having called upon the Clerk to read the Order of the Day, and the Clerk having read the first Order, Mr. Speaker called upon Sir Gilbert Parker, who was in possession of the House at the adjournment of the debate on the Address on Tuesday night, to continue his speech.

On a point of order, Sir. Last night I gave notice to both the Clerks at the Table that I intended, with the hon. Member for Chesterfield, to introduce Mr. Harvey, who has been elected for North-East Derbyshire. That notice having been given, is not Mr. Harvey entitled to take his seat?

I have received no notice. It is not possible for a Member to take his seat except during an interval of business. I have already called on the Orders of the Day. The hon. Member will be able to take his seat to-night on the interruption of business, but I am afraid that until that time arrives it will not be possible for him to do so.

resuming his speech, said that he had pointed out to the House that the New Hebrides Convention was entered into without sufficient consideration either for the opinion of the Australasian Government or for the protestations that might be heard in connection with the Convention. The under-Secretary of State for the Colonies had said that during the last twenty years the Australian Colonies had had sufficient time in which to express to the Government their views upon the affairs in the New Hebrides. He thought the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had unwittingly misled the House. All the evidence went to show that the Australian Colonies desired to be represented at any pourparlers with France. That the wish of the Colonies had been disregarded was proved by the Blue-book. From the very first the Government had acted indiscreetly. We went into the New Hebrides in the interests of Australia. In 1887 we entered into a Convention for the protection of life and property, and in 1893 an Order was made in Council for the administration of justice, civil and criminal, as regarded British subjects. In 1901 there was a similar French arrangement, and in 1904 a Commission was appointed for the regulation of disputes as to property, and Residents were appointed. Then came a movement for the settlement of the New Hebrides by emigration from Australia and elsewhere. The Australian and New Zealand Governments held strong views as to what the future of the New Hebrides was to be. France had appointed two experienced men who knew the South Seas, one having been governor of New Caledonia and the other a Captain Bunge who had traded in those seas. Great Britain on the other hand had appointed gentlemen who, however worthy and experienced in the Foreign and Colonial Offices, could not have that intimate knowledge which the French representatives possessed. The result was that the French representatives at the Convention gloried in the success, the triumph they had over British diplomacy. The British Government had acted very unwisely in the matter of Australian representation. As late as October the representative of the New Zealand Government had declared that his Government felt as the Commonwealth of Australia in the matter, and their only course, having regard to the circumstances, was to throw the responsibility of accepting the Convention upon the Imperial Government The New Zealand Government had not been consulted in the first instance and therefore were unable to take any other course. The Prime Minister of Australia had also declared that, not having been consulted during the negotiations in London, and not being able to judge of the possibility of further amendments, the Government of Australia had no option but to throw the whole responsibility upon His Majesty's Government. No one wanted to create differences between the Home Government and the Colonial Governments. We had had enough of that, and no one regretted more than he did that there was ever any difficulty with regard to Natal. Whether it were one side of the House or the other which made the mistake it would be equally serious to all future consultations with Colonial Governments. A most serious mistake had been made by the Government in this matter. There should have been Australian or New Zealand representation. Australia was only a few hundred miles from the New Hebrides, and had made strong representations with regard to certain articles in the Convention. Her opinions, however, had been utterly disregarded. He could not imagine hon. Members feeling that the Government had acted either with discretion or consistency in the matter. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies had made one or two statements in his speech the previous night which he probably would not care to repeat when he came to think the matter over. The hon. Gentleman said—

"The New Hebrides is a group of islands over which no Power has exercised any control. It has been a sort of no-man's land. I mean no man has any authority over it except the men who live there, and as the Prime Minister has already said, owing to the habits of cannibalism and other savage customs, a state of grave disorder has always prevailed. For the last twenty years order has been maintained to some extent through the agency of a joint Naval Commission. British and French ships have patrolled these unclaimed islands and have administered a sort of summary justice wherever any peculiarly atrocious outrage has been committed upon any white men who may have landed incautiously upon them."

He (Sir Gilbert) wondered whether the Under-Secretary would repeat those statements again that day? Probably, however, he had had an opportunity of refreshing his mind, and would allow him (Sir Gilbert) to correct the most obvious misstatements. The New Hebrides were not a no-man's land. It was an absurd error.

It is not a portion of our Empire.

said he wondered what hon. Members would think of the Government which had taken under its protection the native population of the New Hebrides, and at the same time consented to conditions of servitude, called slavery, which had been so vigorously condemned by the Under-Secretary and his colleagues and Party at the last general election. The New Hebrides, he repeated, was not a "no man's land." It was composed of a series of islands. So far as the question of settlement went, France had actually dragged from this Government an assent to set up municipalities in these so-called savage islands. That very question of municipalities was a serious one. France in her colonies gathered her people together in small communities, and the gathering of French people together in small communities in these islands would have the ultimate effect of throwing the New Hebrides into the hands of France as Samoa was thrown into the hands of Germany. But perhaps that was what the Government wanted. He hoped the House would have an opportunity of hearing what the Government's intention really was—whether it was that France should take the commercial power in the New Hebrides, and control the settlements there by her municipalities, and so get the absolute control of the commercial development, effective municipal development, finally taking the islands from us. If that were so the Government might have adopted an easier course and withdrawn from the New Hebrides altogether. He would pass, however, from that subject to the question of the recruiting of natives, prefacing his remarks by saying that the Under-Secretary, who had referred to the New Hebrides as a "no man's land" and a "savage state," should be informed that cannibalism and savagery had almost entirely disappeared; they existed only in the very small islands of the group, and did not exist at all in the islands where the white man had gone to settle or to trade. Mr. Deakin, the Prime Minister of Australia, had made the strongest protests possible against the recruiting of natives. From the Under-Secretary's speech the previous night it was almost impossible to discover whether he meant to say that natives should be recruited from outside the group or whether they should be recruited from inside. The Under-Secretary stated—

"In all this there is an obligation on the employer to repatriate the labourer at the conclusion of his contract, but there is not an obligation upon the labourer to return unless he wishes to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into a mistake; there is no compulsion upon the labourer to return against his will to the New Hebrides, New Caledonia, Fiji or Queensland. But I say without hesitation that there is nothing in this Convention which prevents the Kanaka, who has moved from one island to another to earn his living under indentures, from going on working in that very island, or from bringing his wife and children to settle with him in that island, and remaining there for the rest of his life."

