which are now pending.
  Mr. POINTER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the seats in the gallery were examined by an inspector of the Office of Works, who declared that the horsehair had not been purified and cleaned, as it ought to have been, and consequently is he not prepared to say that there was ground for complaints? Am I to understand that no complaint has been made by the officer?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I have already stated that no complaint was made as suggested in the first part of the question of the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bower-man).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked whether the upholsterers employed by the firm of Hampton and Sons in the work of renovating the seating in the Gallery of the House of Commons were not able to average more than 7d. per hour; and whether, having regard to the fact that the average minimum rate per hour in London for upholsterers is 10d., any action has been taken by the Department to secure compliance with the fair-wage clause in this instance?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The First Commissioner has instituted inquiries which show that over 10d. an hour was paid to the workmen at Messrs. Hampton's. It is not possible to discover from the books of the firm whether this rate was paid for the work in question. The First Commissioner stipulated for that rate in the contract.

  Clerks of Works (Builders' Complaints).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked if the First Commissioner of Works has received representations from the Yorkshire Builders' Federation alleging unreasonable requests made by clerks of works; whether such allegations have been investigated; and whether the result was to uphold the vigilance of the clerks of works against whom the complaints were advanced?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Representations have been made by the Yorkshire Builders' Federation as indicated, and the allegations are being investigated, but owing to the extent of the inquiries it has not been found possible at present to furnish a reply to the Federation. In the meantime, however, an arrangement has been made with the Federation whereby any new com-

  1799
  plaint is to be reported direct to the Commissioners, who will deal with it apart from the original complaints.

  Wheaten Flour (Adulteration).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been called to a resolution carried at a general meeting of the Incorporated National Association of British and Irish Millers, held in London on the 21st instant, to the effect that in the opinion of the association wheaten flour sold as such without any qualifying designation should be the unbleached and untreated produce of properly cleaned and conditioned wheat only; whether he approved the terms of such resolution; and, if so, whether he would introduce legislation modifying the law relating to food adulteration accordingly?
  Mr. BURNS: My attention has been called to the resolution referred to, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement in regard to fresh legislation dealing with food adulteration.

  Secondary Schools (Staff Appeals).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in all future schemes for the government of secondary schools aided by a local authority, he will cause a clause to be inserted giving to an assistant master or mistress the right of being heard by or of making representations to the local education committee before any notice of dismissal by the governing body is made effective; and whether, in the case of the Bede Collegiate School, Sunderland, he will consent to add to the end of Clause 16 (b), paragraph 4, of the present Articles of Government words to the effect that the notice of dismissal therein referred to shall only be confirmed by the committee after hearing such representations as the assistant master or mistress may desire to make?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): In the case of schools aided but not provided by local education authorities, to insert such a clause as is suggested by the hon. Member would be incompatible with the freedom and responsibility of the governing body. In the case of schools provided by local education authorities (of which the Bede Collegiate School, Sunderland, is one) the Articles of
  1800
  Government are primarily a matter for the providing authority, and the Board are only concerned to see that the Articles are such as they can approve for the purpose of the payment of grant, and that the Articles state the constitution of the governing body and define its functions, both as regards responsibility for general control and as regards immediate responsibility for the conduct of the school. If the authority wished to include such a provision as is suggested by the hon. Member in Articles of Government, the Board would not refuse to approve the Articles on that ground alone. The governing body of the Bede Collegiate School is appointed by the Sunderland Education Committee, and notices of dismissal of assistant masters require confirmation by the Higher Education Sub-Committee and by the Education Committee.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: May I ask whether the Board of Education can see any objection to giving the same facilities for appeal to assistant masters as are at present given to headmasters?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I think the hon. Member should give notice of a separate question on that matter.

  Todmorden Secondary School.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the West Riding County Council are compelling the education authority of the borough of Todmorden to charge a fee of £6 6s. per year to scholars attending the secondary school, which had previously been free; and whether he will take steps to prevent such a course from being put into operation, which is calculated to be a hardship on the poorer parents and exclude a great many children from receiving the benefits of a higher education?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I understand that the West Riding County Council have made it a condition of their giving financial assistance to the school that fees shall be charged. The Board of Education have no power to interfere with the discretion of the county council as to the conditions subject to which they will aid schools out of their own funds. If and when the school becomes in fact a fee-charging school it will be required by the Board to offer the full 25 per cent. of free places under Article 20 of the Regulations for Secondary Schools.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITH: Does not the Board of Education think that six guineas a year is too large a sum to charge?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: That would be considered in dealing with the question.
  Mr. MORRELL: Has the Board of Education made representations to the county council in this matter?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not know. If my hon. Friend will put a question on the Paper, I will ascertain.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask whether this state of things is not due to the increasing expenditure, and to the diminished proportion of Government assistance?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not know what are the motives of the West Riding County Council.
  Mr. HIGHAM: May I ask whether, before the payment of the six guineas becomes compulsory it will have to be sanctioned by the Board of Education if grants are given to the school?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: In giving grants, all questions of that kind have to be considered by the Board.

  Science Museum, South Kensington.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can yet give the House any information as to the proposed new science museum at South Kensington?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The preliminary question of the site has now been settled by the Government. The Office of Works and the Board of Education are now considering the future arrangements to be made for the Science Museum. In this they will have the assistance of the Departmental Committee, whose report was recently published.

  Songs in Public Elementary Schools.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention had been directed to the quotation by a speaker at the conference of the National Union of Teachers, on Tuesday, 18th April, of a verse from a volume of songs approved by the Board of Education; and whether the Board of Education have sanctioned a volume of songs containing the words quoted as suitable to be sung by children in public elementary schools?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I have seen a newspaper report from which it appears that
  1802
  one of the speakers at the Conference quoted, as approved by the Board of Education, what I understand to be a version of the well-known Welsh song, "All through the night." The song known by that title is included in the list of titles of songs approved for older children in the Board's Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers, issued in 1905, under the regime of the hon. Baronet opposite. The Board have never approved any song book for the use of children in Public Elementary, or other schools. In view of the statement to which the question refers, I had the curiosity to attempt to trace the version which had been quoted, and I succeeded in finding it in a small volume of so-called "approved songs," published by Messrs. J. Curwen and Sons, with a note that the songs in their book are all named in the Suggestions issued by the Board of Education. I do not know from what source the publishers obtained their version, but in fairness to the hon. Baronet I think I ought to say that I am satisfied that this version is not to be traced to his inspiration. The list of titles of songs approved by the Board of Education in their Suggestions is prefaced by a note of warning to the effect that some of the National Airs had originally words unsuited to school use but that in the case of all the songs referred to in the list editions were in existence with all the objectionable features removed. It is notorious that in the case of most Folk Songs numerous alternative versions of the words are to be found, and it was no doubt on that account that in the Suggestions for Teachers of 1905, it was considered desirable to issue the warning which has apparently escaped the notice of the teacher referred to in the question who might have been familiar with the Suggestions. The Board are compelled to rely in a matter of this kind on the good taste of those responsible for the school, and I may add, to some extent upon the good taste of the publishers of school books. We cannot take responsibility for every song book that is published.
  Mr. BYLES: Is it not an important matter that these words should be removed from elementary schools?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: We cannot exercise jurisdiction over all the song books published in the country.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Will you publish the words without which the very long answer would be unintelligible?

  Secondary Schools Teachers (Memorandum).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Education, whether any member of the staff of the Board has written a memorandum dealing with the question of the proportion of ex-elementary school teachers employed on the staffs of secondary schools; if so, what is the name of the writer of the memorandum; what were the main conclusions summarised in it; and to what members of the Board's staff was it sent?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: No such memorandum has ever been written so far as the Board are aware.

  Tax Revenue (Ireland and Great Britain).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is now in a position to state the amount of tax revenue contributed by Great Britain and by Ireland, respectively, in the financial year 1910–11, the one-twenty-first part of the former, being the British estimate of Ireland's taxable capacity, and the difference between this and the actual tax paid by Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The information will not be available for some weeks.
  Mr. GINNELL: In how many weeks?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know.

  Surveyors of Taxes (Clerks).
  Mr. TOBINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that some of the clerks in the offices of surveyors of taxes receive while in a higher class the same salary as some of the clerks in a lower class, in spite of the fact that the work in the higher class involves increased official responsibility; and whether he will take any, and what, steps to remedy this alleged grievance?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am aware that the scales of the two classes overlap in some instances; this is an essential part of the classification scheme.
  Mr. TOBINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that, in the case of clerks in the offices of surveyors of taxes, promotion from a lower class to a higher class involves increased official responsibility and, in the case of promotion from a country to a London district, increased personal expenditure, without any immediate increase of salary, and that, during the last two years, twenty-five or some other, and what, number of clerks in the offices of surveyors of taxes have
  1804
  refused to accept promotion on the above grounds; and whether he will take any, and what, steps to remedy this alleged grievance?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to refer to my reply to the hon. Member for the Thorn-bury Division of Gloucestershire on the 15th ultimo. Only in a very small percentage of cases are the grounds for refusal of promotion known. I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
  Mr. TOBINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a resolution was passed at the annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce in London in March, 1910, to the effect that the present system of staffing the offices of surveyors of taxes with clerks who are for the most part employed on agreement with the Board of Inland Revenue, terminable on one week's notice, should at once be done away with and that the duties of these clerks should be discharged by responsible Civil servants; and whether he will take any and what steps to alter such system in the direction indicated by the resolution?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I bog to refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for North Londonderry on 10th ultimo.

  Elementary School Teachers (Pensions).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is contemplating any alteration of the pension scheme for elementary school teachers; and if such alteration will be on the lines of the new system proposed for Scottish teachers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Proposals are still under consideration, and until they are determined no statement can be made public.

  Commission of Peace (County Cavan).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state the number of Catholics holding the commission of the peace in county Cavan, and the proportion to the total number holding the commission of the peace in that county, and also the proportion of Catholics in the county to the whole population of the county, as at the last date for which figures as to population are available in 1909–10?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There are 156 persons holding the ordinary commission of the peace in the county Cavan, of whom

  1805
  seventy-eight, or exactly one-half of the total number of magistrates in the county, are believed to be Roman Catholics. According to the Census of 1901, the latest figures available, Roman Catholics formed 81 per cent. of the population of the county of Cavan.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the benches in Cavan were representative of the division of the population what would be the numbers of Catholics and Protestants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As Catholics form 81 per cent. of the population and one-half of the magistrates the hon. Member can obtain the informtion he desires by doing a simple sum.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland in what rural districts in Ireland Form VI, under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, initiating proceedings for the acquisition of tracts of land for the use of labourers, have been used, with, in each case, t he amount, of land acquired in pursuance thereof and the number of families accommodated; and if he will account for the partial or complete failure of the statutory provisions represented by that form to bring any benefit to the labourers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have no statistics as to the number of representations on Form VI. which have been lodged with rural district councils. The total amount of land acquired and let in pursuance of such representations up to 31st March, 1910, was 210 acres 3 roods 13 perches. Particulars up to 31st March last are not yet ascertained. The Labourers Acts provide that the maximum allotment for each labourer shall not exceed a statute acre, the acreage mentioned would therefore accommodate at least 211 labourers with their families, and a considerably greater number if the tracts have been let in smaller allotments. There does not appear to have ever been any eager desire on the part of labourers to take advantage of this particular provision of the Acts, and this can probably be accounted for by the fact that as a general rule the requirements of labourers living in villages in rural districts have been met by the provision of suitable house accommodation with gardens attached, which, from a labourer's point of view, is much preferable to that of having one of a number of gardens comprised in a tract of land at a distance from his house.

  Grass Lands in Ireland (Compulsory Acquisition).
  Mr. GINNELLasked, in view of the promises given to cattle-drivers in 1907 that, if they gave a chance by desisting from their practice, Parliament would give the Estates Commissioners compulsory power to acquire and distribute grass ranches, where necessary, for the relief of congestion, and the facts that this statutory power is now left unused, the ranches left untouched, and the young landless people left no alternative but emigration, whether the Government propose to put the compulsory power in operation this season; and, if not, what method of doing it is open to the people other than that of 1907?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have acquired over 215,000 acres of untenanted land under the voluntary provisions of the Irish Land Acts 1903–9, and the compulsory provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, and they are in negotiation for the purchase of some additional 75,000 acres. The compulsory powers given to the Commissioners under the Act of 1909 will be enforced in such cases as the Commissioners consider it desirable to acquire the lands if the owners are unwilling to sell voluntarily.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the statement made in the question correct that promises were given by His Majesty's Government to these cattle drivers under certain conditions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No such promise was given.
  Captain CRAIG: May I take it that the question put down by the hon. Member is incorrect in that respect?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member can draw such inference as his intellect enables him to draw.
  Captain CRAIG: Arising out of that, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I pay no attention to his insults in this House.

BILL PRESENTED.
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT (1906) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906," presented by Mr. BRIDGEMAN; supported by Sir Luke White, Captain Clive, Colonel Bathurst, Sir Alfred Gelder, Mr. Stanier, Mr. Lane-Fox, Major Willoughby, and Mr. Mount; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (SHARE FISHERMEN).
Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I rise to ask leave to bring in a Bill to bring share fishermen within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906.
A very large number of fishermen are suffering owing to the operation of certain Clauses in the Workmen's Compensation Act. When that Act passed its Second Reading in this House it included the whole of the fishermen. While in Committee an Amendment was moved, owing to a deputation of share fishermen which made representations that such men as had a little boat of their own, or are partners in a boat or are partners in nets or in working a boat would be injured if they were included in the proposed Act. The effect of that Amendment being accepted was not only were these men excluded but thousands of other fishermen in England and Wales were also excluded. This is a very serious matter to a large number of share fishermen who are not partners in the ship at all or in the nets, but who are just as much workmen within the meaning of the Act as any other men in the ships. On every ship sailing from a port in Great Britain or Ireland there are at least two men who do not enjoy the advantage of the Workmen's Compensation Act. If there are eleven hands, nine are covered by the Act, but the two most important men on the ship, as a consequence of that Clause, are refused any advantage. There are thousands of such men, and every time a ship is lost with its hands two at least of the crew are not entitled to a penny piece of compensation, while all the minor men have the advantage of the Act. If a man is a third hand on a steam trawler he is included in the Act, but if he climbs a little higher and becomes a second hand he is excluded, and if he loses his life not a penny is paid as compensation under the Act. I submit that that was a mistake at the time. I do not wish to blame the Government in any way. I think that they were over-persuaded by a certain number of people, and did not take sufficient notice of how the application of the Clause would affect a very large number of men who were not partners in the sense that these share fishermen are. What we desire to do is to ask the Government to allow these share fishermen who are not partners to enjoy the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act. We do not desire in any sense to interfere with the share fisher-
1808
men. We say that if they are partners in nets, or hire the boats, as undoubtedly they do, they should remain as they are at the present time. But while granting to them that privilege, it seems to be a very wrong theory that thousands of these fishermen, industrious, brave men, should be refused the advantage of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore I desire to ask the House to allow me to introduce this Bill, and I hope that, as it is a non-contentious measure, and as I am sure every Member of this House is a friend of the fishermen, it will be permitted to pass into law, so that these men may also receive the advantage of the Act.
Bill to bring share fishermen within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, ordered to be brought in by Sir George Doughty, Mr. Cave, Mr. Mac-master, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Crooks, and Sir William Bull. Presented accordingly and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Tenth Day.]
Bill considered in Committee,—[Pro-gress, 25th April.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Tenth Day.]

  CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills.)
  (1) If any Bill other than a Money Bill is passed by the House of Commons in three successive Sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not), and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those Sessions, that Bill shall, on its rejection for the third time by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto, notwithstanding that the House of Lords has not consented to the Bill: Provided that this provision shall not take effect unless two years have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
  (2) A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without

  1809
  Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses.
  (3) A Bill shall be deemed to be the same Bill as a former Bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding Session if, when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the former Bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill, or to represent Amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session.
  Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House in the second or third Session, suggest any further amendments without inserting the amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons; but the exercise of this power by the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the House of Lords.
  Amendment moved: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "that Bill shall, on its rejection for the third time by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary," and to insert instead thereof the words "His Majesty may by Order in Council made after the close of the Session in which the Bill was rejected a third time direct that the Bill so rejected shall be submitted to a poll of the electors, and thereupon such Bill shall be so submitted in manner provided in the Schedule to this Act, and if the poll results in accordance with the provisions of such Schedule in favour of the Bill it shall: "—[Sir William Bull]
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'that Bill' stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. CAVE: In rising to give reasons for this Amendment, moved on my behalf last night, may I ask the Committee to give me a little more time than is usually occupied in Committee Debate, partly because this particular subject of the Referendum, or a poll of the electors—I prefer the Saxon word to the dog-Latin—has never yet been discussed in this House by itself, and partly because, from such scattered references as have been made to the subject. I feel sure that
  1810
  the proposals made upon these benches are not fully understood. I am anxious that they should be clearly and fully understood upon the other side of the House, and with that object I have ventured to put upon the Order Paper a schedule containing details for taking polls of the electors. I do not suggest for a moment that that schedule does not deserve and invite criticism in detail, nor that it is not capable of very useful amendment. But, for all that, I think it is of value as indicating somewhat more clearly than otherwise would be the case, the exact proposal which we do desire to bring before the Committee. May I just add this, that nobody who has chosen to follow this subject can fail to acknowledge the help received from the Bill drafted and introduced by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in another place, and from the discussions that have taken place in the other House. In the main, the proposals which are embodied in the Amendment and schedule are these: In the first place, the proposal to take a poll of the electorate applies only to cases where there is a serious deadlock between the two Houses upon some non-financial Bill. In other words, it is to apply to Clause 2 of the Parliament Bill, and only operate in a case where this House has three times passed a Bill and the other House has three times rejected it. I rather commend that observation to those who suggest that we are attacking the representative system, because it follows from what I have said that it is only when the representatives of the people in this House have deliberately expressed their view in favour of a Bill and approved the details that a poll of the electors can be taken upon it.
  The poll proposed in this Amendment would not apply to a Bill approved of by both Houses. To that I would myself make one exception, not in this Amendment, but a later one, namely, that Bills dealing with the Constitution, even when they have passed both Houses, should receive the further sanction of a vote of the electorate as a whole. That point does not arise directly on the Amendment, but will be made plain on another Amendment later. Again, this-proposal will not apply to a Bill not approved by either House, and in that respect it differs entirely from the Amendment to my Amendment which an hon. Member has put on the Paper. He proposes to introduce what is called in-Switzerland and elsewhere "the Initia-

  1811
  tive." I am wholly opposed to the initiative, and I want to, make it clear that this Amendment does not apply to any proposal which has not passed this House, once, twice, and three times. Shortly, it only applies to a Bill upon which the House of Commons insists and in which the other House, in whatever form it may be, declines to concur. I take it that this proposal would apply at once, that is during the interregnum as well as after the reform, which at some remote period we expect to see carried out in another place. The second point I want to make here is that under this Amendment a poll would only be asked for when differences arise between the two Houses, on the advice and desire of His Majesty's Government. That is rather of importance on the question as to the number of polls we may expect to see taken, and it is also of importance on the question as to the effect which a poll of the people might have upon the position of a Government in this House.
  The third point I want to make clear is that a poll under this Schedule will be taken upon the Kill, and the voter will be asked to give the answer to the question: "Do you approve of the Bill?" "Yes" or "No." That would apply even in the case of a difference between the two Houses on Amendments passed in the other place, and not agreed to here. I Know it has been understood and suggested that we desire, where the other House insists on certain Amendments which this House will not accept, that there should be a poll taken on each Amendment; there has been a good deal of criticism upon that suggestion, both here and elsewhere. But I desire to do nothing of the kind; I think it very important to keep the poll as simple and free from complication as possible, and in cases where differences arise on Amendments, the voter, if he desired to have the Bill with Amendments, would simply say "No" to the Bill, leaving it, of course, to anybody to bring in a new Bill with the Amendments the voter desires. For that purpose there is in the Schedule a proposal which I think is new—it is not mine, although I very strongly support it; it is suggested by a distinguished Member of the other House—I mean the proposal that when a poll is to be taken there shall be deposited at the post offices and elsewhere copies of the Bill with such reasons for and against the Bill as each House desires to record.
  4.0 P.M.
  1812
  I have no doubt that those reasons will be very carefully drawn, and that in a case where a difference arises on Amendments, the other place will be careful to explain the nature of the Amendments. That is not entirely strange to one of the countries where the Referendum is usual, I mean the Colony of Queensland. I think it is a useful proposal and one which might bear fruit. I need hardly say that the reasons so given, although they would be no doubt carefully given, would not be all the reasons the electors would have put before them. I think any other arguments might fairly be left to the private enterprise of either one side or the other. The next point I want to make clear is that under this Schedule on the question put to the electors each parliamentary elector would have the right to vote, and to vote once. The vote would not be by constituencies but by individuals. Upon that point I do not at all myself see that where you are asking electors to elect a representative of a certain district or place, it is unreasonable that a man who has an interest in that place should have a vote for it, even though he has a vote elsewhere. That applies to the election of representatives, but I do not hold that it applies to a case like this, where you are asking an individual to vote upon a particular measure, and I do not think it is possible to apply anything like plural voting to a case like this.
  We have on this side of the House this compensation that while you will have one man one vote, you will also under this Schedule have each vote of equal value, so that the vote of an elector in Newry or in Galway would not have ten times the value of a vote of an elector in the Kingston Division or twenty times the value of a vote in Wandsworth or in Romford. I may say, quite frankly, that any objection which I might have had to the single vote under this proposal is counterbalanced by the feeling that we should have one vote one value. The last matter of machinery to which I desire to refer is that under this Schedule it is proposed that where the votes of the electors amount to 50 per cent. of those entitled to vote, then a majority voting in favour of the Bill shall have the effect of making the Bill law, and where the total poll of both sides is less than 50 per cent. of the total electorate then the Bill is to drop. I do not adhere closely to the exact proportion, but I think it is wise and necessary to have some minimum

  1813
  of that kind, because unless you get 50 per cent. of the voters voting then we may infer the Bill is not of sufficient importance to make it necessary to overrule the views strongly held by a Second Chamber. Of course, there are minor matters of machinery mainly founded upon the procedure of Parliamentary elections and on the Ballot and Corrupt Practices Acts.
  What are the advantages in favour of the recommendation we are now putting forward. Firstly, I say this, that this is our answer—I mean the answer of those who agree with me in the matter—to the vital question how you can, while keeping the two Houses, and keeping the two Houses independent of each other, adjust the differences between the two. The present method of adjusting such differencies is, as we all know, either by dissolution of this House or by additions to the other House, both of them we shall all agree very clumsy methods, and very inadequate. Against this there is the Government proposal to adjust the differences by making one House supreme over the other. I think again, that is a very crude proposal and a very perilous one, though, of course, I am not going to enter into that question now.
  A third proposal was made by my learned Friend the Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), that is the proposal which embodied a Joint Session. As to that I do not wish to say anything to detract from what was said yesterday about a Joint Session, but I feel, and I have always felt, that that particular method is more closely applicable to cases of Bills which are not very contentious Bills, or which do not effect great changes in our Constitution. Even if you had a Joint Session you would still have to combine with it in certain cases a poll of the electors, and in a perfect system you would have the two together. I need not argue that point, as the Government refused even to consider the question of a Joint Session, and so we are driven to what I think the last possible resort for dealing with those differences, I mean the proposal of a poll of the electors, which I am putting forward, and which I think is probably the most logical of all. It rests upon a very simple basis. I think all of us admit that when the Houses differ the ultimate arbiter must be the whole body of electors. That is a proposition which no one here would venture to deny. At the present time we
  1814
  arrive at the award of that arbiter by a General Election, and we arrive at it I think very inconclusively after a good deal of trouble and a good deal of time. This Amendment proposes that instead of adopting that clumsy method, you should refer the matter directly and frankly to the electors. You shall make your "appeal," as Professor Dicey says, "to the political Sovereign," and have the matter determined by that Sovereign, meaning, of course, the whole body of electors. There is no loss of dignity in that either to one House or the other. I am afraid I do not there agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Alfred Lyttclton), but I do not think that either House need be offended in dignity if the body of electors took the view of the other. At all events this appeal would be made to the arbiters of the electors as a whole. That is the basis of this proposal, and I cannot help thinking that in that respect the proposal is founded upon very sound and firm ground indeed, because the principle upon which it rests has never been denied in all the objections made. That is the first point I put forward in favour of this proposal.
  The second point is that under this system every great question in dispute would be treated in isolation by itself and, therefore, upon its own merits. It seems to me somewhat of an absurdity that we are always discussing in this House the question of what the electors have decided at a certain election, or whether they have decided anything at all, and we never seem to agree, even on capital questions, as to what view the electors hold or have expressed by their votes. We have seen each House, claiming to reflect the views of the electors, and each House in turn has been right. There has been more than one occasion where the other House has differed from this, and on a Dissolution the other House proved to represent the opinion of the people. Instead of arguing about that question when it arises let us take the simple process of asking the electors what do they think, and to say, "yes" or "no," and then we need not debate further or dispute what the real view of the country is. Of course that entails further consequences. There would be an end to a great extent of that process which we call log-rolling, I mean the process by which people who support one particular measure agree to give their support to another, in order to give effect to both. There is a great