That seemed to him an inadequate explanation of what was a difficult problem. He thought it would have been better if the Government had frankly stated that it had made a departure from its principles in regard to the recruiting of natives in order to satisfy the planter. He would like to read a statement from a very important book, entitled "Saints and Savages," by Robert Lamb. It was there stated—

"Every ship had now to be licensed and had to carry a Government representative or agent whose presence prevented abuses. Further, every labour ship had to hoist a black ball at the masthead to indicate her character to the islanders.…There is no doubt it is responsible in a large measure for depopulating the group and for retarding the work of the Mission. It is very hard for a man, after spending the best years of his life on their education and training, to stand on the shore and see the cream of his young men shipped away to Queensland for the benefit of the planters. These young converts were destined to be teachers, but suddenly infatuated with a desire to see the world they were gone within an hour, often to return as wrecks, or not at all. He must begin his task all over again with the younger lads, perhaps with a similar result, and there was no protection or remedy."

Again in "Lomai of Lenakel" by Frank Paton, was the following—

"This labour traffic has had a dreadful effect in depopulating these inlands. I have studied the question for six years from the island point of view, and I am convinced beyond all shadow of doubt that this is one of the main causes of the dying out of our people. No, the labour traffic is mainly responsible, for it sucks the young life-blood out of the community, breaks up family ties, and everywhere leaves desolation and bad feeling behind it. I have seen a whole village emptied of its young men by the visit of a Queensland labour vessel, and most of their wives then recruited by the next French vessel for Noumea."

The Government had again and again said through its representatives that it cared for the native races under its control. The natives of the New Hebrides had been under the Government's control and that of France, and were the Government prepared to defend such a policy and yet condemn their Unionist predecessors for taking recruits from an immensely populated country, and sending them to South Africa? At any rate the Unionist Government did not take the children of the natives, and he would like to know where in the Convention could be found a provision that the wives of the Kanakas should accompany their husbands. No change had taken place in the method of recruiting. One would have thought the previous night that some large and beneficent measure had been introduced to give the natives better conditions. If the Convention had done anything it had given the British and French residents there better conditions. The Queensland Government gave the natives far better conditions than had been given them by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Queensland Government gave to the Kanakas the right of settlement in the country. The fact of the matter was the Government were more concerned to have the entente cordiale with France emphasised and developed than to show consideration for the opinion of those close to the scene of action and who knew the conditions far better. The Convention would not bear close investigation if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were concerned for the well-being of the native races to the extent which had been so glibly expressed in that House and elsewhere. The Unionists had been charged with showing disregard of the native races and with being their tyrants and oppresssors in the interests of the money-getters of the Transvaal. But the greed and gain in the new position of affairs was now to be transferred to the planters in Fiji and to the white workers and planters of New Caledonia. Hon. Members opposite would not be satisfied except with the fullest regulation, but there was nothing in the New Hebrides Ordinance insisting on an explanation being given to the labourer before he left the islands as to what was the nature of his work or exacting a penalty if that explanation was not made. Moreover, this loose ordinance applied to the women as well as to the able-bodied men. He would leave the matter to the judgment of hon. Members below the gangway and behind the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. He did not think they would be prepared to defend the action of the Government, for that House was not without a conscience. It must be remembered that Members of the Opposition had gone through a much sterner ordeal, and in more difficult circumstances, than Ministers could have gone through. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Why?"] The reason was obvious. Since the last election there was the feeling that office must be retained, now that it had been obtained, at any cost. So long out of office as they had been, it was not certain that Members of the Ministerial Party, agreeing with much that he had said, would be prepared to express their opinion in the division lobby, no matter how strong their feelings might be. He had said in regard to the employment of labour that there was no compulsion upon anyone to explain to the labourer what the condition of his labour would be. He remembered how strongly hon. Members expressed their views upon this matter in regard to the Chinese Labour Ordinance. He appealed to the Members of the Labour Party to consider sympathetically what was meant by a working day of fourteen hours, if it was the will of the employers that the natives should work so long. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches desired to see the status of labour lifted throughout the world, whether it was black labour or white. What then did they think of child and female labour being subjected to the compulsion of working from sunrise to sunset, if it were the will of those who employed them? In the Chinese Ordinance they were compelled to have a food schedule. Nothing was left to the employer, but here everything was left to the employer. The New Hebrides Ordinance would not stand comparison with the Chinese Labour Ordinance, and the dealings of the Government with the Australian and New Zealand Governments could not bear inspection. The conditions of the New Hebrides Convention were not such as could be accepted, if the opinions which the Liberal Party had expressed in the past with regard to Chinese labour were honest.

said that the argument of the Opposition divided itself into two parts—the tu quoque argument that the Government had disregarded the opinion of the Colonies, and ignored the sacred rights of humanity on which the election was won; and secondly that the arrangement made under the Convention was not sufficiently careful to safeguard the interests of the native races in the New Hebrides. The tu quoque argument was not a very profitable one, but as it had been used they were bound to reply to it. Complaint has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, that in this matter of the importation of labour the opinion of the Colonies had been flouted. It was a difficult thing to make a bargain with a great friendly nation like France and avoid friction with the Colonies concerned. He was amazed at the audacity of hon. Members in calling in question the action of the Government in this respect. If a mistake had been made in circumstances of great difficulty, it was nothing to what hon. Gentlemen opposite had done, in flouting the deliberately expressed opinion of Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape in regard to the importation of Chinese labour into South Africa, after those Colonies had helped us to hold the country. Could there be a body of men less entitled to bring forward this charge than those who were hated by the Colonies for trampling on their ideals, at the very moment when they thought they had helped us to hold a portion of our Empire? For one man aggrieved on this question in the self-governing Colonies, there were 10,000 aggrieved over Chinese labour in South Africa. Then it was said that the Government had abandoned their principles the very moment they took office. There was a very complete answer to that. In South Africa this country had complete control and in the New Hebrides we had none, except where our ships could go and the few places where residents could live; and then only over British subjects, who were only a fraction of the inhabitants of these islands. Again, South Africa was a civilised country with equal rights for all men, both black and white, but the late Government imported there a fresh class of servile labourers who were denied equal rights. In the New Hebrides, the Convention would at least mitigate an evil. The hon. Member for Gravesend had suggested that the inhabitants of the islands on the trade routes were so civilised that it was proposed to set up municipalities. As an acute man the right hon. Gentleman foresaw the reply which would be made to the tu quoque argument—viz., that what had been done in this matter was at any rate an improvement. Some fourteen years ago he was for many months in Australia and he believed the hon. Member for Gravesend was there at the same time. Many of his personal friends were concerned in this traffic with the New Hebrides and other islands, and as humane men they were exceedingly anxious with regard to the horrible cruelties to which it gave rise. The state of things which then prevailed was, he was sure the hon. Gentleman would admit, a disgrace to civilisation, and any change made must be for the better. The Blue-book would enlighten them as to the extent of civilisation which prevailed, for they there found that the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific reported of one of the largest of the islands that, except on the shore, it was almost unexplored, and that the inhabitants had as little to do with their neighbours as possible, except as articles of food. He had no desire to join a municipality of which these were the chief inhabitants.

I am sure the hon. and gallant Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not suggest that the municipalities were to be for the natives.

Quite so. But the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that these islanders were more or less civilised on the great trade routes, and it was only right to point out that the allegation that this was a people whose status would be reduced under the Ordinance was not quite in accordance with fact.

Is the fact that they are savages a reason for enslaving them?

said the right hon. Gentleman was quite acute enough to see the point raised, and to understand that the reply to the argument of the hon. Member for Gravesend that these people were so civilised that they were to have municipalities conferred on them, was simply that it was their habit to eateach other Another quotation from the same Report was to the effect that these people were savages not in the sense that they were fierce, but by reason of their very timidity, that they placed no value on human life and would kill one another on the slightest provocation. He held that those who had been in the Antipodes were entitled to say that what was found in the Blue-book—although they might not approve of all of it—was at least an advance in civilisation and a great improvement on the present day state of affairs. No doubt the recruitment of native labour was carried on under circumstances of gross brutality and cruelty and no proper regulations could be made except for British subjects. This Convention proposed to bring all the inhabitants of the New Hebrides under the Ordinance, which must have the effect of diminishing the cruelties now perpetrated. The Convention did many other things, such as preventing the sale of spirits and regulating the sale of rifles and ammunition to the natives, which had been the cause of nearly all the murders and outrages in the New Hebrides. It also prevented the establishment of a penal settlement there and it prohibited the erection of fortifications. He thought they could all join hands in wishing that some emendation could be made of the regulations which were found in the Blue-book. They fully recognised the difficulties there were in reopening the matter with France, and they equally realised that nothing could be done without the consent of France. For many centuries we had been pleased to call ourselves—he thought with justice—the champions of liberty. In recent years France had challenged that supremacy, and if his right hon. friend the Foreign Minister could give the House some assurance that he would reopen negotiations with France, and, whether by amending the Convention or by the issue of regulations, get rid of the objectionable parts of these labour regulations, he believed that every man on that side of the House, and probably on the other side as well, would be grateful. The right hon. Gentleman opposite pointedly asked him whether he would regard with favour the proposal that child labour should be employed under indentures for a long period and for hours of very long duration. His reply was, No. He protested against it now, and he expected that every one on that side would protest against it, and, now that his Majesty's Government had had it brought to their notice, he should expect that they would protest. But their answer was sufficiently clear that, at any rate, it was better than the system under which there was no limitation, and that it was all they could get France to agree to. He thought they had a right to ask, although that answer was complete, could not they appeal to France, who, equally with us, desired to safeguard the liberty of every man, whether black or white, to amend these regulations; and he earnestly appealed to the Foreign Secretary to give to the House some assurance that he would approach France on this subject with a view to removing every possible stain and to enabling the two countries again to take up the position of being determined under all circumstances and at all times to maintain a high standard of freedom for every man, woman and child, black or white.

said that he thought his hon. and gallant friend who had just spoken was wrong in supposing that we had no power in the Pacific Islands, including the New Hebrides, over the natives, because there was a certain protection given by Orders in Council. The trade was mainly conducted in British ships, but no doubt there might be a tendency to throw it into the hands of French, German, and American captains in order to avoid those regulations. If this matter was to be debated with any advantage and not to be confined to mere Party recrimination, they must ask the Secretary of State to put the House in possession of facts not now in their minds. With regard to the municipalities the whole scheme of this Convention was to put the half-caste population in the same position as the whites. There were many hon. Members who had never been able to take a Party view on these native questions. Their quarrel was with both front benches, or much more with the permanent opinion of the country as reflected in the permanent opinion of the Office which largely made and administered the law. The state of things in this respect was getting worse instead of better, and, whatever might be the special circumstances of this Convention, he could not hope that, by relying solely on colonial opinion, they would institute a better state of things. Their task was to raise the standard in these questions throughout the Empire, here and in the Colonies alike. The Colonies, in this particular case, were, no doubt, aware of the importance of the "blackbird" trade in the New Hebrides to New Caledonia, of which they were jealous and the Government of which they for many reasons disliked. We could not always, on these questions, avoid friction with the great self-governing Colonies. Whenever such friction occurred, Parties in this House were very apt to take it up and make it a matter of complaint against those who had incurred the hostility of colonial opinion. His hon. friend the Member for Gravesend went so far as to allude to the events of 1887 in connection with the New Hebrides, and then proceeded to make a Party attack on the present Government. Why, the origin of these complaints was the proposal of Lord Salisbury in 1886 to hand over the New Hebrides to France, and it was Mr. Deakin's first connection with this question that he came over here, furious on the question, to make a violent protest on that particular subject. No, there was no Party advantage to be derived from these questions. He gave place to no one in his desire to support the great, self-governing Colonies in their views, but there were occasions when we were bound to have friction with one or other of them in the interest of the Empire as a whole. He joined heartily in the view of his hon. and gallant friend that we should try to induce the Government of France to submit to conditions more humane with regard to this "black-birding" traffic between the New Hebrides and New Caledonia than those that prevail at the present time. The ships engaged were mainly British ships, and so far as British subjects were concerned they could be controlled under the Pacific Ordinance and by the Orders in Council. But they could not have a naval force in every bay of the islands, and consequently abuses did exist. The men who were recruited were largely the men who, if they were not recruited, would be murdered in their homes. They were people the Government wanted to get rid of. The recruiting of children in the islands was anew feature, but so far as women were concerned he was informed they had gone in considerable numbers with the men to Queensland. Repatriation had peculiar difficulties, because if they repatriated the unfortunate, unpopular man it was like repatriating the Under-Secretary to the Colonies to the other side. If they popped him down on one side of the island he was admired, respected, and cheered; but on the other side he was eaten. But the whole argument with regard to the New Hebrides showed one of the difficulties of this question. They could not deal with it by comparison with the Chinese Labour Ordinance, which stood upon a wholly different footing. The two cases were not comparable in any way. He was, however, suspicious of the Government, not as individuals, but as representing a policy of the Colonial Office, and to some extent of the Foreign Office, of which he disapproved. There had been immense delay under four successive Governments in getting rid of that which thirty years ago would have been got rid of in a day—the legal status of slavery in the Zanzibar coast-strip. They had a promise of the Under-Secretary, which as a good promise, but which did not as now interpreted take them further than the promise given by the present Leader of the Opposition eleven years ago. They were, therefore, naturally suspicious, and he wanted to ask whether it would be possible to request the French Government to introduce better provisions to amend the Convention such as those which had been framed under the Pacific Orders in Council. The Convention could be applied by ourselves to everybody who was not a French subject. Was it unreasonable that our Government, if they were themselves prepared to improve the proposals of this Convention as against all other ship-captains except French captains, should get the consent of France to impose them as against French captains also? Few Frenchmen were engaged in this business, for, to our shame, it was mainly a trade in British hands.