  1815
  deal of log-rolling in this as in other countries, some of which is conscious and some unconscious. As an example of conscious log-rolling we had the extraordinary spectacle in Wales last week when the Leader of the Welsh party said he longed for nothing so much as Home Rule for Ireland, and the Leader of the Irish Nationalist party stated that if there was one thing dear to his heart it was the Disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales. That is what I call an instance of conscious and deliberate log-rolling.
  But apart from cases of that kind, those who desire different things naturally combine to help one another. You get the instance of a Nonconformist who is often at heart a Unionist voting for Home Rule because he desires Disestablishment, or a temperance reformer who is in favour of religious teaching voting in favour of secular education. This proposal would do away with results of that kind, and would obtain a direct vote of the people. Under this proposal, if the Houses differed, you would have to ask the electors the question: Do you or do you not approve of this or that measure? And giving an answer by ballot they would not be influenced by the view as to what effect their reply would have on other measures also before the country. If I am wrong, I shall be told why I am wrong, but I am not giving my opinion only as it is held by many that this process of log-rolling would be checked, at all events, by the adoption of the Referendum or poll of the electorate. Mr. Leaky, a great authority, held the view strongly that blended issues are among the gravest political dangers of our time. There is one further advantage which accrues from this proposal. I think it would check, not, of course, the party system, but the excesses of the party system, because you would get the vote on measures and not on men. There, again, I quote Mr. Lecky, who says:—
  "It would bring into action the opinion of the great silent classes of the community, and reduce to their true proportions many movements to which party considerations or noisy agitations had given a wholly factitious importance."
  Again, the proposal would have the effect that no constitutional change upon which the two Houses differed could be carried without the sanction of the nation. Personally I think that constitutional changes ought to have the sanction of the whole nation even if both Houses agree. But at all events, this particular proposal would bring about the result that if the Houses differed the
  1816
  nation would have to be consulted. In 1893 the late Lord Salisbury put this point very strongly before the country. He said:—
  "I think we ought to have some power of appealing to a still mightier tribunal, namely, to the opinion of the nation. That power exists in almost every other constitutional Government in the world. It exists in Switzerland, it exists in France it exists in America, it exists in Sweden, Norway, Holland. Belgium, and Greece—it exists in all these countries. Whenever the foundations of the constitution itself are to be dealt with by one form of machinery or another, the nation are called into council upon this issue, and this issue only, and are asked whether they will have it so. I confess that I think the nations who are in that condition are in a safer position than ourselves, and I earnestly hope that the attention of the lovers of the constitution in this country may be drawn to the question whether, under the changed circumstances—considering that the House of Commons now works without the faintest regard to the considered and honourable traditions by which it was regulated in olden times—it should not now require some absolute and definite safeguard, by which the Constitution, upon which the nation lives, snail not be changed without the nation's will."
  I think that is true to-day. I have stated as shortly as I can the main reasons why I think this proposal is worth consideration on both sides of the House. I am encouraged in the view that it will receive such consideration by the fact that one Member at least, sitting below the Gangway opposite, the hon. Member for South Glamorganshire (Mr. Brace) has expressed his desire to give the matter careful and sympathetic consideration. I wish now to deal shortly with the objections taken to the proposal. I cannot quote the Prime Minister at any length, because, having said some time ago that he had coquetted with the Referendum, he has not been able to bring himself to say anything worse about the former object of his attentions than that it is inadequate. As a summary of the objections taken to the proposal, I might quote the words used by the Home Secretary not many weeks ago, when he said:—
  "We believe that the system of a Referendum is a vicious system in itself, that it is bad as the basis of the system of government in any country, but especially unsnited for this country. The mass of the people under the Referundum are forced to take a decisive part in the continuous process of law-making. Every Bill would have to be framed as if it were the campaign platform of an immediate General Ejection. Every clause would have to be drafted to secure an immediate popular vote. You ought to consider these matters. Nothing would he included that would not make sure of that. We should live in an unceasing stream of electioneering prejudice and abuse. Parliamentary debate would be swept aside for a series of organised electoral struggles. Ministers would be expected to retain office after the measures to which they had pledged their faith and honour had been rejected by the country. Governments would be expected to appeal to the country on one policy and to remain in office to carry out the reverse. The staple foundation from which this House has so long been able to administer the affairs of the Empire would be exchanged for a tossing sea of frenzied electioneering. Parliamentary and representative institutions which

  1817
  have been the historic glory of these islands would be swept away, and, in their places, we would have the worst, forms of Jacobinism, Cæsarism, and Anarchy."
  I will take the rhetorical points of that passage rather briefly, because I want to get at the core of the objections to this proposal. As regards the suggestion that "the people would be forced to take a decisive part" in politics, I think the phrase is rather a strange one. I would quote against it a passage written by a Swiss writer on the Referendum, Professor Brüstlein:—
  "What did we give the people when we gave them the Referendum? We gave every single citizen a definite portion of power, and every citizen is proud when he has the opportunity to exercise this piece of power, whether by assenting or dissenting; he sees his own vote in the result of the Referendum, and can say to himself, Quorum pars fui,' I am one of those who joined in this work."
  As regards the statement that Bills would have to be more carefully drafted, I do not think that that would be a loss. As to the prophecy that the proposal would load to "Jacobinism, Cæsarism, and anarchy," it is difficult to find those results where the system has been tried. In Switzerland the system has worked well. In Australia it has been not unsatisfactory in practice. Even in the United States, where I think they have in some States carried the system to excess, no one suggests that it has led to Cæsarism.
  I think there are really three objections taken. The references to "a continuous process of law-making," and "a tossing sea of frenzied electioneering," really mean that we shall have a good many polls and that there will be a good deal of trouble. I do not think that that will be so. In Australia they have had very few polls. In Queensland, where the system has been in operation for three years, very much in the form here proposed, they have had no polls at all. When it is remembered that this particular proposal applies only to cases of deadlock where the Houses have differed three limes, I think the cases of poll will be very few indeed. I doubt whether there would be more than one in five years, and even then you might find that the taking of the poll under this provision had saved you all the trouble and expense of a General Election. The second objection taken is that the Parliamentary and representative institutions of the country would be swept away. Why? Under this proposal they would not be affected in the very least. Every measure would have to be considered in the House of Commons three times by the elected representatives of the nation. It would only be when they had decided on a mea-
  1818
  sure, and the other House had disagreed that the people would be consulted. After all, representative Government is only a means to an end. I think the end is the attainment of the well-being and happiness of the people by means approved of by the general body. If this House passes a measure and cannot get it approved by the other House, I can see no crime against representative Government involved in the process of consulting the nation as to which House is right. The third objection is that a Government would remain in office even though they were defeated. If that were so, it would not always be a loss, because we would have got a vote on measures, not on men. I believe there was a case in Switzerland, where the election and the Referendum is sometimes taken on the same day, in which the Government was defeated upon its main measure and returned by a great majority to power, and no one was a penny the worse. I think the common-sense of this country would solve this difficulty as well as others. In the first place, under this Amendment you would have no poll unless the Government wished it, and you might trust a Government to consider what the effect of a poll would be upon its fortunes. Secondly, if a Government were defeated on a vital matter, I think it is quite possible they would feel bound to resign; but if defeated upon a minor matter, I do not see why they should not continue in office as Governments have often done before. These objections are only objections of detail, and not of vital principle, and would not be very serious in actual working. I do not think they will stand the test of inquiry. I fall back, then, upon the real principle of the proposal, and I submit that except in this way you have found no fail-system of adjusting grave differences between the two Houses. We put forward this proposal as a serious and constructive proposal, prepared not in the interests of any party, but to meet a difficulty which everybody admits is incident to any bi-cameral system. I am thinking rather of the future, and, whatever the result to-day, I am satisfied that you may have to consider this matter again, even in this Parliament, possibly in this year. In any case I feel sure that before much time has elapsed you must give this matter your serious consideration. I hope the discussion of this year in this House, and in the other place, will at all events have contributed something towards the solution of a problem which I believe to be of urgent and National importance.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Before attempting to make some observations on the general principle of the Referendum as a constitutional device, I would ask leave to direct the attention of the Committee to the form in which the matter appears in the Amendment before us, on which today the Committee will be asked to vote. Let it be clearly understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal is not to substitute the Referendum for the procedure proposed in the Parliament Bill, but as an addition to it. It does not exempt a Bill from having to be passed three times by the House of Commons in three successive Sessions in a period of not less than two years by referring it to the people, but it requires that a Bill should both be passed three times in three successive Sessions, and after that it should go through the further process of being submitted to a poll of the whole nation. It is always well in those matters to take a concrete instance, and see how a proposal of this kind would actually work in practice. Let me take as an example within the memory of all the General Election of 1906, and the Education Bill that followed. Under the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal we should have had in 1906 an election fought very largely, as we all know it was fought, on the Education question. The new House of Commons returned to Parliament would have spent six months passing an Education Bill through the House, and we will assume it would have been rejected. In 1907 that Bill would have had to pass a second time. It would again presumably have been rejected by the House of Lords. In 1908 for the third time the House of Commons would have been asked to give its attention to this measure. After that prolonged process had been gone through, and at the end of it all, what would have occurred? We should have had a second General Election in miniature on the same measure, referred to a poll of the whole people, before it could have found its way upon the statute book of the nation.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Of course, the Committee will not for a moment consider the acceptance of such a complication of obstacles in the way of the passage of measures on their way to the Statute Book. Let it be said, secondly, that this Amendment does not limit the application of the Referendum to constitutional questions, It is, as proposed, of universal application. Nor is it limited to questions
  1820
  of gravity on which the opinion of the nation has not been previously taken, as we find it enshrined in Lord Lansdowne's proposal. The Referendum which is now before us applies to every Bill—or I should say to every Liberal Bill—to which the I House of Lords chooses to take objection.
  Mr. CAVE: Except Money Bills.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Yes, except Money Bills—on general legislation. There is no machinery of any kind by which equal measure can be meted out to Conservative legislation. We do not even find embodied in this Amendment any fresh pledge for the fulfilment of the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that Tariff Reform at all events shall certainly be referred to a vote of the whole nation. One point further. We are glad to note that the Amendment does embody the principle of "One man, one vote." I think that hon. Members opposite, in spite of what the mover of the Amendment has said, will find it very difficult, having placed upon the Table of the House of Commons a proposal of this character, embodying the principle of "One man, one vote," to argue in future that to prevent a man who has four houses or four places having four votes for Parliament is undermining the rights of property, and is the destruction of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. But we do not rest ourselves, by any means, on such imperfections as we may think attach to this particular Amendment for the Referendum, as found on the Paper of the House of Commons to-day. It is well that the House should seriously consider, from a more or less abstract constitutional point of view, the device of the Referendum in itself, and as a means of resolving deadlocks in any circumstances between the two Houses of Parliament.
  The arguments advanced in favour of this proposal by the hon. and learned Gentleman are several. In the first place, he says that under the Referendum, at all events, you do get a clear issue. Every great question, he said—I am quoting his own words—can be treated in isolation. In the procedure of a General Election now, it is said, large principles or several questions, it may be, are grouped together, and it is exceedingly difficult to determine upon what issue a particular constituency may have voted at the polls. It is quite true that there is invariably these certain extra issues, no matter how much pains may be taken by candidates or by the leaders of

  1821
  parties, to isolate any particular question or to eliminate any particular question. I had an instance brought to my notice the other day in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cumberland was concerned, and which was very much to the point. On the eve of the election in his Constituency the hon. Gentleman distributed to the electors in his Division a last message, in which he said:—
  "The Unionist Party is pledged that Tariff Reform shall not come into operation until every elector has had the opportunity of voting 'Yes' or 'No' upon it by means of the Referendum."
  He went on to say that—
  "It is the duty of every Englishman to vote for the King and the Constitution, and to save Ireland from Home Rule."
  Having, therefore, carefully isolated Tariff Reform as an issue of the election, and having been returned—after the electors had received his last message—he sent to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) a telegram, in which he said:—
  "North Cumberland salutes you to-day, and lays a Tariff Reform tribute at your feet."
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I do not want to interpolate any remarks now, and spoil the speech that we all wish to listen to. At the same time I hope that an opportunity will be given to me, not absolutely to refute that telegram, but to make an explanation which will put a perfectly different complexion upon it
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I fear the House will be somewhat sceptical of the hon. Gentleman's explanation. But it is difficult to isolate particular questions, no matter what pains may be taken at a General Election. I venture then to suggest to the Committee that it would be hardly less difficult in the case of the Referendum really to secure that each individual shall give his vote on the particular proposition placed before him by the Referendum, and on nothing else. You cannot control men's motives, or men's thoughts. You cannot determine by any Act of Parliament that when a man votes, when he puts his cross against a particular proposal on a Referendum paper, that he shall have in mind the merits of that particular proposal, and no other matter at all. It has frequently been said with respect to this very Bill, the Parliament Bill, that the various groups, the component parts, that make up the majority that support it, are animated by various motives. It is said that the Irish Members do not care for the Parliament Bill for its own sake, but regard
  1822
  it as a means to Home Rule. It is said that the Welsh Members regard it as a means to Welsh Disestablishment. It is said that the Labour Members regard it as a means of carrying out the various social reforms in which they are particularly interested. Suppose, then, this Parliament Bill were itself referred to the people by a Referendum. Would not precisely the same motives be in the minds of the Irish voters, the Welsh voters, and the voters who support the Members of the Labour party? If it be true that various Members of this House support the Bill, not on account of its own merits, but on account of remoter considerations in their own minds, would it not be equally true, in view of the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves, that the voters who were interested in the same-questions would similarly vote, not on the simple issue, but on a mixed issue which embodied the other considerations as well?
  Further, unquestionably whatever may be argued in the abstract, we all know that in practice the credit of the Government would be very seriously bound up with a vote on the proposals placed before the nation in a Referendum. Governments might even make these matters questions of confidence. They might, and probably would, announce to the country that if the proposals which they made, or which were made, before the nation at the Referendum were defeated, they should consider it their duty to resign; they would no longer be able to carry on the Government of the country. Would not then all large questions of party divisions come into the issue? Would not the Liberal voter in the country, when he went to the poll at the Referendum, be animated by the consideration that the Liberal Government—or the Conservative Government, as the case might be—in all these cases it would be the Liberal Government—would resign if the vote went against them? Similarly, the Conservative voter, going to the Referendum, would record his vote, not merely as a declaration on a particular point, but as a vote of censure or a vote of confidence as the case might be, in the Government of the day. How many of these questions, which must necessarily be referred under this proposal to the nation at large, would affect only one part of the nation? Take two matters which presumably would have been referred if this system had been in operation during the last few years. There is the Licensing Bill and the Scottish Land Bill. The licensing systems of England,

  1823
  Scotland, and Ireland have always been separate. The Licensing Bill of 1908 necessarily dealt with the licensing system of England and Wales alone. The Scottish land system has always been regulated by different laws to the English or Irish land systems. Scottish land legislation must be enshrined in a separate measure. Therefore here you would have two Bills which would be referred to the judgment of the electors of the whole of the United Kingdom. In both of these cases only part of the United Kingdom would have been directly affected. What would have been the result in other parts of the United Kingdom? Do hon. Gentlemen opposite imagine that the English voter or the Irish voter would consider minutely and in detail the proposals of the Scottish Land Bill, the very language of which they would hardly be able to understand? They would, of course, in large numbers of cases give a party vote for the proposals of the Government of the day, or against the proposals of the Government of the day; and the isolation which the hon. and learned Gentleman contemplates would not be attained: would not under the Referendum tend to secure the issue upon which the country would express its opinion. The next reason that is given in support of the proposal of the Referendum is that by these means you at least secure effective control by the people. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University is accustomed in his zeal for democratic principles to support the Referendum as being the real means by which the opinion of the people can be fully, adequately, and effectively expressed. The assertion, of course, is of a very plausible character. In earlier years in England, I doubt if it is so much the case now, many advanced Democrats did support the proposal of the Referendum for that very reason. I submit to the Committee that it is a profound error to assume that incessant voting at elections means more effective control by the people over their affairs. That is an error which, I think, all constitutional writers have agreed has been committed in the United States of America, where the people are called upon to elect not merely their own representatives, but judges, magistrates, sheriffs, and many others of their officials by direct election, and having an overwhelming number of issues to decide, the consequence is found to be not that there is effective democracy but that there is the semblance of democracy without the reality, and that the
  1824
  actual control of affairs falls into the hands of the organisers of the parties.
  The tendency in this country has rather been to limit where possible the number of polls. Any observer of our local government system sees it would not conduce to greater control by the people over their local government if they had an additional number of elections for a further number of local authorities. Incessant voting does not mean effective control. Let us see how the proposal would work in practice and let me go back to find an example as to what its operation would have been in the immediate past. There would have been in 1906 if the Referendum had been established first of all the General Election, then a Referendum on the Education Bill, and then a Referendum on the Plural Voting Bill. The nation having partly recovered from the trial of these three national issues, would be required next year to go to the poll again upon the Scottish Land Bill. Then again, in 1908, it would be required to give a poll on the Licensing Bill, and in 1909 there would have been a poll upon the Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, not upon the Budget."] We have been always told that the Budget was not a measure of finance.
  Mr. BALFOUR: You would be working under your own Bill. The Budget would come under Clause 1.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It would, of course, have come under Clause 1, but I am taking the proposal of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their assertion is that the House of Lords was justified in rejecting the Budget and in referring it to the people. That was the phrase they used, and it is too late in the day now to argue that if the Referendum was in force the Budget of 1909 would not have been referred to the people. I am not speaking of this Bill, I am speaking of the Referendum, and I am speaking generally of the Referendum. I was endeavouring to deal in isolation with the Referendum as a serious proposal for relieving deadlock between the two Houses.
  Mr. CAVE: Except on Money Bills.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The House of Lords did, as a matter of fact, reject the Budget of 1909 on the ground that it was not a Money Bill. If the Referendum had been in force, according to the wishes of hon. Members opposite, in 1909 there would have been a Referendum on the Budget. Then in the following year, 1910

  1825
  or 1911, there would, in the ordinary course, have been a General Election to be followed by another series of referenda upon Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, and possibly—I do not know whether hon. Members opposite would include it in their proposals—upon the payment of Members as well. I submit to the Committee that constant polls do not facilitate the working of democracy, but rather check the working of democracy. Unless this device is constantly used it is not a remedy for deadlocks between the two Houses, and if it is constantly used it becomes intolerable. In these Debates during the discussion of this matter we have frequently been accustomed to hear the views expressed as to the experience of other countries. It is true the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment did so hardly at all, but, as a rule, it has been suggested that what has proved a successful device in so many countries cannot necessarily be unsuited to our own use. The experiences of other countries are, of course, so entirely different from our own that no useful lesson can be drawn from them at all.
  The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson), in a series of most interesting letters in "The Times" upon this subject, said very clearly:—
  "One conclusion is that we can learn little or nothing from the use of the Referendum in the Swiss Confederation or Cantons because their political conditions are too dissimilar to ours."
  And although in many countries of the world they have written Constitutions in which provision is made that these Constitutions shall not be altered without reference to the people there is only one country so far as I know—the Colony of Queensland—in which the Referendum 1s enshrined in the Constitution as a device for dealing with deadlocks between the two Houses. There is no precedent, except in the case of Queensland, for the use of the Referendum as proposed here.
  Mr. PEEL: What about Section 128 of the Australian Commonwealth?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That does not deal with deadlocks.
  Mr. PEEL: Yes, on all constitutional questions.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps that is so in the case of the Australian Constitution, but in regard to general legislation there is no precedent except in
  1826
  Queensland for any attempt or for any proposal that the Second Chamber shall whenever there is a deadlock force the people to a Referendum upon the proposals made by the Lower House.
  None of us deny that the Referendum may be a useful way of ascertaining the opinion of the nation upon great and simple issues under very exceptional circumstances. If one takes for example the unity of the various Italian kingdoms and Principalities—where there was no sovereign authority or representative authority in a position to take action, and the Sovereigns of the States had only lately rescued themselves from foreign dominion or the rule of Kings exiled—in such a case as that obviously it was proper that each separate part of the new kingdom should be asked to vote as to its views on the unity of the whole. There was the recent case in Norway, on the question of the establishment of a new Monarchy, and that was a suitable occasion for the use of the Referendum. But we submit that the Referendum, with all the elaboration of electioneering which it involves, is not suitable to form a part of the every-day machinery of the working of the Constitution.
  So far I have proceeded to answer the arguments adduced in its favour. I will now say a few words with respect to the objections we see to this proposal. In the first place the effect upon the House of Commons must be greatly to diminish the sense of responsibility of Members of Parliament for their action. If they feel that the final decision must in all important cases rest not with them but with the vote of the whole people who themselves have to be responsible for their action the effect cannot fail to be serious and deleterious upon the proceedings of this House. Consequently the effect upon the stability and character of the Government must be very grave. I do not think the hon. and learned Member, in his very interesting speech, at all events convinced the Committee there was any way out of the dilemma which would occur if the main proposal or the leading proposals of responsible government were rejected as a whole. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, in the letters to which I have just referred, says as follows, and his observations are, of course, always of the greatest value not only on account of the authority with which he speaks but because of the transparent sincerity of his views:—
  "If Ministers stake their existence as a Ministry on the decision of the people, the discussion of the Bill will

  1827
  be obscured by a discussion of the merits of the Government, its performances and promises, and we shall be confronted with every element of a General Election except the candidate. If, on the other hand, Ministers announce that a Bill which represents the labours of a Session may be dealt with by the electorate as it pleases, and that the rejection of the Bill will not affect their tenure of office, we get a situation wholly new in our system of party Government, and yet this is the only way in which a great issue can be isolated from a number of irrelevant considerations."
  To that dilemma the hon. Baronet in these letters gave no decisive answer. It is indeed obvious if the Government of the day resigned then you would have not only the turmoil of a Referendum but you would have it immediately followed by the consequences of a General Election, and, further, you would place in the hands of the Upper House the power to force dissolution when it pleases and to subject to the vote of the people everything in accordance with the opinion of the Upper House. If, on the other hand, the Government of the day submitted to the decision, allowed their measure to be defeated, but nevertheless remained in office and carried on the government of the country, then I say we would have struck a great blow at our national institutions and undermined the basis on which our Government at present rests. If the Government of the day remained in power after the defeat of one of their proposals which they declared was essential to the well-being and good government of the nation, and were compelled to carry on the government of the country under a policy of which they disapprove, you would place Ministers upon a very much lower footing than ever before, and you would absolve them of all sense of personal responsibility for the policy which they were called upon to carry out.
  5.0 P.M.
  More important still is the effect upon policy which would follow from the adoption of this scheme. Each Referendum would be, in effect, an election, it would be the subject of strenuous electioneering between the great parties in the State, more so even than a General Election, for in a General Election the people are very ready to vote, and show great popular interest in it. They come to the polls, although, of course, efforts in some cases have to be used to bring them up. But under a Referendum it would be difficult to induce half the people to come, and efforts would have to be put forward by the rival parties much greater than in the case of a General Election. And let the Committee mark, and it is a most important point, there will be no limit to the expenditure made in conducting a cam-
  1828
  paign of this character. The hon. and learned Member has drafted both successfully and carefully a Schedule applying the Corrupt Practices Act to this Referendum, but the limit of expenses cannot apply, there is no one made responsible for exceeding the limit, and consequently unlimited sums may be spent on propaganda and organisation. The effect of that will be year after year on these great issues in dispute between the two parties to give even more than to-day an overwhelming influence to the forces of wealth, and the consequences on the general development of democratic policy in this country can hardly fail to be disastrous. I have now come to the end of the arguments that may be advanced against this proposal, but I should like to ask whether all these consequences were foreseen by the Opposition with a light heart and in a hurry when they adopted this proposal. I do not know that it is a good practice to quote sentences from newspapers, but I cannot resist drawing attention to one sentence which appeared in an article in a most important newspaper, which is one of the most staunch supporters of hon. Members opposite, the "St. James's Gazette and Evening Standard":—
  "Instead of squabbling in public over the new scheme which has now been formally adopted as the official policy of the party, let us quietly set to work to understand it."
  You adopt first and understand it after, and that seems to have been the course taken by the party opposite upon this question. Last year, when the proposals enshrined in this Bill were discussed by this House in the form of a resolution, not a word was said by any hon. Member on the Opposition Benches revealing not merely any devotion to the principle of the Referendum, but any interest in that principle. That method which is now declared to be indispensable to the proper democratic Government of the nation was passed over in complete silence a year ago, and the only reference to the subject which can be found in the index of the Official Debater was made by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, himself, who has to-day moved the Amendment which we are now discussing. This is what he said on the 7th April last year:—
  "As to the Referendum, I will not say much in regard to it except that my feeling is similar to the feeling I entertained towards proportional representation. In theory there is an immense amount to be said for the Referendum, but in practice I do not like it."