asked if the right hon. Baronet thought the conditions laid down in this Convention in regard to labour were superior to those laid down in the Queensland Ordinance.

said he did not think so. He urged the Government to appeal to France to impose further restrictions upon the "black-birding" trade.

wished to call attention, before the Secretary of State replied, to a telegram from the Governor of New Zealand to the Secretary of State dated 13th October, 1906, which concluded with these words—

"My Government suggest, however, for your consideration, that there should be, it possible, added to the Convention a final clause to the effect that it may be modified on lines to be subsequently agreed to between the parties." He desired to know whether Article 68, which said that the provisions laid down in the Convention should remain in force until new provisions were settled in virtue of agreement between the signatory powers, was a consequence of that telegram.

I am very much obliged to the hon. Member who has just spoken, for he has anticipated one of the points on which I was going chiefly to rely. I cannot answer his question directly, whether that particular Article 68 was inserted in consequence of the request of the Colony, or whether it was already in the Convention; but that is a matter of small importance. But it is a most important part of the Convention, and the importance of it consists in this, that it is a recognition that this Convention, as it now stands, is one that has been arrived at between ourselves and France after years of suspicion and rivalry. It is the first agreement, and it is, for a first agreement, exceedingly comprehensive. But that Article 68 is in itself a recognition that we do not look upon this agreement as something which is in every detail conclusive and the best possible, but as something which will very probably, in the course of experience, give rise to many suggestions and many proposals for modifications, and, I hope, for improvements. This is an important point to be borne in mind, because the door is deliberately kept open, both by France and by ourselves, to be guided by experience and to propose to each other from time to time, whenever it may appear desirable, that, we should agree upon further modification of the Convention as it now stands. I am indebted also to my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean for the full recognition that might have been expected from anyone of his experience and knowledge that this Convention is a matter for which not one country but two countries are responsible. Never in any part of his speech did he speak as if there was a special responsibility or were special rights connected with this Convention which belonged to England and were not equally shared by France. That is an important matter to bear in mind in criticising this Convention. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gravesend should have spoken at one time as if this Convention was evidence that there had necessarily been some conflict between the entente cordiale with France and the interests of our Colonies. I do not believe that is true. This Convention is founded upon the principle of condominion between France and England over the New Hebrides. It is that condominion—that joint protection—which has been the subject of so much criticism in the Colonies. If there be objection in the Colonies to this Convention, it is not so much to the details of the Convention as it is to the fact that the joint protection is a condominion, and is not an exclusive assertion of British rights in the New Hebrides. But the fact that this is a joint protectorate does not arise out of the entente cordiale with France. It is recognised in the entente cordiale, it is true. We were bound, under the provisions of the late Government, to make arrangements with France in concert with regard to the New Hebrides. We were bound to France by the action of the late Government in the instrument which constituted the entente cordiale. But it was not the entente cordiale or the desire to make the entente cordiale which made it necessary to recognise the condominion of France with us in the New Hebrides. It was the actual state of things existing in the islands long before the entente cordiale was thought of. The hon. Member opposite said this Convention had been a triumph for French diplomacy. It is very undesirable that either party should seem to make capital out of any of these matters, whether it be a triumph for one side or the other or not. But there is no foundation for the statement that this is a triumph over British diplomacy. What is the condition of things disclosed in the Blue-book? Take the number of settlers existing in the islands at the time when these negotiations began, and you will find that the number of French settlers is roughly two-thirds and of British one-third. When you start on our side with one-third to two-thirds of French settlers, and the result is an agreement upon a condominion equally shared between the two, I cannot see that there is any reason to reflect upon British diplomacy. This Convention, as it exists, looking at it from the general point of view, was the best possible under the circumstances. It was the best in every point of view except one, and that one point of view is the point of view of those who consider that by some means or other Great Britain should have obtained exclusive possession of the New Hebrides, and France should have evacuated her interests there altogether.

inquired if it was not the case that Australia and New Zealand rather desired that the sovereignty of the New Hebrides should be divided between the two Powers, the northern islands to go to England, and the southern islands to France.

I will deal with that point in a moment. The one point of view that France should have been the Power to go out of the New Hebrides, and that we should have remained there alone, is, of course, absolutely untenable to any fair-minded man, looking at the proportion of the interests of the two countries. If one country had had to go, we clearly could not claim that the country with two-thirds of the settlers should be the one. Well, then, I put that on one side. There remained three possible courses. One would have been that we should have abandoned our position in the New Hebrides altogether. I put that equally on one side, because we had our interests in the New Hebrides, and the Colonies undoubtedly had a strong interest in the matter, and we were bound to uphold their interests, and I put it out of the question altogether that we should have withdrawn and left the islands entirely to the French. That certainly would not have been palatable to any party, either in the Colonies or here. Then there was the second possibility—that, instead of a condominion or joint protection, there should have been a partition of the islands, and the hon. Member for Gravesend said the Colonies would have preferred a partition. Yes, but when you are in a proportion of one-third to two-thirds, and you are going to engage in negotiations for a partition, it is by no means certain that you will get the best of it. Remember that British interests have been unduly depressed in the New Hebrides during recent years by the high protective duties of the Colonies them- selves, while the French have given more liberal treatment. If we had taken this moment, then, to demand partition, I doubt whether we should not have been open to the charge of having chosen the very worst moment in our own interests or in the interests of the Colonies to demand such a partition. Therefore I do not think partition is desirable; and also on other grounds considering the possibility, or even the probability, of French and British influence working together, I think the prospect is much better for the islands than if they had been divided into two parts, where there would have been a certain rivalry between the separate parts. Well, then, the third and only possible course was the one we pursued of arranging with the French a joint Protectorate and an influence exercised together. I think if you take all that into consideration, whatever point of view might be held by some parties in the Colonies, or by hon. Members opposite, who may be desirous of acquiring more territory or increasing our political influence—I maintain that taking the circumstances as they were, in the New Hebrides by this Convention, either from the point of view of territory or of political influence, we have gained rather than lost. There are drawbacks, no doubt. One drawback, of course, is that of divided responsibility, As I have said, I prefer divided responsibility, keeping the whole in one, to a partition which would certainly have made an artificial separation in the same group, and might have meant rivalry. But when, we come to the question of divided responsibility and to the Labour Ordinance which has been so much attacked, I must ask hon. Members to bear in mind in attacking this particular Labour Ordinance that the whole provisions of the Labour Ordinance were very carefully discussed between both Governments, and any attack directed against the British Government is one which from the nature of things must be equally directed against the Government of another country also. They are both jointly responsible.

May I ask this one question—Whether in point of fact the Australian objections to these Labour provisions were ever brought before the French Government at all, and if they were brought, whether the French Government made any objection to them?

Well, the Australian objections to the Convention I assume were part of the general objections in the long despatch.

They were specifically set out in four or five paragraphs.

Yes, but included in the long despatch. That despatch was received after the Convention had been drawn up, and the reason why the Convention was eventually ratified before these particular amendments could be discussed with the French Government, is a point I will come to later, when I deal with the necessity for completing the Convention without further and prolonged discussion; but I want to deal first of all with the merits of the Labour Ordinance. I do not think either the French or the British Government is fairly open to blame for having drawn up between them this particular Labour Ordinance. I did not know this point was going to be raised, or I would have been present last night to hear the right hon. Gentleman, but I have had an opportunity of reading, with some astonishment, the extent to which he has been moved by the contemplation of this Labour Ordinance in the New Hebrides. He expressed, in stronger language than I think has ever been used in this House before, the horror of political inconsistency. Unless that horror of political inconsistency is assumed, it is strange coming from one of his political experience. He has called us impostors and hypocrites.

I said you would lay yourselves open to that charge.

Well, Sir, I am, then, to understand that the right hon. Gentleman says that we lay ourselves open to the charge, but that he does not make the charge.

As the right hon. Gentleman was not here when I made that speech, and it is only summarised in the reports, I may explain that what I said was that if when the Transvaal Legislature had, as I anticipated, repassed the Ordinance that is now on the Statute Book, when they came with this Ordinance in their hands and His Majesty's Government proposed to veto it, the Government would expose themselves before the whole civilised world to a charge of hypocrisy and imposture, when it became known that only a few months ago they had made themselves responsible for this Convention.

That, of course, is a matter of argument which depends for its value, in my opinion, on the question whether these particular regulations in this Ordinance are really fairly comparable to those of the Chinese Labour Ordinance. He was, according to the report, pained by what has already been done. I think he was reported to have said he was grieved from the bottom of his heart at the conduct of the Government. I do not take these words too seriously, because the impression I gained, though I admit it was only an impression, from reading the report, was not so much that the right hon. Gentleman was really suffering from a great grievance, as that he considered himself to be in possession of a grievance which he would not readily forego. And I must say I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman really was suffering from genuine indignation at anything the present Government has done. I think what really was in his mind was a still rankling resentment of the attacks made upon his own Party by ourselves when we were in Opposition, and I think in the desire to defend Chinese labour, and not a dislike of anything the Government have now done, was the real motive to be found. I do not think, and indeed, my hon. and gallant friend, the Member for Abercromby Division, who speaks with weight and authority on this subject, has already pointed in out, that there is a fair parallel between this Ordinance and the Chinese Labour Ordinance. I pass over as a small matter the fact that this territory of the New Hebrides is territory over which we are not solely responsible, and which is under two flags and not one alone. A much more important matter is this. What was the state of things in the New Hebrides before this new Ordinance was passed? I say in the first place, from my point of view, the introduction of Chinese Labour into South Africa was the introduction of an evil which did not exist there before. I mean an evil under these particular conditions. The introduction in the case of this Ordinance is a great improvement on anything that existed before. The hon. Member for Gravesend looks on the New Hebrides as having been already in a very advanced and peaceful condition, except as regards the smaller islands. The information I have is that even in the larger islands, except near the coast, there has been a state of chaos and anarchy, which meant not only confusion but violence, cannibalism, and slavery, and that the islands, from the lack of any recognised authority over them, have been practically at the mercy of any methods of recruited labour. This Ordinance is the first attempt to introduce a new state of things—not a worse state of things than that which existed in the islands before, but it is the first attempt by agreement to put some order and restrictions upon the people of the islands, and the first thing I would ask about this Ordinance is, Would you have left the whole thing alone? Would you have had no provisions with regard to recruiting, and left things to take their course amongst those people who are savages, but, undoubtedly, very defenceless savages, as regards the means white men may bring to bear upon them with regard to their labour? I say emphatically it would have been a crime not to draw up a Convention, not to introduce some provisions with regard to labour. I say exactly the opposite with regard to the Chinese Labour Ordinance in the Transvaal. It would have been much better to leave things alone and not to introduce the Ordinance. That is the first difference between the two cases. This is a step forward, and not a step backward, in the New Hebrides. Then as to consistency, my own main objection to the Chinese Labour Ordinance has always been practically fourfold. I objected to the restriction of the Chinese to unskilled labour; I objected to the compound system; I objected to the compound system accompanied by some- thing perhaps even worse—the total separation from women and children; and in the fourth place I objected to labourers being introduced under these conditions with the further conditions added that they were to be compulsorily repatriated whenever they ceased to live in the country under these conditions. Not one of these things will be found in this Ordinance. The repatriation under this Ordinance is entirely different from the repatriation under the Chinese Ordinance. This repatriation under the New Hebrides Ordinance is compulsory only on the employer. It is not a condition directed to preventing the labourer continuing to work, or engaging in any employment he likes in the sphere where he is after his indentured labour is over. It is an engagement to ensure that if he wishes to go back, his employer shall be made to send him back. It never occurred to me that it had any other possible reason.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that, supposing a French Government were in want of labourers in the New Hebrides, as they very likely will be, and supposing that under this Convention labourers have been imported to Fiji, he would get any lawyer to support him in saying that under this Convention they would not be entitled to demand that those labourers should at the end of their term be repatriated from Fiji?