  1829
  But that is not all. The hon. and learned Member goes on to say:—
  "It seems alien to our party system and incompatible with the system of government under which we live. If you are to submit to the people each question which arises, you will do away with the plan under which we and our forefathers carried on the government, and you do away with the duty of Ministers to resign when they have wrongly interpreted the feeling of the country."
  Mr. CAVE: Those observations were directed not to the Referendum on deadlocks, but to the general Referendum on all matters.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not see any such qualification in the hon. and learned Member's speech. That was the only declaration on the subject of the Referendum which emanated from the Conservative party even so recently as a year ago.
  Mr. A. STRAUSS: I had an Amendment down on the Paper, but the Debate was closured just before my Amendment was reached.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have quoted the only source of information on this point accessible to hon. Members of this House. Even now we are very uncertain how far hon. Members are prepared to put their feelings into practice. The fate of Lord Balfour's Bill in the other House leaves us in a state of much uncertainty, because although it is not dead it is in a state of coma, from which it is not likely to recover, and we shall listen with interest to hear how far the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to pledge his party in this particular direction. For 650 years our system of representative Government has gradually developed upon the old lines, lines well established as a means of ascertaining the opinion of the nation. As hon. Members opposite will admit, we are not unready to make large changes when we consider large changes are necessary; but certainly we are not prepared to place our feet upon the slippery slopes which the hon. and learned Member invites us to tread.
  Sir W. ANSON: In the remarks I am going to make in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I propose to confine myself to the Referendum in reference to this particular Bill, for that is what is contemplated by my hon. and learned Friend in this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite dealt with the Referendum as applying to a variety of things not contemplated by my hon. and learned Friend, He assumed explicitly
  1830
  that the Referendum would always be directed against the legislation of the Liberal Government. Surely that is a curious commentary upon the Preamble of this Bill, and a reflection upon the bona fides of the promise held out in the Preamble that the House of Lords would be so reformed as to be put upon a democratic basis, such as would ensure all Liberal legislation as good a chance as Unionist legislation. The Postmaster-General gave as an illustration a supposition as to what would have happened if the Referendum had been in force in the year 1906. He said there would have been Referendum on the Education Bills of 1906, 1907, and 1908. As a matter of fact I think my hon. and learned Friend within the four corners of his Amendment provides for a period of two years within which legislation is to take place. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Education Bill of 1906 was very different from the Education Bill of 1907, and even that was different in many important particulars from the Education Bill of 1908. Therefore this illustration shows that legislation cannot be put before the electors when a Liberal Government is so versatile in its treatment of a subject such as education as to produce within three short years three perfectly different Bills.
  The right hon. Gentleman's first objection to the Referendum was that we should not get a fair issue, and he pointed out with truth that if the Government choose they can make the Referendum a General Election in everything except the existence of candidates. They might refer a Licensing Bill to the country and, in that way, introduce Chinese Slavery, the Durability of Old Age Pensions and all the other paraphernalia of Liberal electioneering. All those questions might be brought before the country, and the country would not decide upon one particular issue. I quite admit that if the Government assented in the case of the principal measure of the Session to a Referendum, and the Bill was lost, the position of the Government would be considerably depreciated in the opinion of the public. That is quite evident, but I think the right hon. Gentleman forgot that the Referendum as proposed by my hon. and learned Friend could only be used in the last resort when a Bill had been sent three times to the Second Chamber and rejected three times, and that after all attempts at settlement by conferences had been exhausted. I must

  1831
  remind the Postmaster-General that the Referendum is a formidable weapon and it is a two-edged weapon. It might have a very serious effect upon the Government; but a defeat on the Referendum might also be a serious matter for the party which promoted it. Having regard to the fact that the Referendum would only be used after every effort had been made to secure an agreement between the two Houses and the passing of the Bill in a manner agreeable to both, if under those circumstances the Government was compelled to send a Bill to the country by way of Referendum—compelled by the action of another party, Liberal or Unionist, as the case might be—a defeat would be a serious blow to that party, and therefore the risk that the Government would be put in a position of having its measures dealt with lightly and hastily by Referendum is, I think, infinitesimal. So much for the question of the clear issue. Then the right hon. Gentleman said there would be constant polls and constant and incessant voting on all manner of questions, and in that way the influence of wealth would come in, corruption might take place, and that our whole electorate would be deteriorated in the result. I think he forgot that in Switzerland these polls are a constant necessity. I am sure that the matters put before the electors in Switzerland are not as important as the matters which would be put before the electors of this country under this Amendment. It is not contended that wealth plays a prominent part in the decision of those questions in Switzerland or that the electorate of Switzerland is seriously corrupted by these incessant polls.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Very rarely more than 50 per cent. of the electors vote.
  Sir W. ANSON: That is what may be fairly said on the assumption that these polls would be incessant. As I have already pointed out, a matter would not go to the Referendum until every means had been exhausted of endeavouring to bring the two Chambers into agreement. Surely these polls would not be incessant, and the issue when it came before the electorate would be a serious one, in which the electors would be sufficiently interested and would play their proper part. It is therefore useless to cite Switzerland and the United States and those States in the American Republic who use the Referendum, because in Switzerland our system of party government does not exist, and
  1832
  the use of the Referendum therefore is not an argument applicable to ourselves. In the States of the American Republic which have adopted the Referendum in modern times they have advisedly done so to supersede their legislature, because they are not satisfied either with the quality of the legislature or with the quality of the work which the legislature turns out. These arguments that incessant polls might result from the Amendment are really irrelevant to the issue. The circumstances are wholly different, and none of the dangers which the right hon. Gentleman has conjured up would be found to seriously exist. He has also warned us in solemn tones that the responsibility of Members, the responsibility of the two Houses, and the responsibility of the Government would be diminished by this reference of matters in issue between the two Houses to the people. Would it detract from the responsibilities of Members? I think we sometimes make rather too much of this responsibility of Members. How much is left of the responsibility of Members when we bear in mind the guillotine, the party Whips, and the fact that the Government must not be beaten under any circumstances on any issue, however trifling? We had last night a reductio ad absurdum of the independence of the independent Radical. We had an Amendment solemnly and seriously moved from the other side, and supported with something like vehemence by other Members below the Gangway, and, when there was the faintest suggestion that Amendment might be carried, or even that the numbers in the Lobby might not be altogether favourable to the Government, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel), with the utmost haste, withdrew it and avowed his unwavering allegiance to the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Division was not on the Amendment."] I quite agree. He withdrew the Amendment. That is my argument. I do not think that interruption goes to support the independence of Gentlemen opposite.
  I hope I have endeavoured, not without success, to show that the anxiety the Postmaster-General has expressed as to the effects of the Referendum is not founded upon fact. We shall get a real issue unless the Government choose to stake their existence on the vote of the people. We shall not have incessant polls, because the Referendum will only be used in the last resort. We are

  1833
  not likely to cause any deterioration in the sense of responsibility with which hon. Members vote in this House, because I am not quite sure that sense of responsibility is even now as keen and as adequate as it should be. There are substantial reasons why at this particular juncture, at any rate, some such procedure as my hon. and learned Friend has urged is necessary, in our view, for the safe working of the Constitution. We have been told, and I think the Postmaster-General has told us himself, that our Constitution is unwritten, and that it knows nothing of organic or fundamental laws. That is perfectly true. The greater part of it is unwritten, but the Government are endeavouring to put a certain portion of it, and that the most serious portion—the seat of legislative sovereignty—into writing. It is perfectly true we have no fundamental and organic laws. We have not hitherto wanted them, because we have always enjoyed that protection against violent change which the Government and hon. Members on the other side of the House are light-heartedly proposing to take away. I think the particular reason my hon. and learned Friend desires to see the principle of the Referendum embodied in our Constitution is that we are unwilling to see the foundations of our Constitution altered by what the Prime Minister the other night described as a temporary, insignificant, and precarious majority. That is what may happen under this Bill if we have no better security than the Bill offers to us. That is one reason why we hold the Referendum is a desirable feature to be introduced into our Parliamentary system.
  There is another reason. We are now face to face in this House with the system of groups, and not merely with a system of two great parties. The will or policy of a particular group may not be the will or the policy of the people, but nevertheless the numbers of that group may be so large, or the morale of the Government may be so weak, that the group may be able to dictate its policy to the Government, whatever may be the wishes of the people, and under this Bill carry it out. That is an evil which the Referendum, by which the will of the people could be clearly expressed on the matter in issue, would go a long way to counteract. This is a new machine which I for one do not welcome with any great cordiality, but which I accept as becoming necessary in the circumstances under which we now live and under the action of hon. and right hon.
  1834
  Gentlemen on the other side of the House. We want it for two reasons. We want it to ensure that our Constitution is not lightly changed in its most important particulars by the action of a chance majority on either side of the House, and we want it to ensure, in matters of great importance, whether they are constitutional, or economic, or social, that, not the will of groups and not the log-rolling arrangements within those groups in this House, but the will of the people shall prevail.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment insisted during his speech that the measures of a Government ought to be judged in isolation rather than in combination. Surely a Government deserves to be judged by the whole of its programme. Elect it for a reasonable length of life, give it time to develop its policy as a whole, and then judge it by its complete record. This system by which the House of Lords is to pick out certain acts from the Government programme, to detach them from the rest, and to compel the people to judge the Government by these isolated fragments of their policy, appears to me to be grossly unfair to any Government. It would put every Government into a position of permanent instability, and it would give no Government any reasonable security of tenure and no Government a fair chance. When the hon. Member was speaking, the question which continually occurred to me was this. If you have the Referendum and it is going to prevent this House from passing hasty and ill-considered legislation in spite of the opinion of the country, why do you want the House of Lords? The main purpose by which the House of Lords justifies its own existence is cut away from under its feet, if according to the hon. Member's Resolution, the main purpose of the House of Lords now is to set the Referendum into motion. That could be done equally well by a certain number of the electors, as in Switzerland, or by 200, or some other number of Members of this House, as in the Bill of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The House of Lords would become quite unnecessary, even upon the argument by which it supports its own existence. It would become merely the fifth wheel of the coach.
  The hon. Member also argued there were so many issues before the country at General Elections at the same time that you could not get a conclusive verdict upon any one of them. I admit most of us have probably found that to some extent to be our own experience, but the fact is, as we

  1835
  know by the experience of the past, that at General Elections 80 or 90 per cent. of the electors go to the poll, and you get a better expression of public opinion than you would by a perpetual series of Referenda, where only a handful of electors would go to the poll at all. We have had two General Elections within the last eighteen months. Everybody was sick and tired of the second before it began. We all know the amount of interest taken in it was sensibly less, and the number of abstentions from the poll was sensibly greater than at the first election. The Referendum would make the political conditions of the last eighteen months a perpetual feature of our political existence. I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman has persuaded himself that the Referendum would only be called into existence every five years. It seems to me it would be called into existence every year. We should simply repeat the experience of Switzerland and of those American States where the system is in operation. The number of electors who would go to the poll would be so insignificant that you would never get any proper expression of public opinion at all.
  I have ventured to put down an Amendment to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am not going to move it. I put it down in order to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to certain facts which up to the present they have ignored. In every speech in this Debate, and in every speech in the House of Lords, there was behind all these arguments one tacit assumption. That assumption was that you would be able to get the Referendum without taking the Initiative with it. The experience of all those other countries where the Referendum has become a normal part of the Constitution, shows that when once it is introduced it is in the course of a very few years followed by the logic of inevitable argument by the corresponding voice of the Initiative. If the progressive party were beaten on this question I do not believe they would try to reverse what had been done. I think they would follow the example of progressive parties in other countries, and would meet you on your own ground. They would say, "You have preferred this system of direct legislation to our old established system of Parliamentary and representative legislation. Direct legislation let it be. But it shall not be direct legislation
  1836
  with the dice always loaded against progress." The Referendum by itself does not give the people that full share in legislation which the hon. and learned Member for Kingston claims that it does. It gives them a share in destroying legislation, but if you are going to use the system as a weapon for obstruction we claim that it shall also be used as a weapon for speeding up negligent Parliaments. In Switzerland they began with a Referendum by which 30,000 electors could, after a Bill had been passed, demand a poll of the people, and by inevitable logic they were led on to the initiative by which 50,000 can draw up a Bill for themselves, and insist on a vote upon that. If that is the kind of thing hon. Members opposite want they are taking the first step to have it, and, having once taken that first step they will get it whether they want it or not.
  We have been told that we are frightened at the Referendum. As a matter of fact the people who really need to be frightened are the classes from which hon. Gentlemen opposite draw the mass of their strength. This system is all very well in Switzerland, a country remarkable for the evenness with which its wealth is distributed. But this country is remarkable for a gross and appalling inequality in the distribution of its wealth, and, if you adopt this system the kind of question which will be put to the poll of the people will be far more downright than the kind of question we discuss in this House. The question will be in the nature of asking if a man needs to have more than £10,000, or to inherit more than £50,000. and if you once get that put to a poll of the people I believe you will get a short and simple answer which will stupify those who are so anxious to establish this system. Hon. Members keep on arguing as if the people were more Conservative than the House of Commons. They may be so on certain questions, but I am absolutely sure that on all questions connected with property the House of Commons is infinitely more Conservative than the people. This system of direct legislation, with the full consequences that will follow from it, if once introduced, will be not a Conservative, but a revolutionary force. The reason why I oppose it is because I think it would be revolution of the wrong kind. If we are going to have revolution in legislation at all let us have it on the floor of this House, where a subject can be properly discussed, and where both sides can be heard. We do not want revolutionary or any other kind of legislation carried by the crude and ill-

  1837
  considered method of a popular vote without any adequate discussion, or any discussion at all.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: Last night we saw an hon. Member opposite put down an Amendment and then refuse to divide upon it. This afternoon we have seen another hon. Member put an Amendment down, and in the closing sentences of his remarks state that he is in absolute disagreement with it. I think that is a strange method of producing your own views or eliciting the views of others. The hon. Member asked my hon. and learned Friend why he did not include in his Amendment some reference to the question of the direct initiative. I am prepared to give him this answer that, without arguing the question whether or not it would be a desirable thing, we have had ample proof from the Government and their supporters that they are so afraid of consulting the people in the very moderate form we propose under this Amendment that a fortiori they would be more afraid to give the people a direct voice. I only rise to call attention to one or two striking statements that have fallen from speakers opposite to-day. I do not often intervene in these Debates, but I sometimes feel compelled to do so when I hear anything extraordinary, as I have done this afternoon. The last speaker asked why if we had the Referendum we want the House of Lords. The answer is simple. We want the Referendum to take the place in this remodelled Constitution of the check hitherto supplied by that Second Chamber—a check which, under this Bill, is to be removed from us.
  I feel that the efforts of all speakers on this side of the House are to a very great extent thrown away, because hon. Members opposite have a preconceived notion of what we mean, a notion so strongly preconceived that no argument on our part will get any other idea into their heads. They insist on saying that the Referendum will and is bound to work to the advantage of only one side, and that we are bound to get that advantage. If they will try to remember that the Referendum, as it has been proposed, is only a part—I might almost say a very small part—of the large scheme of reform which is put forward by those who sit on these benches and by the Unionist party in the House of Lords they would see that there is no ground whatever for the statement that it is merely one other political trick to secure a permanent political advantage for the Conservative and Unionist party. I confess
  1838
  when I heard the Postmaster-General saying that the great objection to it, if it were established, would be that Scotland would be invited to give its opinion upon an English Licensing Bill, or that England would be invited to give its opinion on a Scottish Land Bill, and that under those circumstances they could hardly expect the people to take much interest in matters of this kind, I thought it a most extraordinary argument, seeing that already in this House Members for Scotland do vote upon an English Licensing Bill and in the same way as hon. Members vote with regard to all shades of legislation, I, as an English Member, shall have much pleasure next Session in recording my votes upon what hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will regard as a purely Irish matter. It is no answer to the Referendum to say that each nation, and each nation only, can rightly be expected to deal with matters in which it is finally most concerned. The Postmaster-General used words to the effect that the real crux of the whole difference of opinion between that side of the House and this, with regard to what would be the effect of the Referendum as between the two Houses, was that the Upper House was to have the power of forcing a Dissolution if the opinion of the people turned out to be in accordance with the opinion of the Upper House. Granted, for the purposes of argument, that that is so. What does this House exist for? Does it exist for its own dignity, or for some ulterior purpose, or for the purpose of passing laws in accordance with the public will and the public wish? If that is the only purpose for which this House exists then surely it is no grave charge to make against Referendum that after the Referendum has been taken and the will of the people happens to coincide with the wish of the Upper House, there should be a Dissolution.
  We know that the real objection to the Referendum, under whatever guise it may be, whether it be suggested it will sap the independence of Members, of which from time to time we have striking examples, or whether it will ruin the Constitution of this country—we know very well that all these objections practically come back to one thing only, that is that the Government and their supporters wish to make the House of Commons to-day not only supreme as between the two Houses, but sovereign over any Parliament and over any possible wish of the people outside. A much respected Member for one of the Divisions of Aberdeen, speaking from the benches opposite, has drawn the attention

  1839
  of the Committee to some words of Professor Dicey on the question of sovereignty—I have not been able to verify the quotation, but I think, as he made it, it was open to misconstruction, and it might have been suggested that he was applying the term to the sovereignty of this House. It should be made clear that Professor Dicey always insisted upon the sovereignty of Parliament. In that matter lies a rather important distinction. We have hitherto had the power of insisting at certain times that the House of Commons shall be brought into touch and into line with public opinion, and the check or guarantee we have had up to this time being removed we are bound to insist upon another. This is not an ideal solution, but it is the only solution which offers itself to us of the present, constitutional problem. We know that, from time to time, Members of this House change their political views, and it is no more true to say that this House invariably represents the feeling of the country than that a Member who may change his political opinions invariably represents the majority of his constituents. Hon. Members who so change their opinions sometimes feel compelled to submit themselves to the verdict of their constituents, and what is done in the case of individual Members is all that we ask it shall be possible for the House of Commons to do under the Referendum. Let the House submit itself to the judgment of the country. That is all that this Amendment would introduce.
  I observe it is frequently asserted that while it may be possible, it is often not desirable, to try and have a clean straight vote. The last speaker said it was more fair to judge a Government by the results of a general poll than by any isolated contest. I am very well aware that the last thing the Government want is to have a straight vote, either in this House or outside in the country. Everybody I think even on those Benches opposite will agree that the Prime Minister would not have got the support that he claims to have got to-day for any of the proposed measures to deal with Ireland, or Welsh Disestablishment, or the reorganisation of the educational system of the country, if it had not been that he had been blessed with the opportunities of such valuable electioneering cries as the party has found recently in the Veto of the Lords and all the rest of it. If that be true, and it is true, surely everybody who wishes
  1840
  to have a straight fight upon a clean issue must wish that it should be possible to isolate that issue for independent solution in the country. If you could do that it would incidentally isolate it in this House and it would then be possible to vote for all purposes without fear of Government Whips. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) might go to a division without any tear of its after effects and we should be freed from some of the evils which we are face to face with to-day—evils which in my judgment this Amendment goes partly along the road to remove.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I hardly think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, any more than preceding hon. Members who spoke, has faced the fundamental objection to the Referendum. That objection I think is this. There is only one possible way of getting a clear issue in the case of the Referendum. You can only obtain a clear issue when the Government decides not to stand or fall by the result of the Referendum. That is the only possible way in which a clear issue could be secured. What then follows? The Government refers a measure to the country, it decides not to stand or fall by the result. What is the consequence? Ministerial responsibility ceases and you have got the beginning of the end of the Parliamentary system. That is the fundamental objection to the Referendum and I do earnestly hope that hon. Gentlemen who take part in this Debate from the other side will be good enough to address themselves to it. Parliamentary government may be a good thing or a bad thing but let us think very earnestly indeed before we decide to take the first step towards ending it. That was very clearly realised by one of the most brilliant writers who contribute to the thought of the other side—Mr. Garvin—who, I feel, writes most of the arguments which are used by the Unionist party. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know that?"] I am exceedingly sorry that this dissension should be expressed; it strikes me as being in the nature of ingratitude. This talented gentleman, writing in the "Daily Telegraph" immediately after the sudden adoption of the Referendum as a plank of the Tory platform, observes:—
  "Governments do not go out on Referendum, and if the National Party did not succeed the first time the Unionist Government could amply stay in office and submit the question again."

  1841
  That, of course, is perfectly true, and it is entirely for the reason that the Referendum can only be worked when Governments refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of the submission of the issue-it is for that reason that the Referendum does not commend itself to the thought of those who have most fully considered the subject. Of course, if the issue is not kept clear from Government and Ministerial responsibility then the submission of any question to the electors simply resolves itself into this question: "Do you support the Government or not?" The particular issue submitted then sinks into insignificance and the fate of the Government becomes the real issue submitted to the electors. I should very much like to say in a few words how cordially I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton with regard to the question as to whether the Referendum is really a Conservative weapon. I remember, and it is not very long ago, when organised opinion on the Conservative side thought that the Referendum was a very Radical proceeding indeed, and it was denounced as a Radical proceeding. As a matter of fact, the Referendum can hardly be considered as a Conservative proposal. In Switzerland it has been used for one thing, to nationalise the railways, and if we examine the experience of those States of America which have used this particular constitutional weapon, what do we find? In the State of Oregon, I believe, some very drastic taxes indeed upon property have been carried by means of the Referendum, and I am not sure that they have not been carried by means of the Initiative.
  It is impossible to exclude the Initiative when you once institute the principle of Referendum. When you have degraded your Parliament, when you have turned the House of Commons into a mere registering machine—when you make the Members who come to this House the mere registrars of the direct decision of the electors, you must then give the electors not merely the power to say "Yes" or "No" to a proposal made in the central body, you must also give those electors the power to propose legislation. That, of course, has happened in Switzerland and in various States of America, such as Oregon, which have adopted the Referendum, and when you get the Referendum you have proposals made which are anything but Conservative in character. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are inclined to
  1842
  consider that they are favouring an essentially Conservative weapon, they have, I think, very good cause indeed to revise their opinions and their arguments. I think also in the case of the United Kingdom it is a condition precedent to the establishment of the Referendum that we should have a federal system. Doubtless some day we shall get a federal system, but not until we have one is the Referendum to be plausibly argued for in the British House of Commons. Surely it would be absurd to submit a local question affecting Scotland or Wales to the whole of the seven or eight or nine millions of electors of the United Kingdom for decision. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is done now."] It is not done now, and a direct vote with the object of getting a clear pronouncement upon a clear political issue until we get a federal system seems to me to be out of the question. This Parliament is proudly known the world over as the Mother of Parliaments, and I do not believe that the Mother of Parliaments will consent to be the main instrument of the destruction of the Parliamentary system.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining the very modest telegram which came in somewhat undeservedly in the address of the Postmaster-General for honourable mention in this House, and I would like to say that on first appearance only, and not after examining my majority, could anyone suppose that I was guilty of what I think would have been a very low electioneering trick. I know that the local Radical Press, which are somewhat barren and sterile of ideas, took notice of that telegram, but I did not really expect that it was of sufficient importance to be made use of in this Debate. However, since mention has been made of it in this House it is my duty to give an explanation which I am perfectly certain that all hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept as satisfactory when they have heard it. I must ask the indulgence of the House and I must also apologise for talking about personal matters, but it is necessary to examine the figures in the preceding election. In January, 1910, I conducted a campaign, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would take exception to it, because the principal plank in my platform was Tariff Reform, and it commanded 4,470 votes. There was no question of Referendum then, the issue was a perfectly straight one between Tariff Reform on the one side

  1843
  and Free Trade on the other, and I think the House will allow me to presume that there were at least 4,470 constituents of mine who were solid for Tariff Reform.
  A year passed in which I did everything I could to educate the constituency in regard to the advantages of Tariff Reform, and in December, 1910, I again put forward Tariff Reform as one of the principal planks in my platform. I was elected by a majority of 375. I secured 111 more votes in December, 1910, than did in January, 1910. If you will kindly bear that in mind you will find that if I make you the absurdly generous concession that everyone of those additional voters were Tory Free Traders who voted for me simply because they knew that the question of Tariff Reform would be referred to a Referendum, even if I take off that 111 from the sum total of my votes and add it on to the sum total of my opponent's votes I have still a majority of 148 for Tariff Reform. Surely the House will allow that that gave me authority for laying the palm of victory at the feet of a great statesman whose absence we all deplore and regret. I do not believe that this charge was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman. It savours rather of a certain subtle inventive ingenuity which has happily been expelled from North Cumberland, and which, I hope, will be confined in future to the plains of Wiltshire. I hope that will satisfy hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope they will allow me now to apply myself to the Amendment. I listened with great interest to the speech of the Postmaster-General, but I am sorry to say his arguments were certainly not convincing. His chief contention was that the Referendum strikes a blow, and a mighty blow, at the Constitution. Who is the right hon. Gentleman, and who are his Friends, and what are they doing? Why, they do not hesitate to shatter the Constitution when it suits their selfish ends. The hon. Member who last spoke says that this would be a death blow to the party system.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Parliamentary system.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. C. LOWTHER: I beg his pardon, I misunderstood him. Though if he had meant the party system I am not sure that would not be an argument in its favour. I think the party system is in some cases extremely ludicrous. It renders
  1844
  absolutely hopeless the carrying out of crying reforms for the welfare of the people and I would gladly see it, if not abolished, at least amended.
  One of the chief arguments in favour of the Referendum is the attitude adopted by hon. Members opposite who openly claim that they have a mandate from the country for the carrying through of any legislation which comes uppermost in their minds. No one will deny that you have said you have a mandate for Home Rule, you have also said you have a mandate for a blind adherence to the moth-eaten tradition of free imports. You are never tired of saying that you have a mandate for the abolition of the House of Lords and, no doubt, when the Colonial Premiers come over in order to cement together the Empire you will say no, because you have forsooth a mandate from the people for breaking the Empire. When you have passed your Parliament Bill the first thing you will do will be to say you have a mandate for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. Is that the voice of the people? You will then probably say you have a mandate for some Puritanic Education Bill, and you certainly will declare that you have a man-dale for a tyrannical Licensing Bill. I would ask hon. Members opposite, to whatever party they belong, to consider this, that if they really love individual liberty and the liberty of the people let them beware of the consequences of the passage of this Bill because it will not mean Government for the people by the people, but it will mean the absolute rule of an Executive, elected it is true, but elected for one specific and particular purpose, who misuse their power by forcing through measures which are wholly unpopular and absolutely foreign to the wishes of the people.
  May I ask the Labour party what attitude they are taking up about the Referendum? They are always arrogating to themselves the name of the people. They are never tired of speaking in the name of the people. Are they democrats in name only, and do they really in their hearts fear the will and the opinion of the people? What sort of democrats are these who talk of the will of the people and then forbid them to express it? What sort of democrats are you who would shake the foundations of our national policy without reference to the nation? It is ridiculous for the Labour party, at any rate, to pretend that the Referendum is entirely alien to English methods and English principles. They are the principles that you your-

  1845
  selves adopt. They are the principles of your trade unions. If you wish to decide an important point you submit it to the people through a ballot or Referendum. If it is a right and a clean and an honest method to ascertain the opinions of 2,000,000 people, why does it become a vicious system to ascertain in the same way the opinion of the whole electorate? I support this Amendment because there is no doubt it puts into the hands of either House the power of referring any question on which the two Houses are divided to the direct vote and the direct opinion of the people.
  Mr. MACKINDER: The hon. Member (Mr. Chiozza Money) told us we on this side had not faced the real objection which on the other side is taken to the proposal of the Referendum. As he put it, the objection essentially lay in this, that you would take away the responsibility of a Government. Does not that, to some extent, lose sight of the fact that there is responsibility in the Government, not merely in connection with legislation, but also in connection with finance and administration? That responsibility might, with some advantage to the country at any rate, partially be separated from the responsibility of legislation. On what did the last four General Elections turn? The 1900 election on the war, a matter of administration; the 1906 election on Chinese labour, a matter of administration; and the first election of 1910 on the Budget—Finance. That is to say, of the last four elections only the last can be said to have turned on a proposition of legislation. Therefore it seems to me that when we make the proposal to refer legislation, which has been rejected by the Second Chamber, we are not necessarily striking at the roots of all responsibility on the part of the Government.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I think the hon. Member will admit that it will undoubtedly take away from the responsibility for legislation. Will he address himself to that?
  Mr. MACKINDER: The hon. Member must pardon me if I think it is quite pertinent to discuss the responsibility of the Government as a whole, but I am perfectly willing to take his point. It seems to me that in regard to legislation it will be admitted that there is legislation and legislation. There are some great measures which go to the very root of the political faith of a party. There are other measures
  1846
  which are not of the first importance. I cannot help feeling that if in any way we could to some extent separate the responsibility for legislation, at any rate on minor matters, from the responsibility for administration and finance, we should do a good deal to adapt our Constitution to the needs of the present time. What do you require a Government for apart from this House? Surely to carry on Administration and the closely connected Finance. Legislation is specially the sphere of this House. The Government brings in a measure because it is in charge of the time of the House, and because it has all facilities for drafting measures. But I submit that the largest share of the responsibility of the Government is, and ought to be, not in connection with legislation, but in connection with Administration and with Finance. If you could, to some small extent at any rate, separate the responsibility of the Government in the matter of legislation from the general responsibility, you would be raising rather than lowering the prestige of this House, for you would have rendered the position of Members more independent.
  I turn from that to a point which, it seems to me, is fundamental, and which I think was somewhat omitted from the view of the Postmaster-General. I support the Amendment for the reason, which may appear at first sight somewhat peculiar, that I do not believe if the Referendum were established it would often be taken. You have a great Navy for the defence of the country and its commerce. Fortunately, it does not often have to fight, but none the less the very existence of the Navy is telling in favour of this country all the time. I believe the very existence of the Referendum would tell deeply in a favourable sense upon the conduct of the affairs of this country. Neither the Government nor the Opposition would challenge a Referendum lightly. Either of them would be liable to suffer a serious blow if seriously defeated in the country. I believe, therefore, the result would be that we should have, very generally at any rate, a sweeter reasonableness in the matter of legislation than we have at the present time—in other words, that we should have less of party bitterness and extremity and more of business-like addressing of the general intelligence to the practical problems before us.
  I want to turn now to the speech of the hon Member for Northampton Borough. He objected to the Government being judged by a particular

  1847
  measure. He said you must take its measures as a whole, and consider its policy as a whole. The trouble is that if you take one of our parties its policy consists of a vista of proposals—some are near and some are at a distance and in the background. The question always before the country is how far at the time of an election does the electorate understand that it is giving a mandate down that vista. I imagine, for instance, a great many people gave a vote in the last election who understood that the question at issue was the Parliament Bill, and did not understand that the question immediately at issue was Home Rule. That is to say they were perfectly well aware that in the vista of measures proposed by the party opposite stood Home Rule, but the practical question for them was how far down that vista of measures are you going in this particular mandate. There is the trouble about accepting the policy of a party as a whole. A party has a great number of measures in various phases of preparation and in various stages towards what we call practical politics. And the fundamental difficulty which has been raised in the recent history of our country is precisely that you do not know what the policy for practical mandate purposes is, and what is merely the general philosophy of the party to be brought into action if circumstances and time allow.
  Finally the hon. Member referred to the Initiative. With regard to precedents from the States, usually the Western States, the newer and less populous States of America, and certain other cases of minor countries, you are dealing practically with local business. I know that great States like New York and Pennsylvania, with their eight or ten millions of population, may be treated as something approximating to a sovereign State in Europe. But when you are dealing with one of the Western States of America, where these experiments have been mainly carried out, you are dealing with States which, though nominally sovereign States, are practically and, in regard to the problems which come before them, the equivalent not even of the most important, but of the quite minor municipal authorities in this country. And the practical problems before them are problems which every elector thinks himself capable of speaking upon, exactly as the elector in the municipalities of this country thinks himself capable of expressing an opinion
  1848
  on matters which come before the municipality. I do not believe that the electors generally of this great country, one of the great historic powers of the world, are so immodest that they believe they can do without a special organ for legislation dealing with the infinitely complex questions which come before us. I have more faith in the common-sense of our people than to believe that they will call for an initiative, and that they will allow any organisation in the land to draft a Bill, and that they will accept that Bill by the large number which will be necessary in the case of an initiative to send it to a Referendum before the country. I think the whole Debate shows the extraordinary manner in winch Gentlemen opposite cling to the present organisation in certain respects, but not in other respects. I think the Postmaster-General represented that we are the inheritors of 650 years of ordinary development, and that hon. Members on this side are asking the House to adopt a proposal which is entirely new and practically of a revolutionary character in the Referendum. We are driven to it because you are breaking away from the 650 years' experience. We wish to contribute a safer plan than the one you propose.
  Mr. BARNES: I heard the fair and persuasive speech of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cave) who introduced the Amendment, and I have heard most of the speeches since. I should have been content to give my vote without a speech but for the references which were made to the Labour Benches a few minutes ago. Therefore, it is only fair that I should offer a few observations giving my own view and the view of my colleagues on this Amendment. First of all, let me say we are not against the principle of the Referendum. It is all a matter of the time, the opportunity, and the manner in which the principle is to be applied. We were twitted with the fact just now that Trade Unions had adopted the Referendum, and that therefore it was expected that we should vote for the Referendum in connection with this Amendment. But it is not quite true. As a matter of fact, we have used the Referendum in certain special cases, and only in these. The Referendum is less in use in Trade Unions now than ever it was. As a matter of fact, Trade Unions are attaching less importance to mere abstract principle and are setting themselves more in the direction of practical common-sense. Viewing matters in that way, and having regard

  1849
  to the fact that experience has told us that many of the evils which have been pointed out by hon. Members this afternoon have come about through the adoption of the Referendum, we have dropped it. I remember being at a delegate meeting of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. We adopted the Referendum on that occasion. That is to say, we altered the rules and made them applicable to the principle of the Referendum, so that members could vote endorsing what we had done. What was the result? We found that the delegates left all the old sense of responsibility behind them. They had in their minds that what they did would be subject to the approval or the disapproval of somebody else, and they did many things which they would not otherwise have done. The consequence was that a great many things were done which were afterwards endorsed by the members without the thought which should have been given to them, and we were landed in a great deal of expense. Therefore, for that reason, we have discarded to a large extent the Referendum, and fallen back on the delegate meeting which is practically the same as this House.
  There are other reasons. The hon. Member said that Trade Unions had adopted the Referendum, but I would point out that we have never adopted it in the form now proposed. Never in our most foolish days did we ever think of adopting the Referendum at the discretion of a House of Lords. Whenever we have adopted the Referendum it was either on the initiative of certain members, certain branches, or some representative authority corresponding to this House. Never have we adopted the Referendum in the trade union movement, so far as I know, in any way conformable with the proposition now before us. Therefore, we may dispose of the trade union argument as having absolutely no bearing on this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There may be hon. Members opposite who are better informed than I am on this subject. Although I have been a trade unionist from my youth upwards, and an official of a trade union for nearly twenty years, still there may be Members opposite who know better than I do, but so far as I can inform the House on a matter on which I may be expected to know something, I say that the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. Claude Lowther) is absolutely misinformed when he says that trade union practice supports the proposal in the Amendment. I go further, and say that I shall vote against' the Amend-
  1850
  ment, because I think it would tend to the keeping back of a great many things with which we are concerned. I approach the matter from the point of view of those who want to see certain changes made of a social and industrial, as well as a constitutional, character, and looking at it from that point of view, does it not occur to hon. Members opposite that this Amendment must necessarily, if adopted, place particular sections of the community at a disadvantage. Like the hon. Member for North Cumberland and his friends, we are always going about and endeavouring in our humble way to educate the community up to certain changes, and it is only after a long series of years that we succeed in doing so. Then, after that, we come to this House. What happens then? We have all the interests which are opposed to change up against us. That is a considerable hurdle to get over, but hon. Members seriously propose that after that is done the process shall be repeated twice, and after surmounting all these hurdles it is proposed that our custodians opposite are to have the discretion or the right of saying that the Bill shall still be put before the whole people, with all the evils that that will give rise to.
  The hon. Member referred to the opportunity which would be given for "private enterprise." In using that phrase I think he could scarcely have appreciated the importance of it. He said that when a matter would be put before the community there would be no limit to private enterprise, and that everybody would be free to put his particular side of the matter before the people. If the hon. Member will follow that up in his own mind he will see that those with the longest purse, those with most money, who could confuse the electors, not on the principle of any particular Bill, but on the part of the Bill which in one place seemed to be against the interests of the people in that place, and on another part of the Bill which seemed to be against the interests of the people in another place, would endeavour to defeat any project that could be put before the community. I would like to say a word of a practical character. The hon. Member for Northampton said that a necessary preliminary to anything of this sort must be some federal system and the breaking up of the community into narrow areas. What would be the sense of putting anything in which Scotland or London was specially interested to the people of the whole of the United Kingdom? When the hon. Member was speaking I had in my

  1851
  mind a matter which the people of Scotland are very much interested in—namely, the House Letting Bill. I daresay that to the average Member of the community in England, Wales, or Ireland that appears to be an inconsequential sort of thing that he does not care twopence about. But that is a matter of very great importance in Scotland. It has a great deal to do with the mobility of labour, and it is a matter to which the average Scottish worker attaches more importance than to anything else before the country. If that Bill were put before the people of the United Kingdom the ordinary feeling of conservatism in the mind of the average man who did not know what he was voting about would lead him to vote against this particular change which is wanted by the Scottish people. That is why I think that, as a preliminary to the adoption of anything of this sort, there should be some federal principle adopted, so that those matters appertaining to part of the country only should be voted on by the people in that part.
  There is a provision in the Amendment the importance of which was not, I think, appreciated by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He told the House that in the event of 50 per cent. not voting on a particular Bill that Bill would automatically be defeated. What would be more easy than for those who were opposed to a particular Bill to refrain from voting? That is one of the things which would probably be done under this proposal. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is in the proposed schedule that fifty per cent. must vote. As a matter of fact, you do not get on the average more than seventy per cent. of the electors to vote now. You would get a great deal less when the Referendum was in operation. General elections come at intervals of four or five years. During the last two or three years the conditions have been somewhat abnormal, but if hon. Members will cast their minds back over a long period—say twenty or thirty years—they will find that General Elections come every four or five years. Therefore a General Election is something of an event. You have all the machinery of the various parties turned on to get up interest, and you have seventy or eighty per cent. of the electors brought to the poll. But if this Amendment were adopted, you would have a miniature General Election every year. As has already been pointed out, if you go back
  1852
  to the year 1906, there would have been under this proposal, had it been in operation, a Referendum on the Licensing Bill, another on the Education Bill, and a third on the Plural Voting Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] These Bills were passed by this House, and I see no reason why there should not have been a Referendum on each if this proposal had been adopted. And, therefore, instead of getting, as at present, 70 or 80 per cent. who vote at a General Election, the general tendency would be to reduce the proportion, and probably without any attempt to achieve that result the natural result would be that at no time would you get 50 per cent. to vote in favour of anything. Therefore, for those reasons, I shall vote against the Amendment with the utmost confidence, although it may lead to some misunderstanding outside and may cause some people to say that some of us are going to vote against the general abstract principle of government of the people for the people and by the people. I am here not to follow any will o' the wisp or any abstract principle, irrespective of consequences. I am here to get something done. It is because I want to get something done that I want to get this Bill passed first of all as a preliminary to getting other things carried that I am interested in, and for that reason I shall vote with the utmost confidence against the Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman who has just made a very interesting speech has realised the full force of the argument with which he closed. It was an argument that he used earlier in the speech, and which he thought, and rightly thought, was worth while repeating, to make the position of himself and his friends clear. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is not moved in his opposition to the Amendment by any general desire either to make our institutions more democratic or to make them more permanent. He regards all those ideas as high-falutin—I think that was the expression he used. What he wants is to carry out certain measures which he has in his mind, and so long as any change in the machinery of legislation which is set up in his opinion serves that object he does not care apparently in the least how it is to be suited for the general needs not only of this generation, but of the generations to come afterwards. While I confess there was much that was admirable in the tone and temper of his speech, yet I must

  1853
  say that that is not the true mood in which we in this House ought to approach the discussion of a great constitutional change affecting an institution which, as we were rather opportunely reminded, has lasted for over 600 years. Let me brush away, if I may, two or three misconceptions which seem to have clouded the speculations of hon. Gentlemen opposite in dealing with this subject. The hon. Member gave very adequate expression to an argument which has been used, I think, by every preceding speaker on the other side of the House, the argument that we should be plunged in a perpetual series of small General Elections, and that we should have, annually or biennially, an appeal to the people on some controversy or other between the two Houses.
  I think the Postmaster-General made some hypothetical calculation of how many times the Referendum would have been used if it had been in force since 1906. There are several observations to be made on that. In the first place it is not relevant to the strict words of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. and learned Friend limited the Amendment to cases where the Government desired a Referendum, but I wish to discuss and I believe the Committee desires to discuss the question on a somewhat broader point of view, if I am allowed to refer, and it is only a reference, to the general view we take of the proper constitutional modification which this House ought to take in hand, now that the Government have definitely embarked upon this process of constitutional revolution. Our view is not that the Referendum is the universal method of dealing with every point on which the two Houses differ. That is not the view so far as I know of any Gentlemen who sits on this side of the House. It is not my view at all events. I am quite clear of two things. In the first place the Referendum is a most valuable political instrument for obtaining the real views of the people upon certain great issues which have been thoroughly discussed and brought before them by Debates in the two Houses of Parliament; and in the second place, that instrument valuable as it is would be destroyed if you were to blunt it by perpetual use. I do not believe that there is the least chance of its being perpetually used however you frame your machinery. There is no sign of that as far as I know in those English colonies where it has been established, and in this country I am per-
  1854
  fectly certain that if the process be as costly and as difficult as hon. Gentlemen seem to be disposed to say—I think they exaggerate—but even if they exaggerate a great deal there is enough truth in that contention to make it quite certain that no party and no House would ever foolishly embark upon a policy of perpetual appeals to the people of England in the form of Referenda. On the contrary, the knowledge, which would be present to the minds of both parties in both Houses, that there was in certain great cases a prospect of referring to the people, would, I am certain, promote that spirit of reasonable compromise which after all is the true method and the most truthful method of dealing with our political differences when they come to an acute stage.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General challenged me as to what my views were on a Bill which is not before us, but which has been before the other House. I am not going to offer an opinion on a Bill which I have never had the opportunity of debating beyond saying this: As far as I understand the matter my hon. and learned Friend is certainly right. He said in his speech to-day that the debates in the House of Lords on that Bill and the machinery of the Bill itself were very valuable from the point of view of all those who were practical students of this question. But as far as I am aware it does contemplate the use of the Referendum in excess of anything which I should advise, and certainly I regard the Referendum as an instrument to be used only in rare and great cases. I regard the proper machinery for dealing with differences between the two Houses as lying in the direction of that Amendment which we discussed last night, and which was so summarily and, as I think, so unfortunately dismissed by the Prime Minister. I do not think that anybody has said here, what was constantly said on the platform, that the Referendum is not practicable, and that a scheme which is in active operation in a very large number of self-governing communities is beyond our power to work. But I do not think that that argument was ever intended to be more than a catchword on the platform, and I do not propose to deal with it seriously. The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the House Letting Bill for Scotland. That is not a Bill which any human being would suggest being made the subject of a Referendum. It is

  1855
  entirely outside both the scope of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment and the policy of any Government.
  Mr. BARNES: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Can he suggest any other method by which this Bill could he got through Parliament?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Yes. I would suggest the method of Joint Sittings—not, of course, Joint Sittings of the whole body of peers and this House, because that would be illegitimately going back over an Amendment which has been already disposed of. Everybody admits that that would be an impossible and impracticable system. But it is not beyond the ingenuity of man, even with the House of Lords as at present constituted, to frame some method of dealing with these matters by Joint Sittings. However that may be, I belong to a school of political students who, like the hon. Member opposite, desire to see some change made in the Upper Chamber. The only other point I have to deal with is the charge that was most unjustly levelled against us on this bench that we started this idea of a Referendum suddenly, without adequate reflection, and under the stress of the immediate necessity of dealing with a General Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may be, and I doubt not, from that cheer, are, ignorant of the full facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was not, and could not be ignorant of the facts of the case. He knew perfectly well that the subject of the Referendum was anxiously considered by the leaders of the party of which I am a member for months before the General Election.
  Mr. BARNES: At the Conference?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I have referred to the Referendum long before the Conference. I think I suggested in my election address, at the election before the last, that it certainly was not a matter to be rejected. I should like the House to put to themselves what is the situation, and what it will be after the revolution is carried out, unless you adopt some kind of system such as that which is suggested by my hon. and learned Friend. We hear constantly from hon. Gentlemen opposite—not, I must say, from the hon. Gentleman who preceded, and not from Gentlemen in that quarter of the House, but from hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, and Members of the
  1856
  Government—that the Referendum is contrary to the true theory of representative Government.
  What is representative government? Representative government in this country has grown up gradually; it has been of slow growth, and different theories have been adopted at different times by various thinkers, but no thinker really can possibly suppose that in any representative system the representatives can be taken as equivalent to those who send them here. It is by convention that we regard ourselves as equivalent. We represent the people in a sense, but we are not the equivalent of the people. What we do is not always what the people want us to do if they had present to their minds the whole of the facts; nor is it probable or possible that in any representative system the representatives and those represented should be regarded as equivalent bodies. That being obvious, there came to be two theories of representation. There is first the idea that a Member of Parliament was a delegate who endeavoured, without adding or subtracting anything of his own, to be the mere conduit pipe of the opinions of his constituents, and, by his brother Members, he was expected to vote in any Division as he conceived his constituents, could they have been brought into the House, would desire to vote. Another theory, the opposite of that, was developed by Burke, and his view was that, once elected, every Member of this House had to act as an independent political thinker, doing his best irrespective of those who sent him here for the general good of the whole community. I do not believe that there is much use in discussing either of those views. They are far too abstract—both Burke's theory and the theory to which it was opposed. As a matter of fact, we are much better than those who send us here for some purposes, and much worse for other purposes. In some respects and many respects we do things which it is inconceivable they should do at all. We deal with questions which they do not understand, and about which they do not understand the arguments and do not know the details, and of which it is impossible that they should know either the arguments or the details. Moreover, however unmanageable we may be, still we are comparatively more manageable, and we can undoubtedly do that which those who send us here to represent them would be unable to do. On the other hand, the other principle is equally plain.

  1857
  Having been sent here with the enormous powers which we possess, and still more with the enormous powers which the Government propose to give us, we may, and probably shall—I do not care which party is in office—do things affecting the fundamentals of the Constitution which the country might well be supposed to resent if properly put before them. What do you really get? You get administration in the first place by consent, and it is a most extraordinary method by which we get it. You cannot compare our system with the American system. The Americans choose their Government practically once in every four years, and it does not matter what the Senate does, or the House of Representatives does, there is what corresponds to the gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. But in the United States they are fixed and immovable, and in certain respects practically have all power. At the end of their term they hand back their power, and their successors are appointed. While that system has many defects, you at all events get one immense advantage—you get a certain stability. They have at all events four years in office to carry out such things as are possible, and although foreign affairs do not bulk largely in the United States, still it gives stability to their international relations. How do we deal with the same problem? Our system has some advantages and some extraordinary disadvantages. We have a Government which depends from day to day on the vote of this House, and it carries with it in its train a system to which my Noble Friend called attention the other day, of organised parties, a system of party Whips, entrusted with the duty of seeing that the Government are not left in a minority, whatever the question before the House. It carries all these things in its train because we are not content now with saying that the Government should have the support of the majority of the House in a general sense. We require now, and I think that this carries us much too far, that the Government should have the support of the House on every question, whether administrative or legislative. I do not know whether the House realises how enormous is the change which has taken place in that respect, but I think it is being carried much too far. In the time of Sir Robert Walpole what we call the clash of legislation was almost non-existent.
  All through the eighteenth century the practical labours of this House as a legisla-
  1858
  tive body were really small. Governments then held their tenure of office, not because they were able to satisfy the House or the people that every Clause of every Bill they brought forward was a good Clause in a good Bill, but because sometimes from some motive or other they generally contrived to secure the general support of the House on every critical occasion, and critical occasions dealing with the broadest questions of Administration. The tenure of modern Governments depends, and depends too much not merely on the general support of the House for its broad administrative policy, or even for its legislative policy, but the perpetual support of the House in all demands, whether legislative or administrative. That is a most important consideration when you come to deal with the aspect of the Referendum, to which attention was drawn by the Postmaster-General. He said, How can a self-respecting Government remain in office if the country rejects one of their measures? The policy of a Government might be so bound up in a particular measure that if it were rejected by the country after having been passed by the House, to remain in office would be almost unthinkable. I am quite confident that idea is grossly exaggerated by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I think all our efforts ought and should be directed to prevent the tenure of a Government of office depending on anything so transitory and casual as the way in which particular projects of legislation are viewed in this House or in the country. Do let the Committee observe how absurd is the position taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Take, for instance, Home Rule. They say, what Radical party could remain in office if, after passing a Home Rule Bill through this House it was rejected by the country. Would self-respect allow them to do so? I do not judge of the self-respect of hon. Members opposite, but I remind them that they were just as ardent Home Rulers in 1905 as they are in 1911. In 1905 they came back with an enormous majority over all parties in the House, and in their opinion, though they did not bring in a Home Rule Bill, there was no loss of self-respect. Why is it not more damaging to their self-respect that, having the opportunity and the majority, they did not bring in a Bill than to bring in a Bill which was subsequently rejected by the country?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: There is the question of pledge.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. BALFOUR: They have pledged themselves, but no one else has pledged them. If I sent an advertisement to "The Times" saying that I did not propose to pay my debts, that does not absolve me from paying my debts. Let us come to another matter in which there was no pledge. Take the Irish Council Bill. That Bill was treated in the old Gladstonian fashion. It was brought in by the Chief Secretary in a very able speech. It did not meet with very much approval in the country which it was destined to benefit. It was dropped. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) still adorns, to our great pleasure when he speaks, that bench opposite; the Government is still in office; and nobody has lost his self-respect that I know of. At any rate, I see no shame-facedness in any of the Gentlemen opposite. And quite rightly. If they thought, as they did think, that they had the support of this House, speaking broadly, for their administrative procedure and general scheme of legislation, though their Bill did not meet with approval outside, it would have been perfect folly to resign. I want to know why the Government apply a different rule to plebiscite from what is constantly applied by Debates in this House. There is no reason in the Constitution nor anything else why, when an important Bill is put before the people by a Government which has the confidence of the people the Government should not go on although the people do not like the Bill. I am convinced that, in the rare cases when the plebiscite is used you will find that a Bill is rejected, although the constituents are perfectly prepared in the main to return the same Members as before. Would you not enormously improve your system? It is true that the Party system is getting more and more rigid. There is no doubt about its getting more rigid in the constituencies as well as in this House. The "machine" in all democratic countries seems to increase in power as time goes on. I cannot doubt but that that will be the case. Think of the enormous number of complex motives which appeal to the elector when he now goes to the poll. In the first place he is probably a party man, and he has always voted blue or red or whatever the colour may be, and it is not his wish to change his colours. In the second place, he probably likes his Member. He has supported
  1860
  him, he has fought for him, he is connected with him by ties of controversy and by the tie of having been in battle, and he likes his man. That is another motive. Then as you leave those which may be regarded as party and personal motives you come across the extraordinary complex schemes, or programmes, as they are called, which are put before the country by the opposing parties.
  What was the answer attempted by the Postmaster-General as to this question of complexity. He said that of course it is true that under the existing system votes are dictated by mixed motives, but that you will not avoid mixed motives by the Referendum. It is perfectly true that even with the Referendum there may not be in the case of every elector a perfectly simple consideration of a measure. Grant that, but does anybody deny that it will be perfect simplicity as compared with the existing system. It may not be according to the most refined methods of quantitative analysis or a pure laboratory product, but it is a very good pure commercial article. It is the nearest you are ever likely to get in this imperfect world. It is the nearest you will ever get of the real opinions and the various motives of the electorate on the great issues put forward. It is folly to tell me that is not worth aiming at, because it cannot be obtained in an absolute degree of completeness. Some people say how can the electorate understand anything so complicated as a Bill of clauses put before them, and how can you ask them to decide a question as to whether a Bill of thirty long clauses with half a dozen schedules should be passed. What the voters are asked to decide now at every election is not a Bill of thirty clauses with six schedules, but half a dozen Bills with as many schedules in each, and the whole complex administrative possibilities and problems thrown at them, and on top of all those most personal questions, and of all those general likings of names and parties which play so great a part in the free working institutions of every democratic country.
  The Postmaster-General said, and I think the argument not quite worthy of him, that since this is an appeal to individual Members of the constituency, "what becomes of all your theories of one man one vote, and how inconvenient you will find your arguments when we, the Radical Government, bring in our Bill abolishing plural voting." The right hon. Gentleman never has understood our objections