Of course the right hon. Gentleman has had legal experience, which I have not, but I cannot see how he can get any such stipulation as that out of the Convention. Supposing labourers had been exported from New Caledonia to Fiji under indenture, my reading of the Convention would be that if they belonged to the French settlement, or were under French influence in the New Hebrides, there would be a right to demand that they should be repatriated at the expense of the employer, provided they were willing to go. Where is the right hon. Gentleman's contention?

The words are "shall be repatriated."

"Shall be" at the employer's expense. I read the whole thing together. It is at the employer's expense that they shall be repatriated. I am sure I am correct in the interpretation of what was in the mind of the people who drew up the Convention, and that they were thinking, not of putting compulsion on the labourer, but of making it clear that if he was sent back it should be at the expense of the employer. If there is any doubt upon the point there will be no difficulty in having that doubt removed. Of course there is nothing in the Convention about compounds, and we do not know, until the experiment is tried, if there will be separation of families. With regard to children—and I am not surprised that on this matter the provisions should be closely scrutinised—we must bear in mind, when it is objected that the provisions will come into force without limitation of any kind and that there is no stipulation as to age in indenturing, that those who were concerned in drawing up the Convention were assured it would be exceedingly difficult to ascertain the ages of children, and so it was left to the Resident Commissioners not to settle the age but to settle the height, and what the height shall be remains to be settled. I cannot say yet what that height will be, but it will be such as will make it exceedingly improbable that labourers under the age of sixteen or even eighteen will be engaged. It is to be settled by the Commissioners, and it is an obligation upon the respective Governments to see that it is settled so as to exclude the employment of children of a tender age. If you say that no children are to be engaged, it will be exceedingly difficult to distinguish between adults and those who are of ages between sixteen and eighteen, no record of age being forthcoming. It is desirable to have something said as a guide to those who are to have authority, and the limitation of height will be some guarantee of strength. Then it has been said that the provision for hours of labour being between sunrise and sunset may lead to abuses contemplated by the hon. Member. Well, if it does, then it will have to be reconsidered and revised. Everyone understands that the work will not be continuous, and I admit at once that if in experience it is so construed the provision will have to be revised. It is not the intention that work shall be continuous; the intention in framing the condition was to prohibit night work, to limit work to daytime. You may say that twelve hours continuous labour is too much for a man; and so it is; but it should be understood that it is not labour in mines only which is contemplated; a great part of the work will be on the surface and will resemble some of the work upon which agricultural labourers are employed in England, and will not be continuous throughout the day. Prima facie I do not think the provision intended solely to prohibit night labour, which declares that labour shall be only between sunrise and sunset, is open to the interpretation and the criticism hon. Members have applied to it.

If they are required, may not natives be employed in the mines of New Caledonia?

Of course for labour in mines under French protection we cannot stipulate the conditions; it will be carried on under the Convention and French regulations, and there is no doubt that labour in mines must be governed by regulations more strict and more carefully considered than the looser rules that apply to work above ground. When you come to the question of recruiting for labour outside the island, I may say the intention was that labourers should be primarily used for labour in the islands within the group, and from island to island in the group itself. You could not prohibit recruiting for labour outside the island without excluding New Caledonia, and as the agreement is with France that liberty must be left and the fact of allowing the competition will tend to the advantage of the labourers in position and wages. In all these matters, and with this group of islands in their primitive state, it is an experiment that is being set up, and we must be guided by experience. I entirely agree that the provisions of the Labour Ordinance which the representatives of the two Governments have drawn up with the knowledge at their disposal will, and must be, carefully watched; and if experience shows that any of the provisions are open to the abuses hon. Members have anticipated, undoubtedly we shall be perfectly willing to approach the French Government and discuss with them the possibility of amending or improving the provisions. And now I come to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in reference to the objections raised by the Colonies and whether they were discussed at the Conference. When the suggestions from the Colonies came it would have been very undesirable to delay the ratification of the Convention by entering upon a long discussion of further points, and that will be the opinion of the Colonies themselves. The Colonies, no less than the British Government, rightly or wrongly, were apprehensive that if an arrangement were further delayed complications might arise that would make as good an arrangement as this problematical and exceedingly difficult in the future. The Colonies agreed that an arrangement should be concluded without delay establishing a joint protectorate of France and Great Britain over the New Hebrides. We proposed to the French Government to get over the difficulty by at once proclaiming a joint protectorate, reserving a Convention for future discussion; but this the French Government declined with an objection of some force, that to make a public declaration of that kind would imply that France and Great Britain were doubtful as to their having the vested interests in the islands we considered they had up to that time. They represented, and I think rightly represented, that it would be undesirable to declare a joint protectorate without also entering into a Convention. In these circumstances we had no choice, and I think undoubtedly the best course was to ratify the Convention and to defer consideration of further amendment and improvement in it, which we are entitled to propose under Article 68 already alluded to. Now I ask hon. Members opposite, if they had had to deal with a situation that thus arose, when it was considered desirable even by the Colonies themselves to conclude an agreement without delay, would they have hung up the Convention to discuss points of detail? If they would have done so, they would have run the risk of complications that might have made a settlement more difficult. If they would not have hung up the Convention, then I do not see what ground of complaint they have against His Majesty's Government. We have not ignored the Colonies, we have borne their interests in mind; and, taking those interests into account with the interests of this country, of France and the New Hebrides, we have framed a Convention which will not only result in the harmonious working of relations between the two countries, but will result in increase of colonial trade and of British influence.