  1861
  to the abolition of plural voting, which are not affected by this at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I am not now going into the question of plural voting, I need hardly say, but one of the great advantages of this scheme is that you put a measure before the country free from all the perturbing influences of local interests, local passions, local prejudices, local over-representations and under-re-presentation, and all the shortcomings of our present electoral system which are swept away. I will not say all, but a large number of them are swept away. You do get as near as you ever will get to the sheer unadulterated opinion of the people of this country upon some great measure which has been discusesd before them in both Houses of Parliament, and on which they had the opportunity of knowing the details and on which they had, if they ever had, the real grounds for forming an opinion, and on which we surely in this House who profess to represent them, will welcome their co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman said we were tampering with a Constitution which had lasted 650 years. I should have thought he was really the red flag. He and his friends are making this profound change and the question is how you are to make your new Constitution fit in with your new necessities. You go on the hypothesis of two Chambers which have grown historically, and which, I think, have worked on the whole extraordinarily well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] There are some gentlemen who never think of anything but their own platform speeches. To please those gentlemen and to bring them to the point of view, let us say it worked extraordinarily badly for the last ten years, and worked admirably before.
  On the whole, I think this system has worked admirably up to the present date. You are determined to alter it in this fundamental particular, that you will no longer allow even on the most important questions the Second Chamber to make a reference to the people when any great change is threatened. That is your avowed object, and you say, "We do this partly because the majority in the other Chamber does not agree with us, but partly because we do not think a Second Chamber ought to dictate the time of a General Election." I think there may be some force in that. This is the way of getting your reference to the people without a General Election. This is the way in which you will be able to combine, as I think, a reference to the people on really
  1862
  great issues without shattering the system under which the whole administrative continuity and the whole existence of Government depends upon votes in this House upon legislative questions. I believe if you will only consent on great questions to carry out this reform, and on smaller questions to carry out a system of Joint Sittings, I believe you will see restored to this House and to the country that freedom in regard to its own legislation which it really has not had and cannot have under the existing system so long as you bind up the free political life of your administration with the forces of each successive legislative product. We do that far too much. If you want at once to deal with those great problems and at the same time to keep your continuity and to keep) your administration secure for an adequate number of years, and as a third condition to carry the people of this country with you, one plan, and one plan alone, is possible.
  That which does on those great occasions give the opportunity to the Government of the day, without a Dissolution, without a resignation, without the utter subversion, not merely of a particular scheme of legislation but of your whole political system, administrative as well as legislative, the only machinery for it that the wit of man has yet devised is the Referendum, the appeal to the people at the polls. That it is practical we know because it is practised. You may imagine if you like the various abuses which may spring up, though I think them in the highest degree improbable, yet I believe you will find it works smoothly, practically, and simply against the excessive party system, which is undoubtedly the danger awaiting us in the future. I deeply regret while the Government apparently admit that there are cases in which an appeal to the people might be proper, might be right, might be expedient, might even be necessary; they will not show the least favour to any plan that we propose on this side of the House by which the revolution they are striving to accomplish will leave to the people of this country some shadow of their own power to preserve the institutions which have grown up during 650 years of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks. They and not we are the ultimate custodians of the British Constitution. To them, therefore, not to us, is committed far more explicitly the guardianship of that which is their trust rather than ours.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am content to leave the general argument with regard to this particular proposal where it was left, so far as the Government are concerned, at the conclusion of the exhaustive and conclusive speech of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General; but I should be wanting in respect not only to the right hon. Gentlemen, but to the Committee, if I did not offer two or three criticisms of the interesting speech to which we have just listened. For a not inconsiderable period, when the right hon. Gentleman was more or less in the atmosphere of abstract reasoning, I found myself in a large measure of agreement. I agree with him that the party system has been developed in this country in recent years to a degree of rigour and inelasticity not on the whole conducive to the best interests of the country. I am sure there is no honest or intelligent thinker on either side of the House who does not secretly or openly share that opinion. I agree with him further that Governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, are somewhat over-sensitive to what may be casual or, any way, isolated expressions of dissatisfaction or want of confidence; and the title of a Government to retain its position of authority of administration, so far as it may be an administration, should depend not so much on this or that particular measure or question but upon the general assent of the majority of those who represent the people of the country. So far, I think, we all agree, or most of us would agree, with the right hon. Gentleman. When we go from those general considerations to the consideration of the particular Amendment in support of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, not only do I fail to see the relevancy of those arguments, but I shall submit, and with some confidence, to the Committee that we are here face to face with a proposition far more revolutionary in its principles and in its effects than anything that has been submitted in the course of the discussion on this Bill. I am not concerned to determine the precise moment at which either the right hon. Gentleman or any of his friends became converts to the doctrine of the Referendum. I have admitted in the fullest and frankest way youthful errors of my own, when I thought, now many years ago, that we might find in some qualified adoption of that principle the solution of, at any rate, some of our constitutional difficulties. I do not remember a more remarkable phenomenon in our history than the
  1864
  rapidity and the extent of the adhesion which we now find on the opposite side of the House to a principle which, as my right hon. Friend was perfectly justified in pointing out, when we discussed the Resolutions upon which this Bill was founded only twelve months ago, was never so much as suggested.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: There were a number of Amendments down to that effect, but they were all shut out by the guillotine.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think I am strictly accurate in saying there was no suggestion made in any of the Debates that took place. That, at any rate, is the proposition I was maintaining. I myself referred to the principle in opening the discussion on those Resolutions. I said then, and I say now, that I should certainly not exclude the possibility of the application of something in the nature of a Referendum to special, rare, exceptional, but conceivable cases of constitutional difficulty. I said so then, and I say so now. But I should be very sorry to commit myself to any such abstract or general proposition. All the same, the rapidity and the extent of the adoption of the doctrine by hon. Gentlemen opposite certainly strikes me as one of the most remarkable of recent political phenomena. It reminds me of a remark by Mr. Disraeli in a celebrated speech in this House, when a large section of the Tory party of the day had gone over to Free Trade. He said that "Nothing like it had occurred since the Franks were converted in platoons and baptised in battalions." But everyone has the right to change his mind, and the conversion may be none the less sincere and none the less intelligent because the process is most unusually rapid.
  Let me point out, in support of the proposition that this is a most revolutionary proposal, what the real effect of the Amendment is. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech just now spoke of the Referendum as an appropriate instrument for dealing with serious, and, I gathered, comparatively rare cases of difference between the two Houses of the Legislature. But that is not the Amendment before us. The Amendment before us does not confine the use of the Referendum to constitutional or organic or fundamental changes: it applies to every case in which there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses, unless the

  1865
  Government of the day are prepared to acquiesce in the decision of the Second Chamber.
  Mr. CAVE: Not to every case, but to those cases where the difference continues during three Sessions of Parliament.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I took that for granted. I am dealing with cases of difference arising under the machinery of this Bill when that machinery has been carried through all its stages. It applies to every such case.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am sure the Prime Minister does not desire to be unfair to us. On Monday last he would not allow-any differentiation between different kinds of measures, and he carried his battalions with him. We were therefore excluded from making any differentiation in the Amendment put down by my right hon. Friend.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I not only concede that point, but I will concede further that we have rejected an Amendment for Joint Sessions. I agree that if the right hon. Gentleman were putting forward a complete scheme of his own it would probably embrace all these three cases. But what I am pointing out is this: We may have been wrong in our decision, but being as we arc, and having come to the decision at which we have, the incorporation of this Amendment would make it necessary that at the end of the three Sessions the Government of the day should either acquiesce in the decision of the House of Lords, or submit the difference between the two Houses to the arbitrament of the Referendum. That I am sure will not be disputed. Is that or is that not a desirable change in our system?
  I want to say a few words by way of comment upon the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in reference to our system of representative government. I do not think that he and I take quite the same view of what representative government means. What is the great difference in this respect between ancient and modern democracy? Democracy is not a new thing. It existed in the old world just as much as it exists to-day. Democracy, wherever it was perfected, wherever it was a real working political system, consisted in the rule of the majority for the time being. Under the old democracies, most of which were in countries limited in area and in population, it was possible, or thought to be possible, to ascertain the opinion of the majority by this simple process of referring
  1866
  matters to the people. But the great political invention of the modern world—it was not invented in a day, or in a year, or in a century, but it was to a large extent the invention of our own race—the masterpiece of modern political genius, consisted in the invention of this machinery of representative Government, which enables the majority in a democratic country, however wide its area and however numerous its population, to make its will felt not only in administration but in legislation. That is what distinguishes modern from ancient democracy. To throw away that instrument, to impair its utility, to blunt its edge, would be in my opinion doing the greatest possible disservice to the institutions of this country, and reversing the work which it took our ancestors centuries of labour and effort to achieve.
  Why do you have representative Government? Why was it invented? Why has it stood the test of time and experience? For two reasons. In the first place because it gets rid of what would otherwise be an intolerable difficulty—the difficulty of submitting every trumpery, trivial, every day occurrence to the decision of vast masses of people. But the second and much more important reason is that it enables the people to choose specially qualified men. having tested their qualifications or attempted to test them. I will not say that the test is always a very sound one. I do not say that those who have passed the test ought not in some cases to have failed to do so, or that some who failed to pass the examination might very well have been more fortunate than the event proved. Still, on the whole, looking at the process of General Elections in this country-satirists deride it; caricaturists make fun of it; there are many features about it which we who have been through two General Elections in little more than twelve months look back upon without either pride or pleasure; there are many things which in our heart of hearts and secret consciousness we would be glad to see removed or modified—but taken as a whole, is it not as simple, as good, and as effective a process as the human mind and human experience has yet devised for securing that those who are the ultimate judges of the policy of the country, both in legislation and administration, shall have their wishes carried out, their opinions given effect to, their purposes realised, and the practical work of administration and legislation carried on? They choose, after full review and examination, the men whom they

  1867
  think to be qualified for that task. In my opinion it would be a monstrous reversion if we were to go back from the position which has been so attained, and that those who come here, I do not care whether as delegates or as representatives—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that neither of the extreme theories put forward on this point are tenable—that we who come here to do the people's work, having been chosen by the people, because they believe in our sincerity and in our capacity, whenever it comes to a serious matter should sit here with the consciousness that we were not responsible, that we could wash our hands of the ultimate decision, because if and when there was a difference on any of these important questions, or there was a difference between the popular assembly and the other assembly, we could throw it back upon the people to decide for themselves what they had sent us here for the purpose of deciding. That is why I say to-day, as I have said on the platform, and as I believe from the bottom of my heart, that if you introduce this Referendum, not as a rare and exceptional possible solution of some conceivable difficulty, but as part of the regular working machinery of popular government, you are undermining the very foundations of representative government. It is from that large point of view, in which I believe the best interests of popular government in this country are involved, and not from any party point of view, that I shall ask the House of Commons at any stage, and in any form, to reject a proposal of this kind.
  I wish to say a word on another argument of the right hon. Gentleman, which I admit is of great importance. He says with plausibility and a certain amount of truth that you cannot say that the Referendum is impracticable when you remember that this very day or this very week our fellow-subjects in the Australian Commonwealth are having, I think, two Referenda on very important constitutional matters. You cannot say it is impracticable, but everyone who sees the voting papers which in practice are submitted in the United States of America to the unfortunate citizens of the particular States who are subjected to this process of Referendum will agree that, if not absolutely impracticable, it is an excessively inconvenient and a most misleading way of endeavouring to elicit the popular opinion. I do not say it is impracticable,
  1868
  but I do say that I differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that you can isolate the issue by adopting the machinery of the Referendum, and get any more clear and definite judgment upon that issue than you can by the ordinary machinery of a General Election. I can tell the Committee exactly what experience shows in this matter. All the Referenda with which we are acquainted fall into either one or the other of two classes. Either they are upon matters which excite so little interest among the persons to whom a question is referred that you get a vote which is entirely misleading in its character, because very often two-thirds or three-fourths of the people do not take the trouble to go to the poll—that is the constant experience in the United States—or, if the matter is one which excites widespread interest, still more if it is one upon which the fate and repute of the Government or administration depend, you have brought into operation everyone of the forces with which we are so familiar at a General Election. Would anyone suppose that in the case of Home Rule for Ireland, which has been suggested, that if you were to submit that issue to the people of the country by way of reference, you would not have all the canvassing, the wirepulling, the placarding of the walls, the posters—of more or less veracity and mendacity—the committee rooms, agents, expenditure of money, organisation of meetings, the getting of voters to the poll; that, in fact, the whole mechanism of a General Election, with all its complexities, with all its expensiveness, with all its turmoil, would not be put into operation, and would not be put into operation because the people were voting upon one issue and that only? No, not at all! The party machine would be at work. It would become a matter, an issue of life or death, as between the two great parties in the State. Neither of them could afford to withhold any influence, or argument, or any solicitation which was at their command. Do you suppose that this reference would be upon an isolated issue? Do you suppose that the question would be decided upon its own merits, and that a verdict would not be recorded as between the two parties in the State after all this pressure had been brought to bear upon the elector exactly in the same sense and the same degree as at a General Election?
  Therefore the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) seeks to draw—and which I quite agree you can

  1869
  draw in theory—between the Referendum and a General Election is a distinction which, wherever the matter was one of urgent importance and first-rate magnitude, would break down. In effect if this Amendment were incorporated as part of this Bill, it would allow the Second Chamber to say, after this process of two years and three Sessions being gone through: "We insist upon having a General Election, and to a General Election, if you wish to carry this particular measure, you must go." That, again, is a revolutionary change in Parliamentary and Governmental procedure to which this country and this House ought to be very slow to assent. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government might well afford to be indifferent to an adverse verdict given upon a reference, although I suppose he would hardly admit that in all cases—
  Mr. BALFOUR: In most cases.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It would not be the case if a General Election were on broad questions of general policy. I do not know that any Government, without loss of self-respect, could go on carrying on the Administration of the country after it had, on a reference, sustained a serious rebuff by the rejection of a measure. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's scale of self-respect is in this matter—how far up or how low down in the appraisement of political affairs; how far he would go before he would treat the rejection of one measure as a matter wounding the self-respect of himself and his friends, and the rejection of another matter as one which he might tolerate with indifference. He has put one or two cases to us. Let me put one to him. Suppose he were to come into power under the provisions of this Bill. Suppose that Tariff Reform were part of the programme of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was head. I am putting it as a possible hypothesis. I shall say nothing as to whether the pledges given before the last General Election were given for the time being, or for all time. I know nothing about that. But suppose under this scheme it became necessary further to submit the question of Tariff Reform to the electorate, and they rejected it. I would rather like to know if, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be consistent with his self-respect and that of the Government of the day to go on administering the affairs of the country as though nothing in the world had happened? We should have to make a new
  1870
  code, I will not say of political ethics, but at any rate of political sensitiveness, if this novel measure for discriminating between the relative values of political issues is to be corporated as part of our public machinery. Is it not plain that the weight of argument is very strongly in favour in this matter of continuing in our old way? I am using the language of Toryism, but I am addressing a revolutionary party. May we not find a solution and a way of escape, on which we all on both sides of the House agree would be a serious constitutional difficulty, by retaining our old method of representative Government, without resorting to these violent innovations which, as I have pointed out, would not give you any more trustworthy, satisfactory, or accurate reflection of the popular will on a particular question, but at the same time would, I contend, strike a deadly blow at the very foundation of representative Government?
  Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: During the last election we were constantly taunted with the fact that the Referendum was used as a device to extricate us from a dilemma or for the purpose of checkmating the Government. That taunt, anyhow, does not affect me, for long before the resolutions were introduced last year I advocated in my Constituency both by speeches and by pamphlets the principle of the Referendum. It may interest the Committee to know that the proposals that I put forward were welcomed by all sections of my Constituency. My Constituents were agreed that disputed questions should be left to a reference to the people. If the question had been put whether such questions should be left to the people or to the omnipotent power of the Government I believe I should have received a unanimous verdict in favour of making the people the tribune. The Prime Minister, speaking of democracy, tells us that our institutions are the best for making the will of the democracy effective. That is where the difference arises between us. Can anyone determine the will of the people? Under our present system it is almost impossible nowadays to do so. The party machine is so strong, and so ably constructed, that instead of the will of the people coming out freely by a process of delegation or election, it is put down by the party machine. We want the representative system to come up again with the formal stamp of the people upon it. I could give any number of instances in which grievances have been invented or

  1871
  exaggerated, and which, after they have served their turn at an election, have been forgotten and buried. I take my stand on a statement made by the late Lord Salisbury, and frequently quoted, when he said, "When there is a plain decision of the constituents on any one issue, then the House of Lords must accept that …" I am not going to repeat all the arguments which were so well put by my hon. Friend, but I may ask any hon. Member here, and especially those Members who gained their seats by a moderate majority at the recent election, can anyone say whether it was on the question of Tariff Reform or on the question of the House of Lords? It is frequently impossible for any one of us to say for a certainty how we obtained our majority. Therefore we ourselves ought to be thankful to be enabled to get the opinion of our Constituents.
  As for the idea that this House is a proper reflex of the will of the people, I think we have heard enough this evening to show that that is an absurdity. In the first place we know there are a good many Members here who have been planted on the constituency by the party machine. There are those here who simply owe their seats not to their political opinions, but because they happen to be popular in their constituency. As regards this House being a true reflex, I need only quote what the Prime Minister said last Thursday, when he averred that the House of Commons represented "for the time being" the opinions of the mass of the electors, and continued:—
  "I do not say this presumption is always true."
  There is, therefore, but one way, and one way only, by which we can ascertain the will of the people on a clear and definite issue, and that is by submitting a Bill to the decision of the people in a Referendum. I cannot help saying that for a Bill of this sort there are plenty of excellent resolutions and principles which would receive the unanimous approval of all the electors. Put them into a Bill, show how they would work in practice. You would then find that any Bill drafted with circumspection and with care could be put to the test of popular vote. Our Debates and discussions in this House will be found to be more thorough and far more perfect than they are now, and we would have Bills discussed in a proper manner in place of being forced by coercive measures through this House. The Referendum would have this great advan-
  1872
  tage that it would enable us to ascertain the views of the people towards any particular measure. I ask any fair-minded man whether the plan proposed by the Government is not far more revolutionary than the plan contemplated by the Referendum. When the Resolutions were under discussion last year I had an Amendment on the Paper in which I proposed that under certain circumstances measures should be referred to the will of the people. Whether by design or otherwise that Amendment was guillotined, and we never had an opportunity of discussing it. Then we have the objection made that the Referendum would work in favour of the Unionist party and as against the Liberal party. We are told when the Conservative party were in power the machinery of the Referendum would be useless and would not work. I say that the Referendum that could only be exercised in such circumstances would be a very uneven constitutional system, but that that could easily be remedied. I have an Amendment on the Paper by which 200 Members if they wish to do so could have Referendum even though the Conservative Government were in power.
  The most curious argument of all advanced against the Referendum is this, that the electors would be unable to understand the complexity of any Bill submitted to them. That seems to me to be a very strange argument from the party which introduced the Reform Bill of 1885. I well remember that Members opposite then went about the country, and their cry was, "Trust the people," and when it was argued from this side that the new electorate might not understand these complex questions the answer given was, "Educate them up to them." An answer in which I quite agree.
  Now when we are discussing the Referendum it is the party opposite that maintains people are too ignorant to understand them. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out if they were too stupid to understand the Bill put before them at a Referendum how can they understand half a dozen Bills put before them at the General Election. When hon. Members opposite in their election addresses put forward the parrot and catch cries of "Trust the electors," why is it now, when the opportunity arises, they fail to give effect to these cries. Here is what the Lord Chancellor said:—
  "I speak in no-sense with disrespect of the electors, whom I sincerely respect and whose opinion I am always prepared to accept, when I say it is a false piece of flattery to pretend that in considering a big measure

  1873
  without the opportunity of investigating and discussing its provisions, they are as competent to settle the controversy as the House of Commons and this House under our ordinary forms."
  Hon. Members agree with what the Lord Chancellor said. I will now give another authority, Lord Morley. He says:
  "I conceive that to set up as the great cardinal and organic standard of Parliamentary life the standard of always consulting and being guided by, and thinking of nothing else but what the people desire, is to my mind a thoroughly wrong standard."
  Our idea is we want legislation which will come up to the standard of the people's desires. Speaking of the trust of the people and faith in their intelligence I should like to read what the "Daily-Chronicle" says:—
  "The Referendum would transfer authority from Ministers to the man in the street. It is passing strange that prudent men should he so rash as to give
  countenance to this attempt to remove the seat of Authority from the wisdom of the Senate to the ignorance of the street."
  When the Liberal party is praised to the skies for their trust in the people the moment the question of the Referendum arises then they declare the people are too ignorant. I would rather take the opinion of the paper which is not attached to the Liberal party and which expresses its own independent opinion, and that is "Justice"—
  The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place, and claimed to move. "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 166.

  Division No. 187.]

  AYES.

  [7.54 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harwood, George

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Adamson, William

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Adkins, W Ryland D.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crooks, William

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Cullinan, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hinds, John

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hodge, John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardigan)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Delany, William

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Dillon, John

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Doris, William

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Barry, Redmond John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Barton, W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Johnson, W.

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Elverston, H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Falconer, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Keating, M.

  Boland, John Pius

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kelly, Edward

  Bowerman, C W.

  Field, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kilbride, Denis

  Brace, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Brigg, Sir John

  France, G. A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Lansbury, George

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Gill, A. H.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd. Cockerm'th)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Goldstone, Frank

  Logan, John William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lundon, T.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C (Poplar)

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hackett, J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hancock, J. G

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  M'Callum, John M.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Clough, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Manfield, Harry

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Pointer, Joseph

  Summers, James Wooley

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Sutton, John E.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Molloy, M.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Radford, G. H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Mooney, John J.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Reddy, M.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Muldoon, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wardle, George J.

  Munro, R.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Waring, Walter

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Richards, Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Neilson, Francis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Webb, H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rowlands, James

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  O'Dowd, John

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ogden, Fred

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  O'Grady, James

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  O'Malley, William

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow. Bridgeton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Shee, James John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Winfrey, Richard

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Smyth, Thomas F.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Snowden, Philip

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  NOES.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hoare, S. J. G

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ashley, W. W.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Baird, J. L.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Kerry, Earl of

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dixon, C. H.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lane-Fox. G. R.

  Barnston, H.

  Falle, B. G.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Bird, A.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bull, Sir William James

  Grant, J. A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gretton, John

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Butcher, J. G.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Campion, W. R.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Cator, John

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cautley, H. s.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Cave, George

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Orde-Powlet, Hon. W. G. A.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  1876

  1877

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Stanier, Beville

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

  Starkey, John R.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Rice, Hon. w.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, No

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Younger, George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinal

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Question put, "That the words, 'that Bill,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 164.

  Division No. 188.]

  AYES.

  [8.5 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hodge, John

  Abraham, Rt Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Crooks, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crumley, Patrick

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Adamson, William

  Cullinan, John

  Hughes, S. L.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Johnson, W.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Delany, William

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Doris, William

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Joyce, Michael

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Keating, M.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Elverston, H.

  Kelly, Edward

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barry, Redmond John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barton, W.

  Falconer, J.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lansbury, George

  Benn, W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Field, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd. Cockerm'th)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Fitzgibbon, James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Black, Arthur W.

  France, G. A

  Logan, John William

  Boland, John Plus

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gill, A. H.

  Lundon, T.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Brace, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Brigg, Sir John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hackett, J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hancock J. G.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Manfield, Harry

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Harwood, George

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Chappie, Dr. W. A.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Molloy, M.

  Clough, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Montagu, Hon E. S.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  Morrell, Philip

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Muldoon, John

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hinds, John

  Munro, R.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Neilson, Francis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Richards, Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Waring, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Ogden, Fred

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wason, Rt. Ken. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Grady, James

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Webb, H.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Malley, William

  Rowntree, Arnold

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sheeny, David

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Winfrey, Richard

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Radford, G H

  Summers, James Wooley

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Sutton, John E.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Tennant, Harold John

  NOES.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Croft, Henry Page

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Ashley, W. W

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Astor, Waldorf

  Dixon, C. H.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Baird, J. L.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Falle, B. G.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, Win J. MacGeagh

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Malcolm, Ian

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Barnston, H.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goldman, C. S.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Grant, J. A.

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Bigland, Alfred

  Greene, W. R.

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Bird, A.

  Gretton, John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Campion, W. R.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

  Carlile, Edward Hildrcd

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Castlereigh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Cator, John

  Hills, J. W.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cave, George

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kerry, Earl of

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanier, Beville

  1880

  1881

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Starkey, John B.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinal

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Worthington-Evans, L

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Stewart, Gershom

  Walker, Col. William. Hall

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Younger, George

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  The CHAIRMAN: I may say, for the convenience of the Committee, that the next Amendment which I shall call upon is in the name of the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Goldman).—(In Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "introduction" [" unless two years have elapsed between the date of the first introduction"], and to insert instead thereof the word "passing.")—I have passed over several Amendments dealing with the enacting words. They should be raised as a new Clause. I will, however, keep an open mind with regard to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel).
  [The subsequent Amendments to which the Chairman referred were the following:—
  (2) In Sub-section (1), after the word "unless" ["Provided that this provision shall not take effect unless "] to insert the words "in each Session in which a Bill is dealt with in the House of Commons under this Section that House meets for the despatch of business on at least one hundred and twenty days, nor unless."
  (1) In Sub-section (1), after the word "Bill" ["House of Lords has not consented to the Bill"], to insert the words, "Provided that at least three months shall have elapsed between the end of each such Session and the commencement of the next Session, and further."]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 1st May.

GENERAL MINIMUM WAGE.
Mr. CROOKSrose to call attention to the need for a general 30s. minimum wage, and moved, "That the right of every family of the country to an income sufficient to enable it to maintain its members in decency and comfort should
1882
be recognised; and this House is therefore of opinion that a general minimum wage of 30s. per week for every adult worker should be established by law, and also declares that the Government should set an example by adopting this standard in its own workshops."
I make bold to assert this is the most important proposal that has ever been made to this House, certainly in my lifetime. It is more important, and should take a higher place even than the question of the defence of the Empire, represented by "Dreadnoughts" and armaments. Whatever may be said of the necessity of defending the Empire, there is a good deal more to be said, and it should demand a good deal more respect, for creating a healthy people, to prevent the degeneration of our race. I may say at the outset I charge no Member of this House, and no one outside this House, with any want of sympathy with the cause we are pleading to-night. Sympathy is nearly the cheapest thing in the world. You can get it poured over you with a sieve on certain occasions, and on other occasions it is laid on with a trowel; but people never feel inclined to give you much. I daresay the heart of this House has been touched a good many times. Everyone says, "How sad! But you are not the only one whose heart is touched with sympathy for the poor." I have in my mind many election addresses, representing all shades of opinion in this House, and those election addresses invariably wind up with, "and my heart bleeds for the poor." I have been alarmed several times in my lifetime when I have inquired the age of the person whose heart has been bleeding for the poor, and I have wondered what they have been doing all their life that they have not done anything to help the poor. It is a dangerous thing to have a bleeding heart unless you are prepared to do something for it. I have been listening to hear whether the House was keen or not on the Referendum, and to the wonderful things it would do. I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite would accept my Motion as a matter to be

1883
submitted to the Referendum. Supposing they did, I would ask them to go one better, and to remember that, if they vote for our minimum of 30s. a week for an ordinary adult workman, the first thing they should do when they occupy these Benches would be to introduce a measure granting 30s. per week all round. They will not do that. They will pour out a great deal of sympathy, and challenge votes. I want to get a bit lower down than all the political scare on either one side or the other. The greatest and most important thing in our country to me is a child. It is to me the biggest thing in the Empire. I have left off talking about "the children of to-day being the men and women of to-morrow," and I realise to the full that the children of to-day are going to be the governors and administrators of a great Empire to-morrow. Neither do I go about talking of the general degeneration of our race. I believe, given a square opportunity, there is as much, nay more, initiative, capacity, and inventive faculty in our people of to-day than ever before.
It will be said, "What, 30s. per week for anybody and everybody! What are you going to do with the slackers, the idlers, and the poor old men who are employed just for the sake of employing them?" I have got past all that. I do not believe a word of it. You take the old men and the cripples, and use them to keep wages down. You do not and never will employ men for the love of God. You employ them for what you can make out of them. I am not talking of any individuals. Here and there, there is a good employer. I was blessed with one myself. He was an extraordinarily good man, and he looked after me carefully and well, or I should not be here to say what I am going to say; but in a general way a workman is employed for what can be made out of him. You do not keep the slacker or the fellow who is not up to the standard on for love. If he is not worth his money, you do not employ him, and you are not likely to do so if I carry this Resolution. You will always have the pick of the market. This is the sort of case which is continually being put to me: "I once knew a man. He was six feet high, he weighed fifteen stone, and he was strong enough to fell an ox. I offered him a job, and he would not do it. What are you going to say to that?" I have invariably replied: "I knew a man
1884
only he did not work for his daily bread. They took him down to the Law Courts to see whether he was capable of managing his own affairs, and the courts decided he was utterly incapable, and they nominated a trustee to manage his business, but they left him in the 'other place' to manage ours." When you start talking about you once knew a man, remember we always knew another man. We are not pleading for a man who was born tired. We are pleading for the bread-winners, to help to make them independent. Why are we always to be told of somebody who works in the country for 14s. a week, and somebody another man knows who works for 17s. a week, and, "if a man is willing to work for 17s. a week, why do you want to give him 30s. a week? Do you mean to apply it all round?" You will also trot out the man—I have heard about him all my lifetime—who only had £1 a week and who saved 10s. a week out of it. A wonderful man! If it was not for his appetite he-could have saved the other 10s.
I know something about human beings, and, when you tell me men are glad to accept certain wages, you do not tell me the other side of the picture. Yon do not tell me it is a choice between bread or no bread at all. You do not tell me he has to take-that or leave it. Goodness knows, I have received enough letters about this 30s. minimum. One begins by calling me an unmitigated villain, which proves I am absolutely right. It is only when you are called names you know you are getting on. This poor creature tells me that her husband gets 25s. a week. She has nine children; she pays 9s. 6d. a week rent, and she does not want a 30s. minimum, because, if the wage were fixed at that, her husband would get the sack and two boys would be put on in his place. Call that freedom of contract. What would feed an ordinary man? Take a soldier for instance. What does it cost to feed a soldier? Remember you have contract prices; you get the meat for 4d. a pound; you get the bread very much cheaper than the ordinary civilian can buy it, and yet it costs 5s. 7d. a week for a soldier's rations. Keep that in your mind. I have another delightful letter here; not from London, but from Portland. Some of us expect to go there some day. I know a man once introduced me to a meeting, and he said the only two things he knew about Crooks were, first, that he had never been in prison, and secondly, the Lord only knew how he had kept out of it. I do not either. Perhaps coming

1885
events cast their shadows before them. Here is a budget from that place. The rent is 6s. 6d., including rates, the coal 2s. 3d. per cwt., brushes and combs—fancy those luxuries—6d., soap 3d., groceries 2s., slate club 9d., insurance 6d., doctor 6d., clothing 1s. 4d., boots 1s. All this for five persons. That leaves out of 27s. 3d. 10s. 6d. for food for the whole family! Yet a soldier costs 5s. 7d. for food alone in order to keep him up to fighting or marching standard, or perhaps to keep his courage up.
Here is a budget from London for a family of four. This is an actual document which was presented to the London County Council by a man who asked to have his wages increased. His rent was 8s., coals 1s. 4d. miscellaneous articles and light 1s. 6d., clothes 1s. 3d., not a very extravagant amount in these times, sick club 1s., insurance Is.; and then he pays into a superannuation fund to show his thrift, to have something when he gets old—he is starving his children when they are young. These items come to 15s. That leaves 12s. for food for the whole family. If you had a load line, a Plimsoll mark for the stomach of the people, what would it amount to? Hon. Members may smile. But they know perfectly well that there is a minimum standard of food which must be given to people under the control of public authorities—to persons in public places or prisons, or workhouses, and if anyone in charge of those places went below that standard he would render himself liable to be prosecuted. He would be told he was a starver; he would be called other dreadful names. But I take it that the standard laid down represents the minimum state of existence as allowed by the law. There are four methods of treating children in this country; some are kept in district schools, some in block schools, some in cottages, and some in scattered homes, and the Local Government Board and its medical adviser—do not forget the medical adviser—says you cannot keep children in health so as to grow up to be useful men and women unless you adopt this dietary scale. It will be admitted that when you are contracting for large numbers it is possible to get provisions cheaper than they can be obtained for an individual family. In the district schools the cost varies from 2s. 1d. to 2s. 4d. per week per child; in the block school, from 1s. 10d. to 2s. 1d; in cottage homes, from 1s. 11d. to 2s. 7d., and in the scattered homes, from 1s. 10½d. to 2s. 10½d.
1886
That is for food alone. If you strike the mean average it is 2s. 3½d. per week per child. Now take an average family of four children. There is 9s. a week gone at once for food for them and a bit over; then you have the man and his wife, and if you are able to keep them on a soldier's rations you have to add another 11s. Thus there is practically £1 gone out of the wages for living in such a way as the Local Government Board have laid down as the minimum standard.
One of the crimes attributed to me and my colleagues in the House was that we have overfed the people. Fancy sis. 3½d. per week for feeding a child! A question the House will remember was put to me at an inquiry which we never had a chance of discussing in this House. The question was: "Can a working man on 30s. a week feed his children in the way you feed them in the workhouses?" I said, "No, you cannot. No more can he. No more is he able to do it." Yet you see that the law, the permanent official, the doctor, and other officials, who are not responsible to the House of Commons have fixed a minimum standard of life for these children—a standard up to which people outside cannot live. Surely we are not asking anything so revolutionary, after all. Hon. Members get up and talk about the Constitution being in danger. Will they say that this is a wild and revolutionary proposal, appalling in the extreme? I venture to think that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is living a bit beyond the 30s. minimum. I have no doubt that the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee sees that proper attention is paid to his creature comforts, and, probably, there will be no dividend paid by the Kitchen Committee. But I often hear the hon. Baronet talk in this House about the Constitution being in danger. He wonders where the money is coming from, and whether the nation can stand it. I have heard that said hundreds of times. I have heard it declared that no-nation could stand it. Yet I suppose there is hardly a Member of this House who has not looked into the fact but who knows that the nation can easily stand it. In this land of ours—I think it was John Davidson, of immortal memory, said it:—
"More than would for all suffice,
Earth from her full bosom pours:
Yet in cities wolfish eyes
Haunt the windows and the door;."
What a shame and a scandal it is that in a civilised land like ours we should to-day be discussing problems which, though some

1887
people laugh and sneer at them, are yet problems of life. There is a proposal on the Paper to add something about Tariff Reform on to my Amendment. Just as if any working men in the country who heard the original proposal could be caught by such chaff as that It is a case of making profit out of loss. I have, of course, addressed many meetings, and I remember saying once to a crowd—and I have addressed many crowds—that even under present conditions and circumstances it is with the utmost difficulty the working classes can make both ends meet. Probably hon. Members will remember the interruption. A woman, in a plaintive voice, cried, "Both ends meat—I should be jolly glad to get one end meat and the other end bread."
Tariff Reform indeed! I shall never forget the first proposal of it. It was so exceedingly simple that even an unlettered and ignorant man like myself could not quite see how it was going to work out. The proposal was that by a 10 per cent. duty on foreign manufactured goods coming into the country the Government could make £10,000,000, but, in addition to that, they were going to keep the goods out. It is a marvellous thing, and I did not see how it was to be done, and I do not see now. Yet somebody will tell us that Tariff Reform is a panacea for all our ills, and in the same breath he will say that he desires to find work for the men at home. As a friend of mine said, "It will find work, Bill; looking for it." In the same breath also they want to know whether we cannot people our Colonies, but you cannot keep the men at home and send them away. You cannot do it both ways, and perhaps hon. Members will take a Referendum upon it. The fact is that no man can live in decency, I say nothing of comfort, on less than 30s. a week, and I do not care whether he is in the towns or in the cities or elsewhere. There are men and women of whom our country should be proud. People who sacrifice—a thing you only read about sometimes. They are people who are the backbone of our country in spite of the fact that they are unknown. It is that same heroism and self-sacrifice which has made our name great all over the world, only why they should not have a better chance I am at a loss to understand. Why should they always be kept in subjection? Why should the pinch of poverty be always with them? When we ask for 30s. a week, by the way
1888
in which the proposal is received you would think we were going to revolutionise the British Empire. Take a man on 30s. a week and ask him to give you an account of his life, and he will give you an answer which I heard the other day:—
"Monday plenty, Tuesday some;
A little Wednesday, Thursday none;
Don't worry about Friday,
You'll get your wages to-morrow."
That is the average life of a man on a miserable wage of 30s. How much worse off is the man with less? When I think of the enormous sacrifices of our people and read stories about Faith, Hope, and Charity, my mind goes back to a real woman who typified those virtues. She was not a beautiful woman. She did not wear beautiful garments, but wore ragged clothes which would not fetch sixpence at a marine store dealer's. Her face was like parchment, but her heart was pure gold. It is to this woman I turn in my mind when I think of my own race. I remember the day when I went to a crescent in a slum, now happily destroyed. In that crescent there were ten houses and ten children. I visited it with a gentleman who wanted to see some of the slums of London and people of that class called it a liberal education in regard to slumming. They went away and wrote about it, but never did anything. I remember that woman's "Good morning, Mr. Crooks," and I was asked what she was crying for, and my reply was, "She is crying because her children will be home presently and she has not got any dinner to give them. Go and give her something." I said. And the reply was, "Why should I?" "Well, I said, "it won't hurt you, and it will help her." Someone said to me, "You see that woman there, Mr. Crooks. Do you know what she did this morning? She has got two children of her own, and she had the only bit of bread in this crescent. But she brought that 2-lb. loaf out, cut it up and divided it among the ten children, and as she handed the last piece to the last child she said, 'That is all, and the Lord knows where we are going to get dinner from, but at any rate it will come. I believe He will not see us without.'"
Just compare that with the progress of your Lady Bountifuls. Here was a woman who gave away what she wanted herself, and all she had in charity. She is the greatest illustration of Faith, Hope, and Charity that I know of, and she believed that her hope would be realised. These things are pictures of the poorest of the poor who toil for their weekly wage.

1889
Sometimes, aye, often, I have been in this House when, in a private Bill, hon Members ask the Government for some specially poor district to set up works in special places. What are we told? Why, that labour is plentiful there. That means that labour is cheap there and it was only a short time since that one of our own Government Departments issued a report in which it was laid down that there must be a natural reservoir for the storing of casual labour for the convenience of employers who may want it. That means that labour may lay and starve, and that it may be picked up occasionally for an odd job and then drop back again into unemployment. And if men like myself dare to attempt to feed the people in that reservoir, then we are told that it is no part of our duty to attempt to adjust social inequality. What a delightful phrase. Does it not run off your tongue easy? In comparison with it Nova Scotia and Philadelphia are not in it. "It is no part of our duty to adjust social inequality." I say this House was created to adjust social inequality. It can do it, and that is what it ought to do. When one turns to the wages paid for labour I wonder if any man ever got more than he earned. I suppose you will answer, "it all depends how much he got where he was," but no man that I ever knew was overpaid for his labour. They tot him up like a piece of machinery, and if there is not any profit at the end of the day they will tell him he does not pay for his rent and he will go out. All we ask is that a man should be treated as a human being, and not as a piece of machinery, with all the loves, the hopes, and desires which make life worth having. I turn to the Government of the day as an employer of labour and I say you, too, have men, and you have contractors who employ men at wages that are not enough to keep the body and soul of two people together, much less any little children, and I do not wonder at all at the Medical Officer of Health for Tottenham declaring that no person there cares to become a mother. They prefer gramophones to babies. The tragedy of the thing, to bring them into the world to everlasting misery when they should be bright and joyful and cheerful! The children I know to-day are far and away better than the children ten years ago, but the miserable feeding has this effect, that by the time they get to an age when they might be useful they become a burden. Up to five, six, seven, or eight years old they may be
1890
fine and chubby, and the mother and father continually make sacrifices to see that they get the necessaries of life, but after that when they have to bustle round the world, they become street urchins and wander about the streets and pick up their daily bread as best they can.
I wonder whether any of you have taken the trouble to speak to any of these children. See the urchins in the street about the age of your own. If they were clean and well clad they would look as nice. Take the trouble to speak to one of them. Instead of getting the reply of a sweet innocent child you get the reply of a cunning old man or woman; are they going to grow up useful members of society? How many times am I going to tell the story of the little boy going home in the night crying all the way. A doctor said, "Don't cry, if God sends mouths, he sends bread for children." The little old man looked up in his face and said, "I know that as well as you. He sends the bread to your house and the mouths to ours." Think of that. It is a tragedy, it is not a comedy, that these children in their own houses and at their own tables should hear the sorrows poured out. "Another mouth, God knows how we are going to fill it." When they get a little older, sixteen or seventeen, go round to the workhouses and infirmaries, and there you will find an abnormal proportion of young girls and young boys, sons and daughters of poor poverty-stricken parents with 30s. a week. They still have to sacrifice. It is not affluence. It is not a day at the Derby once a week, nor a day in the country once a week. It would be everlasting struggle and toil, but you would be saving the boyhood and girlhood of the nation, and the nation wants them. I say to the Government as an employer as I say to every other employer and the large companies and contractors in the country, "You are patriotic. You who believe in the defence of the Empire should remember what was said on the floor of this House half a century ago, 'The foundations of the British Empire are in the kitchens of the working people.'" And they are too, as you well know. You have to look for the defence of your Empire down there, and not in the middle-class and upper-class homes. I say nothing against them, only I ask you to keep the foundations safe.
The Government at least should be model employers. That is now becoming a common platitude. We are always talking about the Government being a model

1891
employer, but no one ever says anything beyond that, because if you talk about raising wages you are told about the law of competition and the inexorable, economic laws which create this kind of thing, and which a man must submit to. The hungry men and women say "Rats on your economic laws; I do not believe in them; feed mo and my children." You say, "Such colossal ignorance, how wretched; send them home to their hungry places again." These men do work. If they do not go to work with a free and open mind, if they carry the sorrows and the wants of their homes to work with them; you get more accidents amongst the badly paid men than amongst any other class of men in the land. Even for their sakes you might do that. Just think if you can. It is Friday and pay-day, and in hundreds of homes a man is going out in the morning, and he shouts upstairs, "I am going, mate, good-bye; don't take the last bits of bread from the kiddies; they will not have any more till I get home." That is men in work, on weekly wages, and in regular employment. There is no person who can deny it. I went to a Government Department once to make an inquiry. I had to go as if I was absolutely unknown. They showed me the wheels that went round, and I had to look surprised. They took me into a Department where women were employed. "How do you select these women?" "They are the widows of men who have served their country faithfully and well, and, of course, we reward them." "Are there any children?" "We always take the women with the biggest families." "Who looks after the children?" "The Lord knows, I do not." "How much a week?" "Eleven shillings." "It is starvation." "It is constant." I hope I have said enough to encourage the House to take this plunge. After all, they are our own fellow creatures—men, women, and children whom the country cannot do without. Surely, if it cannot do without them it ought not to be afraid of spending a few thousand pounds in keeping them in decency and comfort. I want this House to declare for the principle of a fair and living wage, which would be 30s. to an adult worker. The Government should begin to-morrow. Every Department will be most sympathetic; but the circumlocution office, known as the Treasury, which never turns up on occasions like this, will be absent, and we shall never get it. I want the House to declare that where
1892
there is a single human being capable of work he shall be paid a wage which will keep him and his wife in decency.
Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: I beg to second the Motion. I almost feel inclined to sit down with a view to taking a vote at once, because I believe my hon. Friend has made such an impression on the House that if a vote was taken now the Resolution would be carried by a very large majority. I am very pleased to note that there is a different feeling existing now from what existed before the Labour party made their appearance here. There are some who believe it would be very much better for the members of the different industries to organise themselves in trade unions with a view to forcing up wages to 30s., and there are others who believe it is absolutely useless for the House of Commons to interfere with the rates of wages in any way. I am very pleased to say that so far as the Labour Party are concerned, we believe both in trade union and legislative effort. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the Trades Union movement has been the means of increasing wages and reducing hours in all parts of the country to a considerable extent. We find, however, that in the face of the fierce competition which is going on between man and man, it is difficult to raise wages to even the trade union minimum. I heard the Home Secretary say to a deputation a few days ago that there was no finality about legislation. I believe there is no finality in either wages or hours of labour. It is only a question of men organising themselves in trade unions, and using the trade unions as a political lever, and using also the legislature of the day with the view of increasing wages and reducing the hours of labour. I think if there are any who can speak on this question from practical experience, they are the members of the Labour party. I have no hesitation in saying that all the members of that party have had a great deal of experience of this business. I have no hesitation in saying that at one time or other since a member of that party has been married he has been called to keep his wife and children on less than 30s. per week. When I was called upon to keep my wife and family on less than 30s. I found it very difficult to make both ends meet.
If every workman in the country at present was in a position to receive 30s. per week, it should be remembered that

1893
he has to pay anything from a fourth to a fifth of his wages in the shape of rent. That is my experience. Take the ordinary general labourer, who is getting between £1 and 25s. per week, and who is called upon to pay 5s., 6s., or 7s. per week in the shape of rent, and you can understand what it means to the wife and family who have to live on the few shillings which are left. Therefore I believe that, although we may not carry this Resolution to-night, there is a growing feeling in all parts of the country in favour of the increased minimum of 30s. per week. We can say without any hesitation at all that we have organised labour behind us, because at different trades union congresses at which organised labour has been represented to the extent of two millions, and also at the annual meetings of the Labour party, resolutions have been carried in favour of what we call the 30s. minimum. Two years ago, I believe, the principle recognised was that we should call upon the Government to pay 30s. to all adult workers. But workers who are not in Government employment are beginning to recognise that they are entitled to 30s. as well as those who are working for the Government. So far as this Resolution is concerned, we claim to start with a certain number of Members who are going to vote for it. I find that on 8th March last year 150 Members voted in favour of the principle of this particular Resolution. One of the Members for Worcestershire, in the course of his remarks on that occasion, said he hoped that the Labour party meant real business. I think we do mean business. We claim, if this Resolution goes to a Division, that we shall have all those 150 Members who voted on 8th March last year supporting it. If that is so, I have no hesitation in saying that it will be carried by a very large majority.
9.0 P.M.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to another matter. In spite of the increase in the trade of the country, the position of the working classes as a whole is very much worse now than it was a few years ago. My hon. Friend behind me, in a long letter which he sent to the "Daily News," and which was published on 22nd March, says he fears that the proportion of people living in poverty is greater now than in the exceptionally good year 1899. If that is true—I take it that it is true—it supports this claim for a 30s. minimum. I am going to prove that between the years 1890 and 1895 the wages
1894
of the working classes in this country fell £232,836 per week. That is an alarming statement, which I have taken from Government Blue Books. In the "Labour Gazette" of April last which gives the wages for the month of March this year it is stated that they fell over £2,000 per week. If the trade of the country is going up to such an extent as we are told it is, and if wages are falling at the same time, I think you will recognise that the purchasing power of the working classes has become very much less. The cost of living is going up. Rent in the country is always increasing, and if the rent of the working classes increases 3d. to 6d. per week, that means that they have that amount less to spend than they otherwise would have. That goes to prove that the purchasing power of the thousands living in different parts of the country is reduced by that much.
It is a well-known fact that since the unfortunate war in 1900 the cost of living has gone up to a great extent. Anyone who has read the statements made by the chairmen of co-operative societies knows that. These gentlemen have told us on more than one occasion that there has been an increase in the cost of all kinds of commodities, ranging from 15 to 25 per cent. Therefore, if the cost of living has gone up and if the working classes have had no corresponding increase in wages, it must follow that they are now in a worse position than before. I am one of those who believe that this House of Commons should be used for the purpose of improving the condition of the working-classes. Although we may be told that it will be impossible to increase the wages of all workmen to 30s. per week, because the trade of the country will not stand it, and that there are some trades to which it would mean ruination in the face of the keen competition going on between one nation and another, yet there is a great number of industries in this country which have absolutely no foreign competition at all. The railway companies have no foreign competition, yet the average wage of the railway workers is only about 21s. and some odd pence. The average of the men who work on the pit-tops of the collieries, which have no foreign competition, are not more than from £1 to 22s. a week. Is there anyone prepared to tell this House that the colliery proprietor is not in a position to pay more wages than he is paying at present? Will anyone have the audacity to tell this House that the railway companies cannot afford to pay more than they

1895
are paying at present? I have no hesitation in saying that one-half per cent. less in the dividends paid to shareholders of the railway companies would increase the wages of every man up to 30s. We have got the power in this House, if we have got the will.
As regards local authorities it is only a question of altering the composition of the municipalities. Some of the municipalities are more humane than the House of Commons. They have already solved the problem. In the division which I represent—West Ham—we have passed a resolution that no employé of the Corporation shall receive less than 30s., and that no clerk over twenty-one years of age shall receive less than 35s. a week. But if we had a law passed, if this Resolution became an Act of Parliament, it would not leave it to municipalities to carry it into operation. What apples to railway companies also applies to municipalities who are making huge profits out of their gas, water, tram, and electricity departments. Yet you cannot even get the local authorities to move in the matter unless you return a majority of Labour men or Socialists. Then it is easily done. I take it that the time will arrive when there will be a complete change in this House and we shall have a majority of Labour men and Socialists. Then the thing can be done quite easily, and there will be no need to spend time talking about it, or considering old age pensions of 5s. a week at seventy years of age. These things will be things of the past. I have, therefore, the greatest pleasure in seconding this Resolution, and I hope it will be carried by a very large majority.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: We have beard two very remarkable speeches from the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Thorne). Without any offence I do think that those speeches have been most remarkable because of their extraordinarily disappointing character to any one who is really interested in the subject. There was one remark by the Member for West Ham about an Amendment which was voted for by Members on this side of the House in favour of 30s. a week. He forgot to mention that nearly the whole hulk of his own party voted against that Amendment in order to keep the present Government in office.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: That is not so.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will ascertain the facts and if incorrect I am perfectly willing to withdraw it. It really does not affect the merits of the question. The real reason why, without meaning to be offensive for a moment, I do say that these speeches have been extraordinarily disappointing is the fact that they really contribute nothing to bringing either that reform or any other reform in the matter of wages one step nearer to any workers in the country. The hon. Member for Woolwich seemed to think that what he got from this side of the House practically was a mere empty pretence of sympathy.
Mr. CROOKS: No, I do not.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is the tenor of what he said. I am glad he did not think it. Long before he and I were acquainted, he was the one person in Poplar to whom when I heard there was distress there I sent some of the charity which he would quite rightly like to do without. But at the same time what is the good of coming to this House and making speeches with the objects of which we sympathise? We all of us who are really sincere on the subject are equally anxious that those who are working in the country should have a wage by which they would be able to live in decency and comfort. But if we are asked to vote for a principle, surely if that principle is to be anything better than some of those rather undeveloped heavenly bodies which are so gaseous and nebular in consistency that it will take ages before they will solidify, if a principle is going to be brought forward which we are asked to vote for, which is to be of any use at all, surely there ought to some argument brought forward in support of it which goes to show that the proposer and seconder of it have realised the difficulties that stand in the way of its practical adoption, and have done something to think out a solution. Hon. Members below the Gangway and we on this side are alike in one matter. We both of us have given up the old theory that the State should no longer interfere in any way with industry at all. That has been relegated to the rubbish basket. But one thing equally necessary is when you have got the whole of the complex of phenomena of modern life, if you are going to give up the old policy of non-interference, you have got to analyse the conditions and inquire into the difficulties, and if this scheme is to affirm a principle you have got to show that you have realised those difficulties

1897
and that you are ready to meet them. If hon. Members have not done so, then I think they run the risk with regard to a Wages Board which has been pointed out to them by their leader, when he says that unless discrimination is shown, the wise will become involved with the foolish, and nothing but harm will result.
May I just take one or two of the actual difficulties which I would really ask hon. Members if they have thought of even, and if they have thought of them, what solution of them will they propose? From the terms of the Resolution I see that there is a general proposal for a general minimum wage of 30s. Might I ask what is the basis on which you arranged that general minimum wage of 30s.? Is it because it is a standard of decency and comfort, or for what other reason are you asking for if? It is not an idle question, because half the difficulties that have arisen in either Victoria or New Zealand have come from the very fact that the proposers of similar laws there have never decided what is the basis of the laws that they have proposed. May I point this out in concrete form. Suppose you are asking for this wage because it is the minimum decent level of subsistence. I suppose that if there is an unskilled labourer the hon. Members are going to give him that wage of 30s. There are other workmen at the present time earning more than the labourer, but at the same time less than 30s. If you introduce this 30s. minimum, what is going to happen to the compositor in Merthyr Tydvil, who is earning more than the labourer, but still less than the 30s.? What is going to happen to the pressman in the boot factory in Leicester, who earns more than the labourer, but less than 30s.?
Mr. W. THORNE: The Resolution goes on to say 30s. for everybody.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: And that shows what the interruption leads to on the part of the hon. Member or the hon. Member for Glasgow. They are going to pay them rather more, the hon. Member for Glasgow says. What is the result? How are you going to decide how much more they are to be paid? Are you going to set up an arbitration court to decide how much more? Could you do it in any other way? The only way to do it is to set up an arbitration court. But everyone knows how exceedingly unsatisfactory an arbitration court may be, and how you are met with many difficulties the moment you say that a compositor, for example, shall have a wage exceeding
1898
30s. Take one other point. It is proposed that there should be a minimum wage of 30s.; that is to be the level of subsistence. Hon. Members know just as well as I do, or anyone in the House, that the minimum cost of existence is entirely different in London as compared with Manchester, or in Manchester as compared with other parts of the country. The cost in different places of subsistence differs widely in respect of some commodities—rent, food, and the rest of it. Is the hon. Member who interrupted me going to propose that the same minimum shall be applied to all places in the country, though the conditions are entirely different? Go to countries where they have had experience of this type of legislation. We find in Auckland, Wellington, and New Zealand that they have had to discriminate between different places, and that they have not a flat minimum rate. They have had to realise that the cost of rent in Wellington is higher than it is in Auckland, and they have had to vary the minimum rate accordingly. So that there you have the same fact as was realised by a very great trade union of the country that the cost of living varies in different places, and the trade union rate varied also.
I would take Ireland for example. If you were to attempt for one instant to impose the same rate in London or in any part of the country where they embroider linen upon the Donegal industry, then that industry would not be in existence for a year. We were told by the hon. Member who seconded the resolution that this is "real business." Evidently they have not thought out the difficulties of the proposal for a minimum rate, which has already tended to create monopolies in certain districts of New Zealand, and would infallibly kill out certain industries unless the conditions were modified for various parts of the country. The hon. Member who moved this Resolution referred to the fact that the cost of living varied from time to time, as well as from place to place. If the cost of living went up from now, then, surely, the minimum rate must go up. But if the cost of living falls again, are you willing that the minimum should fall or are you going to have a similar phenomenon to the slaughtermen's strike in New Zealand? Hon. Members who support this Resolution do not seem to consider those difficulties, or, at any rate, they have not dealt with them to-night. Yet this is the "real business" to people who are just as anxious about the welfare of the workers as hon.

1899
Members opposite. There is yet another different kind of consideration which affects the subject. The resolution affirms a minimum wage of 30s. for every adult worker. Is the minimum to be applied to women as well as to men? I know that the hon. Member for Leicester considers that in the case of married women, so far as possible, they should be disqualified for work. Though I will not go so far as that, because I think the more production we have the better it is for the community as a whole, I would gladly agree with him that there should be a period of disqualification for married women during the time the family is young and is being brought up, and that the disqualification should be very much more widely extended than it is at present. But supposing married women were taken off the market, and you had only single women, are you going to give them the same rate as is paid to adult men? Is the same level of subsistance to apply to the married man with a family as to the single woman working alone? I am not wishing to be in the least discourteous, as hon. Members know, but here is a difficulty which has to be faced, and have you faced it, and what has been your decision and the reasons for it? I think if there is one thing more difficult than another to anyone who has really tried to think this subject out, it is to try and equate the industrial conditions as between men and women. In the textile districts the matter has been solved in one way. But if you take the single women, in the first place, your existing standard cannot be the same for her as it is for the adult man with a family. It is a most extraordinary and difficult matter to deal with. You may say more or less what standard an adult man with a family ought to have, but I defy anyone in the present state of economic knowledge to know what should be the standard of women's wages—the married woman, the widow, the single woman, or it may be, a girl working for a pocket-money wage. Look at what the hon. Member involves us in. If he says the 30s. minimum, is not to apply to single women he gives away the resolution he has asked us to affirm. But he does something more. Everyone knows that modern employment is always shifting slightly one way or the other as between men and women and he will oust men in some industries and replace them by women. Or
1900
are you going to say that women are to get the same minimum wages as men? I do not want to quote unfairly from the h on. Member for Leicester, but at any rate he has realised as well as many of us, that while there is a great deal of sweating among women, there Is at the same time a great deal of home work and factory work for single women, much of which is carried on at their homes, which is well paid, and is in no sense sweated. But I defy the hon. Member to prove that he was referring to wage earners working for 30s. a week. Again, if a woman gets 30s. a week in the printing trade, is her sister in the mantle-making trade, say, to have a smaller minimum, and if you send up the wages to that extent then you would - kill out that mantle-making trade, as long as you have your present fiscal system. What is more, the mantles made in the trade are not for the better-paid or for the richer people in the country, but are the type of dress and the type of clothing of the wage-earning class, which is the class that spends 1s. 3d. a week upon that to which the hon. Member has referred, and you are increasing their cost of living.
That is the case with regard to women, and the case with regard to boys is really just the same. We all know the case where a man may have turned the whole of his factory from adult men's labour to boys' labour. How are you going to deal with the question of boys' labour? Most of us would gladly agree with anyone opposite that the real function of a boy's work is the preparing for being a good adult worker, and not seriously to be a wage-producing son. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member cheers me, but how is he going to deal with it? The whole question of the age distribution of work is one that I have been trying to go into. It is quite inordinately difficult, and it is one on which we need the newly acquired experience of the Labour Registries to give us some data to solve. If my hon. Friend wishes to regulate the amount of boys in proportion to the amount of men, and to say that only those boys would be employed in a trade who, for example, could be absorbed in that trade when they grow up, then I would like him to go to Manchester and the textile parts of Lancashire and to say that to the cotton operatives who employ, as Mr. Sidney Webb says, in ten times the proportion of boy labour more than the trade will absorb as adults. I am only quoting Mr. Webb as an authority. When you

1901
come to the adults also, what about the details? We have had a rather pitiable tale told to us about the aged and infirm, but how about the ordinary slow worker, a matter which is just as familiar to everybody as it is to me? Are you going to say that he has got to get the minimum wage? If so, then the first thing that will happen in this wicked world is that he will lose his employment. If you have also a right to work, then he is provided for by the Government, which is thereby going to have a selection of the unfittest for its employment. Otherwise you are going to have the underrate worker thrown out of employment. If you say that they have got that difficulty in other places, the way in which they have tried to get over it and the perfect system which has been tried in Victoria and New Zealand has been found altogether unsatisfactory by the workers themselves.
I would only urge one thing with regard to the workers, and with regard to the increased efficiency, the idea of which has been underlying the speeches of the two hon. Members. There is this difference between a proposal like the present and the Trade Union movement, that the Trade Union movement has been resulting in the selection of the fittest and in an impetus and stimulus to them to become fit. The moment you generalise it with a minimum wage, and the moment you add the right to work, you take away that stimulus and impetus which has been one of the chief causes of the good results of the Trade Union movement. There is only one more point in the way of criticism. Have they considered the question of the rising cost of the article, and the rising cost of living? I am not going to quote the hon. Member for Leicester. His opinions are just as well known to his own side as to me. In some cases when you raise the wages I quite agree there is a proportionate or more than proportionate increase in efficiency, but the whole point is whether hon. Members opposite have really thought out to what point that increase in efficiency occurs. For my part I am inclined to think, when I consider the miserably low wages which are paid to agricultural labourers in many parts of the country, that our own labour in Scotland, which is the highest paid agricultural labour, is also the cheapest in the whole labour market. At the same time, when this is to be "real business," and a business proposition, what we want is to have it thought out up to what limit that applies.
1902
Beyond that limit there is every experience to show, and whether it is the evidence of Mr. Askwith, the Board of Trade Arbitrator, or of Miss Mary Macarthur, there is no doubt whatsoever in their minds that on the whole you are going to get a considerable increase in the matter of price. That means if you take the New Zealand experience on my authority opposite and also on that of many others, that there you find that the increase in price has offset the increase in wages, so that the real result to the working people themselves has been no ultimate good when you come to the last conclusion.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The hon. Member has associated me with that opinion. I never said that, but I worked out with a great deal of detail the exact opposite.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would prefer to give the hon. Member his own words, but I cannot at the moment fine the quotation.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It was a system under Tariff Reform, that was my point.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I know the hon. Member said so, but he also stated that the general opinion out there was, and I think he said he concurred in it, that you could not have this proposal without a Tariff Reform system. That also was contained in the hon. Member's article with which, I think, he is equally familiar. But after all, this country is in a different position in many ways from New Zealand or Australia. What we have got to reflect is that here we are dependent on international trade in a way that New Zealand and Australia are not, and we have also got to remember, if we send up the mere cost of production without a proportionate advantage to the working classes involved we shall be—and here, I think, is a fallacy underlying a good many statements on the subject like that of Mr. Webb—if we send up the cost of production in international competition we shall be disadvantaged to an extent that will more than counteract any advantage we get at the time. Not only so, but if we send up the cost of production you will have an article coining in here in many cases undercutting the British article. For my part, of course, I realise with the Australians that the only way in which you can solve it is no doubt by Tariff Reform, yet though I think Tariff Reform can wholly be justified on many

1903
grounds, still that you are to put on a tariff simply to stop the effect of a rise in cost of production is the very worst and most untenable argument on which a good case, from my point of view, could be supported. I always dislike the objection of administration difficulties. But here they are peculiarly formidable. Hon. Members are familiar with the "particulars clause" and the difficulty of enforcing it. Away in Victoria the difficulty has been to get the minimum wage enforced there as laid down by the decisions of the court. Away in Victoria they have said they are in doubt whether it can be or is properly enforced, yet here in England you have got an infinitely greater complexity of conditions, and, if it has been hard to get it enforced ill Victoria, does anyone think, with the whole system of middlemen and ramifications such as those of the clothing trade in the East End, that you would be able to get enforcement in that cheap way in which we were led to believe it will be carried out as soon as a Socialist Government came into power.
Those are the ordinary objections. There are minor ones, such as the determination of piecework, and the difficulty with regard to home work, which you would kill out and send to the factory. With regard to trade unions, if you try to enforce the system by the same means as in New Zealand, you have to make trade unions into corporations, and to put them back into the position they were in at the time of the Taff Vale case. Will the hon. Member go to those ladies whom he proposes to enfranchise and say, "We are going to do away with all home work"—it may or may not be a good thing to do—well knowing that many of the people who are working at home would never go into the factories? Will he also say to his trade union friends that he is going to put the trade unions back into the position they occupied at the time of the Taff Vale case?
When a man is criticising a proposal the sympathy which he expressed at the beginning may appear not quite so sincere as he affirmed; but the real reason which makes us criticise is that when a cause is really important one is the more intolerant of speeches made on behalf of it, which do not explain the difficulty, and really tend to set back the clock rather than to advance it in the matter of industrial progress. Provided you have administration to carry it out, I do not see
1904
any objection in principle to a regulation of wages by law. The regulation of a minimum by law is entirely in harmony with the whole principle of Unionist social policy from the time of Bolingbroke down to Lord Beaconsfield. What it means is that we, like hon. Members opposite, have realised that as between the individual and the State, the policy of non-interference has had its day and gone by. The principle which we would endeavour to embody in our policy is the same principle that has been enunciated by all great political philosophers from Kant and Fichte to the present day—namely, that other things being equal, it is far better, if you are really aiming at the best development of the individuals of the nation, to let the intelligent volition of the individual will have its free play, instead of introducing the automatism of the State. But when other things are not equal, and when circumstances intervene as they do, then it is the proper sphere of the State to enter in, to be a hindrance of those hindrances, and to take away the checks, so that thereby you set free a greater growth of individual initiative and character.
Regulation of minimum conditions has been embodied in many of the reforms carried by Conservative and Unionist statesmen from the time of the first Factory Act of the elder Peel down to Lord Beaconsfield, in the Acts which he carried out in his drainage and sewage policy, which has been the scorn of the precursors of hon. Members opposite. We recognise also—any man of sensibility or intelligence realises perfectly well—that, in the first place, if you can give wages approaching the minimum laid down by the hon. Member you will in many cases set free an increased efficiency. We realise perfectly well that if we can deal better with our boys after the age of fourteen, then as adults they will be able to earn a wage up to and beyond 30s. We realise also perfectly well, in regard to the parasitic trades amongst women particularly, that it may be quite right that they should be put out of existence altogether if they cannot satisfy the decencies of existence. We realise equally what the hon. Member opposite alluded to and might have developed, that the real reason why these parasitic trades cannot work up to a decent minimum is not so much because of themselves as because of the irregular conditions of the husbands and families on whom the women are dependent. We re-

1905
cognise all that, but the situation is not cured or alleviated by what the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) calls "humanitarian heroics," or "the mental sluggishness of well-intentioned persons." What we would ask hon. Members to do, if they really want to effect a genuine reform, and we Unionists are just as anxious for measures of social reform of this nature as anybody on those benches, is to come down to "real business," and to see that the real cure lies not in diatribes, but in a diagnosis of the situation. We ask hon. Members to see that it does not lie in philippics or panegyrics of one kind or another, but it lies in careful prescription. Let them take up the question of the boys and see that decent schemes are carried out for them. Let them analyse the question. Did hon. Members opposite think of going to the President of the Board of Trade and trying to get him to obtain information in the Census that would lead to some knowledge of what was best to be done in the question of the boys? We went to the right hon. Gentleman, though we did not succeed in getting him to do it. Did hon. Members opposite think of going to him?
Mr. CROOKS: Yes, before you were a Member of the House we did that.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member is willing to speak in that way after we have listened to him with courtesy I would ask him what he has done with regard to the worst curse of ail-namely, the irregular labour in the clocks, which he knows so well. You have there a greater cause of hardship and distress than any other which exists. If you want to do something to take away the demoralisation and assist the decent development of the children of the working man, remember that if you cured that irregularity you would lay the foundations of the better wage: take away the demoralisation, and set free that development. Let hon. Members go to Liverpool. In the docks there they get 5s. a day, which is just the hon. Member's proposed wage of 30s. a week. You get there a degradation under that minimum wage of 30s. unparalleled in many much more poorly paid industries. In fact, the system could not exist if it was not buttressed up by the Poor Law at this moment. I remember going into the house of a miserable man working at the docks, and living in Christian Street, Liverpool. He complained to me that the greatest
1906
mistake of his life was when he allowed himself to be lured into Liverpool by the prospect of that 30s. minimum. He would have been infinitely better off if he had stayed in the country at 18s. a week as a labourer. The real scourge of the industrial population is irregularity, and the bad housing and consumption which come with the irregularity.
Mr. CROOKS: Hear, hear.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member says "Hear, hear," but when there was a chance of putting the matter at all straight in the docks of Liverpool what did his own friends do? There was a proposal to introduce something which would have been better than the minimum wage—something analogous to the system of regularising dock labour which obtains under the London and India Docks Company. The system is not perfect, but it is an immense advance on anything which has gone before in the matter of dock labour. But when they were proposing to start something of the sort at Liverpool away went some of the Friends of hon. Members opposite and wrecked the proposal, thus preventing even that small advance being made. Therefore I think we are entitled to ask hon. Members opposite when they bring forward resolutions of this kind, that if they are—as no doubt they are—equally in earnest with ourselves in wishing that something should be done to improve the conditions, they should go into the matter a little more carefully, produce their reasons, and work out their arguments. As it is, at this minute, if I were sick whom would I have? I would not have any itinerant quack who would give me "The Elixir of Life." Give me the patient scientist who discovered the circulation of the blood, the anæsthetic or the anti-toxin serum. It is just the same when you are talking of what you can do by legislation for the benefit of labour. You may not be able to cure, but you can largely remedy if you wish by a measure—Well, take Liverpool again, for example. The variation in any one part of the port is 100 per cent. The variation over the whole port is 20 per cent. only. If hon. Members would combine with us to bring in legislation for saying, for example, that labour in certain trades shall not be employed for a period of less than a week ending on Saturday, it would do more good than all these flamboyant resolutions. Perhaps it is a small matter, but it does not raise the difficulties which these resolutions put before the House. If we want to make

1907
advance on the path of social development, give me instead of this sort of "will'o the wisp," it may be just a rushlight for my guidance, it may be small measures, but measures at least which would enable me to go at least step by step, and at least safely and surely to the end in view.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has overlooked the fact that we had the principle of the minimum wage before us for a space of two years upstairs in the Select Committee on Trade Boards. We heard of all these alleged disadvantages. We had the case of Victoria and the experience of Victoria repeated to us in detail. We had the question of the aged worker brought up. We dealt with all these things as matters of detail. We disposed of them, and we recommended to this House that the principle of a minimum wage should be adopted. This House unanimously agreed with that view. Even, I believe, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was good enough to support us on that occasion—
Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly not. I have never done anything so foolish as that.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I make my heartfelt apology to the hon. Baronet, and congratulate him on distinguishing himself in so singular a manner from the rest of the House on a matter which was given the approval of both parties. I say we dealt with all these things. I hope the House will forgive me for dealing with them briefly, but so much time has already been spent and I want to allow other speakers to follow. I would deal in particular with the point that a rise in the rate of wages must mean a rise in the price of the product, and that that will endanger our export trade. As a matter of fact, it is found that those trades in which we are strongest in the export market, are just those trades in which we are paying the highest rate of wages. For example, in our engineering trade no one would assert that sweating wages are paid. In that trade we are supreme in the world. Take the shipbuilding trade. Take the whole gamut of our trades. If they are examined it will be found that where we are strongest it is where our wages are highest. Indeed, that naturally arises from the economy of high wages.
1908
If there is any danger of raising the strain of competitive power it is not in connection with trades in which wages are high, but rather in connection with those in which wages are low. Therefore, I do not think there will be any difficulty if the principle of the minimum wage were accepted. I cannot conceive there would be any particular difficulty in adjusting that minimum wage to the varying cost of living in different towns. That is already done in a Government Department, in connection with the Post Office. Hon. Members below might have been wiser—indeed, I think they would have been—if they had put a Resolution on the Paper dealing with the principle of a minimum wage without regard to a flat rate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite in his condemnation of that proposal. But if the principle of a minimum wage is conceded—and he argued against that principle as much as he argued against the amount—there is not the slightest difficulty in adjusting that minimum wage to the varying cost of living, whether in the West of Ireland or the West of London.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I never doubted that that could be done—not for a single instant. I only brought out the fact that it was not stated in the Resolution, that it was brought forward, that no word has been said by the Mover or Seconder, that in regard to the Trade Boards Bill, with which the hon. Gentleman had something to do, no provision was made for it.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes. I am glad the hon. Gentleman admits the principle of the minimum wage. I pass to matters of remuneration. The hon. Gentlemen will be aware, for he has studied the subject very closely, that in the Lancashire trades no difficulty has been found in settling the remuneration of men and women. The principle to which I think we should direct ourselves is this: that for the same work there should be equal remuneration. If once that simple principle is grasped all difficulty disappears. Something else arises, and it is this. If that principle is accepted and put into practice we get rid of the great danger of the introduction into trades which ought to be carried on by men of women's labour. I can name trade after trade where, in factories, women are kept at jobs which are not fit women's work. If for the same, job equal pay was given to men and women this economic difficulty would dis-

1909
appear, because if it was a man's job there would be no temptation for the employer to put women into the job. So it is with most of the points which were raised by the hon. Member in his interesting speech. There are not really great difficulties in the way of the introduction of a minimum wage.
I will pass from these considerations, and would remind the House that they will find in the evidence of the Report of the Select Committee on Home Work that all these difficulties have been dealt with, and I think all disposed of. At the present time the Wages Board have already set up a minimum wage, I am happy to say, in the principal sweated trades, and I have the liveliest hope that it will be satisfactory and will bring happiness and comfort to thousands of people in this country. The hon. Gentleman dealt with the difficulties of the introduction and working of a new principle. Will he forgive me if I pass from that and direct the attention of the House to the difficulties of the existing system. I rejoice that my hon. Friend has directed the attention of the House of Commons to-night to this question of wages. There is no subject that more demands the attention of the people of this country, and I confess that I am amazed that public attention is more directed to other matters. Let me tell the House what has occurred to wages in the last fifteen years in this country. The Board of Trade made an investigation into the matter of wages rates in certain trades—the textile, engineering, mining and building trades, and agriculture, and taking these groups of workers the Board of Trade works out particulars which are based on variations in the rates of wages. What has happened in the last fifteen years? Wages have increased 13 per cent., and in the last ten years very little of that 13 per cent. was registered. In the same period wholesale prices have increased by 19 per cent., and the retail prices of food in London for the various articles of consumption, rated according to consumption, have increased 18 per cent.
Sir F. BANBURY: What about Protectionist countries?
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am sorry the hon. Baronet should interrupt; but since he has done so, let me tell him that the rise in cost of living in several Protectionist countries is more, but I do not wish to introduce any question of Tariff Reform into this matter.
Sir F. BANBURY: Have not the wages risen in proportion, or rather more so?
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The wages, as investigated by the Board of Trade, are in relation to certain groups of industries.
Sir F. BANBURY: I mean in Protectionist countries.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the hon. Baronet allow me to pursue my argument without always dragging in the King-Charles' head of Tariff Reform. Wages have risen 13 per cent., while the retail prices have increased 18 per cent.; that is to say, wages, as expressed in commodities, have fallen in these groups of trades, and workers in these trades have received fewer commodities than fifteen years ago. And, apart from these groups of trades, there are other trades in which the rise has not been as much as 13 per cent. If we take railway workers, or general workers, there has not been a rise of 13 per cent. in rates of wages, and as the rise in cost of living applies to them also, there has been an actual fall of a greater amount in the wages of workers outside the particular trades officially reported on.
What has happened in the same period to profits? Here we have the records of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, and if there is any question of Tariff Reform it will not be denied that these records supply the answer. In the same fifteen years the gross assessment for Income Tax has risen by 57 per cent., by a sum, in round figures, of £400,000,000 a year; that is to say by something which is twice as much as would be required to carry out an all-round scheme of 30s. average wages for all the workers in this country. These are very remarkable facts when interpreted in terms of the national income of the country. If you take the national income as being at the present time about £2,000,000,000, one-ninth of the population take one-half of that income. I am treating this serious subject quite seriously, and I am sure these facts are as disagreeable to the hon. Baronet as to all of us.
Sir F. BANBURY: Not at all.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: One-thirtieth of the population take one-third of that income. I made two recent investigations at distances of five years, and the result is this, that the distribution of income in the country has grown rather more unequal the last five years, as might be imagined from the figures I have already

1911
given. It was not my intention merely to trouble the House with these particular facts, mournful as they are; but I want to point out what is the effect of these facts upon the development of the industries of the country. If we take the case of the great mass of the working population of the country, what is there left for them to spend upon ordinary commodities when they have paid the landlord and paid the food bill? Why, the margin that is left over and above that, and over and above the supply of a few lumps of coal for the kitchen, is so small that there is a very small market left for many of the great trades of the country. Let the House reflect upon the meaning of this! All this enormous number of families have only a few shillings a week to spend upon ordinary commodities. All the clothing of the person, the clothing of the house, furniture, upholstery, curtains, carpets, ordinary domestic utensils, ornaments, musical instruments—in all these trades, taken together, the consumption in by the greater number of families is very small indeed. I have calculated that half the families of the country have a call on wholesale prices upon these great trades for only £30,000,000 worth of stuff in the year. Thirty million pounds divided among these enormous number of trades, each of which is hungering for trade, and the captains of industry engaged in which are hungering for business. What is happening in effect? Take the hat trade. The men are paid a certain wage which leave them a very small margin. Take the boot trade. The men are paid a wage which leave them a very small margin after food and fuel are paid for. And remember that the men in these trades are not merely producers, they are consumers also of each other's products. The man who makes hats cannot buy boots, and the man who makes boots cannot buy hats. Take the census of production and look at the last report of that census. Turn to the furniture and upholstering trades. You will find the total production of the furniture trade of this country is worth about £18,000,000 a year. There are 9,000,000 families in the country, so that it comes to this, that the British expenditure upon furniture per family is only 40s. on the average per year. But who is the average, man? As a matter of fact, the greater part of that furniture is consumed by the upper and comfortable classes, and the rest goes to the hotels and such places. The working classes, and
1912
also the lower middle classes of this country, have very poor furniture indeed.
Take the question of trade development. There is a magnificent market lying at the door of our manufacturers. Why is it that they cannot make use of that market? Because of underpaid labour. Each manufacturer who pays a low rate of wages cuts off customers from another manufacturer. He is engaged in economic effect in putting sand into the wheels of the machinery of his brother manufacturer. There are factories full of machinery of the cleverest kind which, when one examines it and sees it at work makes one wonder at the ingenuity of the men who devised it. Here are these machines. Are they at work pouring out the commodities which they ought to be pouring out? If under our modern conditions these machines got to work there would be a glut of commodities. Why are they not doing that? Because in this, as in other countries, as is the case in Germany, Australia, and every country in Europe or the new world, you have this enormous mass of the population who are unable to purchase the products of those machines. The consequence is that those machines come to a standstill and their products cease to be poured out because the people cannot buy them. That is why high wages are economical, and unless the wages of a country are rising steadily, the production of a country in the Home market cannot be rising steadily. We have to develop this Home market, and we cannot do it unless more attention is given to the question of labour.
What is the explanation of the comparative slacking off in the advance m wages during recent years. I think it is to be found in the additional power secured by capital in its relations with labour. I offer my opinion on this point after very careful thought, and I have come to the conclusion that the masters associations and federations are now much stronger trade unions than the men's trade unions, and there is no equal bargaining now going on between the men on the one hand and the masters on the other hand, and the masters have got the upper hand. What other explanation is possible? Wages are comparatively stationary, while profits have been going up by leaps and bounds. They did not go up in the preceding period when wages advanced more than they have done during the last ten or fifteen years. That shows that there is

1913
no want of profit, but it also shows that there is something radically wrong in the relations between those who buy services and those who have only services to offer. Let us think what would be the cost of such a proposition as that which is contained in the resolution of my hon. Friend. The Wages Bill of the country means the income of three-fourths of the people of the country, and that is nearly the entire nation. The wages bill, if a thirty shillings minimum were paid, would come to about £900,000,000 a year. Thus under this earthquaking proposal of my hon. Friend the total remuneration of the greater part of the people of the country would still be far less than one-half of the national income of the country, and much more than one-half would be left as the remuneration of the remaining 11,000,000. On the face of it that shows that the Resolution of my hon. Friend is not so lightly to be dismissed as it was by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me.
I give the hon. Member (Mr. Steel-Maitland) every credit for the obvious sincerity with which he spoke, and I know the great amount of time and thought which he has given to the study of these social problems. I submit there may not be a case—and I should be the last to assert it—for the adoption by the Legislature of the flat minimum rate of wages, but I do believe that there is a strong case for the adoption, or rather for the extension, of the principle of the minimum wage. I hope and, indeed, believe that the principle we adopted in this House in the Parliament before the last of interfering in rates of wages—which we began, and rightly began, with the case of the sweated worker and the home worker—that that principle will find extension to other trades, and that it will gradually range through the whole sphere of industry. I believe that the concentration upon the particular question of wages is entirely necessary for the welfare of the country. If we do not give attention to this question, and if we resign the problem as insoluble, then we resign a great deal indeed. Of what use is legislation if we do not give attention to this point. Take, for example, the question of housing. What is the housing question above all? It is a wages question. There are parts of the country, as we know, where men cannot afford out of their wages to pay the rents which would be demanded by a capital expenditure sufficient
1914
to give the minimum of decent housing. So it is with other questions, the wages question lies very largely at the root of it. I was reading the other day a remarkable poem by one of our minor poets. I may not be able to recite the precise words, but I was very much struck with their truth. They were something to this effect. He was picturing the condition of the ordinary labourer, the man to whom we talk so much about the dignity of labour, being always very careful not to do more than we can possibly help ourselves. I know I am talking to men the majority of whom are soft-handed. The poet pictured one of these labourers, and he summed up his existence from day to day in a few poignant words as follows:—
"To work; to eat; to get the strength to work."
That was the summing up of his life. We have got to see to it that the men who work upon the material framework of our civilisation, the men who create the comforts which we enjoy, the men who create the things that we use from day to day, get a proper remuneration for their labour. We have to address ourselves seriously to this problem, and I believe my hon. Friend by raising this question tonight has performed a service for which we ought to be very grateful.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: With regard to the matter which was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, I have got the facts here. It was an Amendment moved by himself in favour of the Government paying a wage equal to the pay of private employers or local authorities, being 30s. It was moved by the hon. Member himself, but he did not vote for it, although three of them did, including the hon. Member for West Ham. The rest of the Labour party voted against it.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We did not vote for that Amendment because the Government met us on the point. They gave us what we wanted, and since then we have received the thanks of the workers affected by it.
Mr. MORETON FREWEN: On this question I may remind the Committee that Mr. Bright's statement was that the glory of the nation is in the happiness of its cottage homes. I believe, if it were possible by making a payment of 30s. per week to add to the happiness of the cottage homes, all our sympathies would go out in that direction; but I venture to think we are dealing with a question of enormous importance and that the figures

1915
we are exchanging across the floor of the House require a great deal of amendment. I represent a small portion of that comparatively poor country, Ireland, and I venture to recall to the House the figures of the national income of Ireland that were elaborated by the late Sir Robert Giffen and accepted by the Childers Commission. If you divide the whole wealth produced annually in Ireland by its population, the proportion is less than £14 per year, and to give anything like 30s. per week for the workers would swallow up that sum twice over. In this richer country of England the national income is less than £40. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is per head."] That is per head per year. It is quite impossible, under these conditions to distribute anything like 30s. per week to the breadwinners. Let me draw the attention of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money) to the figures to which he himself has referred in the last few minutes. An analysis of the Production Census was published in "The Times" on Wednesday last. I will not anlyse all the returns, but let us take the first and last of the articles. The first is the woodworkers. In the woodworking trades there are 75,000 people employed. The gross production of wealth in the trade is given at £16,000,000 a year and the net production of 75,000 workers is given at £6,000,000 a year. If you divide the whole of the net wealth of those 75,000 workers, after paying for the raw materials, the quotient is only 32s., and you are proposing to give 30s. I do not say that as between labour and capital 30s. to labour and 2s. to capital is unreasonable. I think, on the other hand, it is a reasonable distribution of the wealth that is produced. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton has been discussing two thousand million of gross production, of which he says less than one thousand million is paid in wages. If you take the census of wealth production you will find in any of the trades of the country—I make this statement with absolute confidence—that at least 90 per cent. of the net profits are paid in wages to labour.
I have looked into this question for twenty-five years with the greatest interest, because I believe it goes to the very bottom of the Socialists demands. The demands have my entire sympathy. It is not that I am anti-Socialist, but it is no use juggling with figures and imagining we can make people rich by promising
1916
large sums which they do not earn. The wealth census of the United States has been most carefully kept for the last forty years. I take the wealth census of 1880. It shows an aggregate wealth production of all the workers in the United States of 9,000,000,000 dollars. That was the whole of the income of the year. The late Professor Edward Atkinson—I quote him because he was an extreme Free Trader, and I always, for that reason, rather distrusted his figures—analysed those figures in the most careful way, and he showed that out of 9,000,000,000. 8,100,000,000 dollars was paid directly in wages to labour. I am perfectly convinced that if the Government appointed a Commission, and if that Commission reported on the net wealth produced after paying for raw materials—if they analysed the distribution it would be found that at the very outset 9 per cent. went to capital and 91 per cent. to labour. It absolutely amazes me to hear a statistician of the eminence of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire suggesting that there is two thousand millions of wealth produced of which only one half goes to labour. What business is-paying anything like 40 to 50 per cent. dividend. Thirty shillings appears to be a small sum, but it is not so in the wood trade, with its 75,000 workers. The net profit of that trade is only 32s. per head per week, which has to be distributed between capital and labour. Why the money is not there. We wish heartily that it was. I feel certain we could put this on record that at the present time in any of the civilised countries in the world of the whole amount of wealth annually produced 90 per cent. goes to labour and 10 per cent. to capital outside.
I propose to ask the attention of the House to a source of industrial competition which I believe has in the last thirty years, and I believe will in the next twenty years, bring down wages in this country to a perilously low level, and which will expose us to socialistic difficulties which, wherever I go, more than alarm me. I refer to the awakening of China and the extraordinary pressure of industrial competition coming from yellow labour. I have quite recently left the Pacific coast. Whereas twenty-five years ago the labour danger on the Pacific coast threatening to keep down wages was the immigration of Chinamen, to-day it is the immigration of the products of the Chinaman's labour. I may be permitted, in discussing the question of the awakening of China, to

1917
refer to the steel-rolling mills recently started at Hankau. It was reported by Mr. Watson, the inspector of the United States Steel Corporation, that the wages paid to Chinamen in that mill are one-fifteenth of those paid to white labour at Pittsburg, while the efficiency of yellow labour in the mill is 90 per cent. of that of the white men. I cannot help thinking that if hon. Members would give some consideration to a question to which I have devoted the best years of my life, from what I have seen in China, in Bombay, and in Calcutta, they would realise that this industrial competition has now become a growing risk. I feel convinced that this growing competition is a result of the great fall in silver. Look at the position. Three years since, the Han-Yang iron works at Hankau put iron on board steamships at 16½ taels per ton. The buyers of pig-iron at that time had to pay the exporters 16½ taels a ton, f.o.b. at Hankau. That is equivalent to fifteen gold dollars or £3, but now owing to the fall of exchange the buyers had to pay the exporters ten gold dollars or £2, which was equivalent to the 16½ taels. The value of silver is still falling. The traders and public men of previous generations used to give the closest attention to this question of exchange, and I remember that the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester in 1888 were alarmed beyond words at the expansion of the cotton mills of Bombay and the jute mills of Calcutta. They appointed a very competent Commission to go into the question of the development of these industries in Bombay and Calcutta, and it reported, I think, unanimously that the whole development of that trade was at the expense of Manchester and was caused by the fall of the exchange. I cannot doubt that if the present rates of silver exchange continue we shall have an increasing pressure of Asiatic competition upon our markets, and this is the competition that the white world has to face. I cannot understand how hon. Members fail to see that the fall in the exchange acts as a stimulus to a nation that exports. I take three articles—pig iron, pigs, and pigtails. The Chinamen are for the first time engaged in cutting off their pigtails, and there is an enormous export of human hair. Because of the great fall in exchange they are selling these pigtails on this side of the water for gold, and this fall in the exchange gives them more for their pigtails. Is there any wonder that the fall in exchange
1918
therefore should stimulate the Asiatic exports. A very eminent Chinese mandarin, called Tong Shoa Yi, the year before last, when discussing with me the effect of the fall in exchange said: "Mr. Frewen, when we Chinese used to sell nothing but tea and silk in the London market for a sovereign, that sovereign at the old rates of exchange gave china three taels; and three taels paid the wages of twenty-five Chinese mill hands for one day. To-day whatever-China sells for a gold sovereign gives her in exchange not merely three taels, but eight taels, and eight taels pays the wages of sixty Chinese mill hands for one day." Everything that China exports is affected in the same way by the fall in exchange, and hon. Members opposite should give consideration to this question, of the enormous pressure on our markets caused by the exports of 800,000,000 active workers in Asia. I have seen Bombay and Calcutta grow into great factory towns, and I am certain that if the exchange continues as it is now there will not in twenty-five-years be a ton of steel rails rolled by white labour in the world. This is the competition that hon. Gentlemen opposite have to fear, and you cannot pay 30s. a week wages under competition of that character. The cost of Chinese labour in putting a ton of iron ore on board the cars is only 5d., or 10 cents per ton, and there is no white labour in the world, even if they used steam shovels which could touch the price. We shall find a murderous industrial competition going forward. It is-not a competition that tariffs can check, and if you have high tariffs and the rate of exchange goes on as it is at present, I dread the future in regard to competition from China. If anyone imagines that we can consider such a question here without considering the question of competition, which seems to-be a malaria or a miasma in regard to trade, they are mistaken. I am reminded of the delightful episode in the travels of Queen Elizabeth, when she rode to a certain town, and was met by the burgesses, who did not bring the keys of the town. They offered seven reasons why they had not brought the keys, and the seventh was that there were no keys. If hon. Members vote themselves salaries of 30s. a week as long as the wealth production of the country is no higher than it is now there is no 30s. for them. If hon. Members opposite will bring forward a Motion that the Government should agree that there should be

1919
a distribution of wealth as produced in the proportion of 80 per cent. to all the labour and 20 per cent. to capital, I would support it, but it is impossible to vote for this Motion, as I am certain in the case of Ireland the wealth production of that country divided by the workers is not anything like 15s. a week.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant) (whose remarks were imperfectly heard in the Press Gallery): I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in his excursion into China or bimetallism. It will be a great satisfaction to his friends that he has lost none of that cunning in juggling with figures which he himself has condemned. I do not suppose it will be a matter of surprise to the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks) or to the House generally when I say, on behalf of the Government, I regret—it is a matter of real regret—that I cannot accept the Motion. I cannot hold out any hope that there is an immediate likelihood of no person in the Government service being employed at less than 30s. a week, still less that the Government would embark upon a scheme of legislative enactment for a general minimum wage throughout the whole country. Legislation in advance of public opinion is, I think, usually admitted to be dangerous, but legislation in defiance of both economic laws and principles, and of experience may be even disastrous. I do not wish to say for a moment that true economic fetters can never be burst asunder under any conditions whatever. On the contrary, I think I can show that in exceptional cases these fetters may be sot aside, indeed, they have been set asido by the present Government, and with success. The acceptance of the Motion would mean that in the case of those persons of whom we have any statistics, 7,300,000 of them, in employment 60 per cent. are working at a wage certainly below 30s. a week, and the increase in the wages required to bring their wages up to 30s. a week would be £1,700,000 a week, which would involve an annual charge of no less than £88,000,000. That might be a very desirable thing if it could be done. It is not because I think existing wages are high enough that I am not able to recommend the Motion to the acceptance of the House. It is only because I feel it is impossible. Has my hon. Friend considered the case of agriculture? Has he considered the case of short time and the
1920
case of the casual labourer? Has he considered the case of the town worker as against the rural worker? Are all these wages to be the same, and is the cost of living in a particular locality to receive no consideration whatever? Is the pieceworker to be guaranteed 30s. a week irrespective of the output which he may achieve? I am sure there are a great many difficulties of this kind which must occur to hon. Members. There are two consequences which would be brought about by the adoption of this Resolution to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. I think it will be admitted that any considerable or sudden increase in the rate of wages must in the course of time, if not at once, increase the cost of production, and any increase of that magnitude brought about in such a sudden manner must bring about also a dislocation of labour. If you dislocate your labour, and if you raise your cost of production unduly high, you invite foreign competition into your market, which would render it very precarious if you are to be able to give any work.
Mr. W. THORNE: There is no foreign competition in the Government Departments.
Mr. TENNANT: I am quite cognisant of that, but I am taking the case of general wages as set forth in the words of the Resolution. I think while we all admit that low wages are most undesirable and even disastrous to the community, no wages at all and unemployment may be even worse. One other consideration is that of stereotyping the rate of wages. There are persons who are in receipt of 35s. per week or more who might be dropped down to 30s. by stereotyping the rate of wages and establishing a minimum rate. That was one of the arguments used against the Bill of which I had the honour of moving the Second Reading—namely, the Trade Boards Bill. We all know that one of the arguments used against the establishment of a minimum rate is that it is very apt to degenerate into the establishment of a maximum rate, and to bring down the wages of those who are actually in receipt of a higher rate. Although I am not able to accept the Resolution, I am very glad to have the opportunity which has been afforded by my hon. Friend (Mr. Crooks) of showing a few of the things which have been done by the present Government during the fire or six years they have been in office. No doubt

1921
the hon. Member and his Friends are quite justified in saying that it was through their efforts that an alteration was made in March, 1909, in what is known as the Fair-Wages Resolution. I think I am also entitled to claim for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Sydney Buxton) that he is the original instituter of the Fair-Wages Resolution. While the original Resolution only provided that a contractor should pay the rate of wages current in the district, you have by the new scheme provided that the wages and hours of labour should be as prescribed under that Resolution. I have been able to ascertain from my hon. Friend the Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Acland) what has been done at Woolwich. They increased the minimum rate in 1906 from 21s. to 23s., and that has been raised this year to 24s., with an extra allowance that amounts to another 6d. a week. My hon. Friend informs me that the War Office has actually gone beyond the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution in certain cases, and insisted upon wages even higher than those which are current in the district.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: What increase has been given to the men at Enfield?
Mr. TENNANT: That matter has not been settled yet. They were increased, I think, four years ago. The Post Office can show great increases. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some decreases."] Only for new entrants. Take the London district staff of the Post Office. Since 1905 sorters have been increased from 45s. 5d. to 49s. 7d., telegraphists in the central telegraph office from 44s. 10d. to 49s. 3d., counter clerks and telegraphists from 45s. 3d. to 48s. 2d., and postmen from 30s. to 32s. 10d. Those are considerable increases. If you take the rest, sorting clerks and telegraphists have been increased from 35s. 5d. to 37s. 9d.
Mr. CARLILE: A considerable number of sub-postmasters, who occupied the position for years, have, under the Hobhouse Committee's findings, had their remuneration reduced.
Mr. TENNANT: I was dealing with the established staff. This question I will leave to my right hon. and hon. Friends the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General, who will no doubt be able to deal with it when the opportunity arrives. There is also a schedule of other
1922
advantages, uniform, medical attendance, and so on, which comes to 7s. 8d. a week ill the case of the highest postmen in London. The total cost of these increases is £680,000 a year, which is a very large increase. Coming now to the other great spending Department, the Admiralty, there were increases in 1906 involving a cost of £61,000, in 1908 of £4,500, in 1909 of £2,800, and in 1910 of £3,100—that is altogether upwards of £71,000 a year. The Fair Wages Clause now inserted in all Admiralty contracts for several years past has applied to all buildings and machinery, and in the case of any work done in a dockyard the contractor has paid unskilled labourers the same wages as the dockyard men. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, I am not likely to be one of those who object to the establishment of a minimum wage. I was instrumental in bringing the Trades Board Act before this House, and do not wish for a moment to take that ground, but I would like to revert to what I stated on that measure. On the Second Reading of this measure I stated that the special machinery was intended only for special trades. My hon. Friend the Member for East Northampton, if he had his way, would apply the machinery to all industries of the country; but it was specially stated by my right hon. Friend and by myself that this machinery was designed to deal with industrial diseases and sweating which prevailed in certain trades, and we did not hold out any hopes that it would be applied to the staple industries of the country. The House will be interested to know that so far as concerns the four trades mentioned in the Schedule of the Act, the chain, tailoring (ready made), lace finishing and cardboard box-making rates have actually been fixed and are in force now in respect of chain, and are being arranged now for lace finishing and box-making. We have no fear that by the machinery of the Act we shall run any risk of foreign competition. The imports of chain have been insignificant, the imports of men's and boys' clothing amounted to £44,000, and of boxes to less than probably £50,000. Persons who are engaged in these trades are fully alive to the question of foreign competition, In regard to the question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite, it could be met by international action. The mass of material collected by the Board of Trade in their inquiries shows that the cost of living and rates of wages

1923
vary considerably in the chief countries of the world, and there is no reason to labour the point that a British standard is not applicable to other countries, and an attempt to enforce it might be resented as an impertinence by the foreign workers concerned. A more reasonable course to adopt would seem to be to encourage foreign Governments to take measures with a view to preventing sweating in their countries similar to the action taken here. We are not without hopes that the action of His Majesty's Government in promoting the Trade Board Act will bear fruit abroad.
This is not the only country in which attention has been drawn to sweating. There are movements in France and Germany with a view to regulating the wages of sweated workers, more particularly home workers, and an international conference held at Lugano last autumn passed a resolution that the "most efficacious remedy for the abuses prevalent in regard to home work consists in the organisation of Wages Boards, on the lines of those provided for by the British law." I have not mentioned either Old Age Pensions or Labour Exchanges in this connection. I say that the Government have been serious over this matter at every step, and they have taken every possible opportunity to try and raise the standard of living of the workmen. It is no part of my duty or intention to say that thirty shillings per week is either too low or too high a rate of wages. The actual fixing of the rate must be left to the free play of economic forces. It is part of our duty to help to bring the workmen and employers together, and to provide settlements for them when unfortunately trade disputes have broken out. It would be a disaster to us if in the very difficult work that is done by our Labour Department, and done with signal success, as I think hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will admit the conciliation work is done, I think it would be a disaster if that were to be jeopardised in any way by any public preconceived ideas of what was and what was not a proper rate of wages. Each rate of wages must be decided on its merits. Therefore, while I ask for the free play of economic forces to settle the rate of wages, I also ask for freedom of the power of bargaining between employers and employed, and to that I
1924
know hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway attach great force. I ask for freedom for ourselves from any committals, in order that we may maintain that feeling of public confidence in the impartiality of the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. W. Crooks) by his excellent speech at any rate deserves my personal gratitude, because he has brought public attention to a matter which I cannot help feeling stirs the pulses and quickens the conscience of all right-minded people.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: I fancy the hon. Member for Woolwich would rather have earned a little more than the gratitude of the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not wish to stand between the House and a Division, but I desire to say a word, because on this occasion I shall probably separate myself from most of my colleagues. When I first saw the Motion I thought I should be unable to support it. But I feel so strongly on the subject of the minimum wage in Government Departments and arsenals that I think I must go further than I was prepared to do and support the Motion. My hon. Friend (Mr. Steel-Maitland) made a long and interesting speech, bristling with statistics and details, but there is not an hon. Member who was not fully aware of all the objections which he brought forward. When, however, he accuses hon. Members of not having answered those objections, I would point out that this is not a Bill, but simply a Resolution in favour of a certain proposal. I think the rate of wages in the arsenals should never fall below 30s. a week, especially in the danger zone.
Mr. CROOKSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Sir F. BANBURY: I listened with great interest to the speech of an hon. Member who pointed out that what we have to consider is not only whether or not it is possible to pay a minimum wage of 30s. or 50s. or any other amount per week, but whether or not we can increase the wages paid to our working classes in view of the enormous competition from abroad.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Adjourned at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Income Tax Collection.
  Income Tax Collection.
  Assessment of Brewhouses.
  Assessment of Brewhouses.
  Super-Tax.
  Super-Tax.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  School Improvements (Ireland).
  School Improvements (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (County Cavan).
  Evicted Tenants (County Cavan).
  Fuller Estate, Cappagh, Caherciveen.
  Fuller Estate, Cappagh, Caherciveen.
  Turbary Rights, Killala Union, County Mayo.
  Turbary Rights, Killala Union, County Mayo.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Applications (County Mayo).
  Reinstatement Applications (County Mayo).
  Decorations (Royal Navy).
  Decorations (Royal Navy).
  New Dockyard, Dover (Wages).
  New Dockyard, Dover (Wages).
  Cruisers and Battleships Sold.
  Cruisers and Battleships Sold.
  Regular Establishment Officers.
  Regular Establishment Officers.
  Supply of Military Horses.
  Supply of Military Horses.
  Assistant Inspectors of Quarries.
  Assistant Inspectors of Quarries.
  Army Special Reserve (Recruits' Drill, Ireland).
  Army Special Reserve (Recruits' Drill, Ireland).
  Army Rifle (Manufacture).
  Army Rifle (Manufacture).
  Packing-Case Making (Government Contracts).
  Packing-Case Making (Government Contracts).
  Army Clothing Factory (Machinists Earnings).
  Army Clothing Factory (Machinists Earnings).
  Army Special Reserve.
  Army Special Reserve.
  Shops Bill (Grand Committee).
  Shops Bill (Grand Committee).
  Brine Pumping (Cheshire).
  Brine Pumping (Cheshire).
  Conveyancing (Scotland) Bill.
  Conveyancing (Scotland) Bill.
  Seats in the Mall.
  Seats in the Mall.

EARL OE EGMONT.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Charles John, Earl of Egmont, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

VISCOUNT KITCHENER.
Horatio Herbert Baron Kitchener of Khartoum, and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., O.M., General in the Army, lately Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in South Africa, having been created Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum, and of the Vaal in the Colony of the Transvaal, and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord LOCHEE—Took the Oath.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Lord Kilmaine a representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the Viscount Bangor, deceased, with the certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and certificate read.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the petition for additional Provision in the following Bill:
Halifax Corporation.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
BRIGHTON DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Order for the Second Reading To-morrow, discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 12) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 18th and 21st of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 50.)

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
IPSWICH CORPORATION BILL.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (ACTON DISTRICT) BILL.
UPPER MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL.
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL.
PAIGNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
WIDNES AND RUNCORN BRIDGE (TRANSFER) BILL.
CHESTERFIELD GAS AND WATER BOARD BILL.
SEAFORTH AND SEFTON JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
Statute made by the Governing Body of Worcester College, Oxford, on the 30th November, 1910, and sealed on the 9th December, 1910, amending certain of the Statutes of the College: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 51.)

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; to be read 2a To-morrow (The Viscount Haldane) and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 49.)
House adjourned at half-past Four o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.