I should like to say that I think the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean and other hon. Members opposite are rather too late in the day in protesting against importing this question of a Labour Ordinance into Party politics. It is very curious to observe the agility and ingenuity of the ablest members of the Ministry in defending themselves against charges very similar to those which they made against the late Government when in office. It is not denied that the Ordinance contains many things which are undesirable, but it is justified on the grounds that it was the joint action of the representatives of France and ourselves with the object of improving the existing state of things in the New Hebrides, and that it was the best that could be done in the circumstances. I think that any impartial observer will admit that the Leader of the Opposition was well justified in raising this question last night, and that this Government have adopted a course very similar to that by which the late Government defended their policy. It is remarkable that throughout this debate there has run the suggestion that the difficulty in connection with the removal of the objectionable features from the Ordinance is due to the joint action of France and ourselves; but I did not hear from the right hon. Baronet the Foreign Secretary or from the Under-secretary for the Colonies that a definite suggestion had been offered by the Government of this country to France that an alteration of these objectionable features should be made, or that the French Government had objected to agree to such a suggestion. I think, therefore, that His Majesty's Government must accept the whole responsibility for these objectionable features, and I do not think it was open to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to criticise the late Government with so much bitterness and so much advantage to themselves during the last election for having adopted the course which they now pursue. The Prime Minister in his speech yesterday made a very remarkable reply to my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, who naturally complained that in the gracious Speech from the Throne no reference had been made to the forthcoming Colonial Conference. The Prime Minister began by saying that he was going to make a serious speech—thereby implying that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was not serious—and that the Government were not ashamed to follow the example of their predecessors. That, I think, can hardly be regarded as a serious answer to the great question raised by my right hon. friend, because the circumstances are now totally different from those in which former Conferences assembled. They cannot quote our action on previous occasions against us unless the conditions were similar, which I maintain they were not. The conditions of the Conferences of 1897 and 1902 were totally different from those of the forthcoming Conference, the first one arising out of the attendance of the Colonial Prime Ministers at the Diamond Jubilee, and the second at the suggestion of the then Colonial Secretary. Apart altogether from that, however, I submit that the whole position of the Colonial Conference, and the presence in this country of the Colonial representatives, has undergone a complete change in the last few years. There is now attached to these conferences an amount of importance and public interest which has never before attached to any similar conferences. Whatever views hon. Members opposite may take in regard to the actions of the late Secretary for the Colonies, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, no one can dispute that one of the results of his tenure of office was to arouse deep interest in Colonial affairs and questions touching the relations of the Colonies and the Mother Country. Another effect was to bring into greater prominence all those great questions affecting Imperial defence, trade relations, and a variety of other questions in which the Colonies are interested. Therefore, quite apart from precedent, there is the great fact that the Conference this year is surrounded by greater interest and greater importance than any of its predecessors, and on that ground alone it is a matter of surprise that no reference is made to it in the gracious Speech from the Throne. The Prime Minister referred to steps that are to be taken in regard to another place, and he said the reason for that action is to be found in the treatment by another place of two great measures which passed the House of Commons last session—the Education Bill and the Plural Voting Bill. I think the Government will want some stronger ground upon which to base their proposals for such a change in the Constitution than is to be found in the action of another place in regard to those Bills. The first Bill was only so treated as to make it more in conformity with the declarations of Ministers and to make it more fair and just than it would otherwise have been. The second Bill attempted to tinker with the Constitution of the country by altering the system on which men were qualified to vote, and it proposed to do that by the extraordinary method of penalising electors and exposing them to the risk of imprisonment if they made a mistake. Another question dealt with by the Prime Minister was in reference to Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman used remarkable language. I submit with confidence—and I can quote in support of my contention the writings, of eminent men—that that declaration of the Prime Minister is one that it will be extremely difficult to justify either by any policy proposed from those Benches or by any speech when we come to close quarters. The Prime Minister's first point is that you are to give to Ireland power to manage her own affairs provided she does not interfere with our own, and also we are to adopt the Colonial model. But the Colonial model is quite inappropriate if we are to retain, as the Prime Minister suggests, the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. The Prime Minister did not condescend to any details, and he interrupted the Leader of the Opposition when he said that he thought the Prime Minister was in favour of the forward policy—the larger policy which meant separation between Great Britain and Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that was not the proper description of his views. He then described what he regarded as being the right policy, the application to Ireland of the Colonial model. I ask confidently, if that is the policy of the Government, if their intention is to make Ireland a self-governing country just as Canada and Australia are, by what means do they propose to secure that condition upon which so much stress was laid at the general election, the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament? Where is the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament in regard to the affairs of Canada and Australiain their general management? Are we to understand that this Colonial model is to be adopted and followed, involving as it does in Canada and Australia not only the power to maintain an armed force, the balance of power in connection with the administration of justice, but the maintenance of a sufficient and efficient police. These are questions which surely cannot entirely be left to be answered until we come to the actual and definite proposals of the Government. Surely in the face of a declaration such as this, that we are to have a system of Home Rule such as exists in the Colonies, and that at the same time the Imperial supremacy is to be maintained, and after the delcaration of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford yesterday, who with his friends has never wavered and never departed from the position he has taken up, we are entitled to s more explanation. The hon. Member used language which meant that Ireland should have a separate Parliament with an executive responsible to it. If that is the policy of the Government, then again I ask what becomes s of all those declarations made during the general election and since, that Home Rule was not before the electors and forms no part of the policy of the Government? To call proposals of this kind devolution is simply to use language which is not only misleading but absolutely ridiculous. We are asked by some of our critics to look at these proposals before we condemn them, and we are asked to consider whether there may not be found in them some advantage to Irish government which should demand from us some support of them. How can that demand be made when the Irish leader and the Prime Minister make it perfectly clear I that the real object of the provisions which they desire to pass in the first instance is not to remove this bone of contention and give the Irish people some measure which would satisfy them and put an end to the policy of separation, but is to lead up to the wider policy declared by the hon. Member for Waterford—thepolicy of a separate Parliament, which the right hon. Gentleman denounced during the general election, and which the Government said we had no right to put before the country as a question of practical politics. I submit that after the statement made by the Prime Minister and the explanation of it by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, of which there was no denial, the conception which the hon. and learned Member holds of self-government is the conception held by the Prime Minister. Hon. Member who were present will remember that the hon. and learner Member made his point perfectly clear, and not only was there no denial on the part of the Prime Minister, but there was a silent acceptance of it in the form which is very familiar in this House; therefore, we now know that not only are we to consider later on proposals which have for their object the consolidation of various portions of Dublin Castle or the cheapening or simplifying of the system there, but we are to have produced this session a measure which is deliberately intended by the Prime Minister to lead to that larger policy which he himself admitted yesterday was the giving to Ireland of self-government on the Colonial model. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament which the Prime Minister and hon. Members opposite led us to believe was to be preserved is a delusion and a sham, and that the words they used were intended to conceal from the general body of the people what it is that they are proposing. If they intend to take the Colonial model and make Ireland a self-governing colony like Canada or Australia—apart altogether from the fact which has been demonstrated before, and by no one more clearly than by Professor Dicey, that the Colonial model is not one which it would be safe to adopt for Ireland—it would mean the entire breakdown of our present system. Moreover, it would not only mean that, but you would have to follow it up by applying the system to the United Kingdom; therefore you have against you every form of criticism and a great weight of recognised authority, and I think we have reason to complain of the Government that we are left to await the production of this measure and debate the subject without further information. I should be the last to press the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who has just vacated an office of immense labour to take up his present duties, to open his mind upon any branch of his administration. He is not a man who is likely to take his ideas from a brief prepared by others and produce them without considering them for himself, and we will not press him for his view upon this case. But the matter cannot remain where it is after the statement made yesterday by the head of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has told us what it is that he looks forward to as the ultimate solution of the Irish problem; that Home Rule is the object that he has in view; and that in order to attain that object certain steps shall be taken this session. By that statement the right hon. Gentleman has made it impossible for anybody opposed to Home Rule and who will continue to be opposed to Home Rule to consider the steps which we are told are to be taken as being practical proposals resting on their own foundation. They are really only a part of that greater policy to which we on this side and a considerable section of the Irish people are resolutely opposed. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford in the speech which he delivered yesterday gave the condition of the country as one of the reasons why Home Rule should be granted to Ireland. The hon. and learned Member quoted figures to show that the condition of Ireland after all these years of British rule was unsatisfactory, and he laid the whole blame and responsibility for the condition of things at the door of the British Government. It is a remarkable fact, if this indictment is a just one, that although we have been responsible for the government and control of Scotland and of Wales, similar charges are not made and similar results have not followed. It is still more remarkable, when we are asked by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to carry out the kind of reform in Ireland which he wants and which is resisted by those who like myself are opposed to Home Rule, that we need go to neither Scotland nor Wales to see what the result of our rule has been. It is only necessary to go to one corner of Ireland, Ulster. What do we find in that part of Ulster where no such demand is made and which asks the British people to allow it to remain an integral part of the United Kingdom? Is there any sign of misgovernment there? Does not that district prosper? Have not great trades and industries grown up there and flourished? Very well. If under the hands of the British Gover-ment this is possible in one part of Ireland, why is it not possible in the rest of Ireland? If this has been the result of the rule of the British Government, are we not entitled to claim it as a proof that we have not misgoverned the country? I do not know whether any hon. Members of the House have had an opportunity of reading a book lately published called "Economics for Ireland." In that book the writer, who is an Irishman and who knows Ireland very thoroughly, and who I should say is a very able man, gives some very different reasons for the want of prosperity in the other parts of Ireland. The reason he gives is connected with the life, character, and habits of the people of whom he is one. He points out that while straining after judicial reduction of rents and the like, Irishmen have been content to pass by opportunities which lay at their doors for increasing wealth and prosperity, opportunities provided by the legislation of the British Government. I believe myself, and I say it with great respect, for my opinion is worth but little, there is more in the view so ably expressed in that book than many hon. Members of the House realise. If he has real foundation for the statement he makes with such authority, does anybody think that by breaking up the Constitution of this country, and by turning Ireland into another Canada, you are going to produce that prosperity which we are all desirous should be produced, and which, if his speech last night meant anything at all, the hon. and learned Gentleman must have meant? The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the present condition of Ireland was such that it offered a golden opportunity of which Ministers ought to avail themselves; he warned them that this golden opportunity had come to them and begged them to take their courage in both hands and deal with the question in a whole-hearted and determined way. I am not going to suggest that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should not take that advice. I have never failed to say that it would be better and more straightforward for the Government to announce that policy which is their real aim and object, which is their real desire and the goal towards which they seek to force us, than to seek to conceal it from the British electorate by giving it a name which in no way describes what it really is. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us that the condition of Ireland was extremely improved, that to a large extent there was a decrease in crime. I rejoice that that should be the case, but I claim that as one of the results of the administration in Ireland of Unionist Governments. I believe it is by that kind of policy, and that kind of policy alone, that you will secure the real prosperity of Ireland which all of us want to see secured. It is perfectly true that there is a complete absence of overt crime in Ireland, but if this House is going to take the grave step of altering the government and Constitution in order to give to Ireland the power to control her own affairs, and to administer the affairs of the country alike over Unionists and Separatists, Unionists and Nationalists, Protestants and Catholics, they must not ignore the fact that there is in a part of Ireland—a larger part than the Government imagines—a form of boycotting as cruel and as terrible as anything of this nature that has ever been known in the past history of Ireland. We are asked to put power into the hands of men who contemptuously put on one side the law of the land, and make the law of their league obtain in a manner which is as cruel and terrible as anything ever known. I say there are in that country many scores of people who are suffering under this accursed ban, whose lives are made a misery, and who are unable to do their work because of this form of tyranny. It is not when this state of things exists that you ought to talk of extending the power of self-government and taking away the control we have over Ireland. I have often noticed that the speeches made by hon. Members below the gangway take the line which was taken yesterday by the hon. and learned Gentleman when he referred to the increase of lunacy in Ireland. I have never been able myself to trace the exact connection between the British Government in Ireland and the growth of lunacy in that country. But I observe an interesting chapter in the book to which I have just referred, "Economics for Ireland," on this very subject, and if any hon. Gentlemen think that the increase of lunacy in Ireland is a reason for turning that country into a colony like Canada, I advise them to read this book. We heard the hon. and learned Gentleman talking of the sixty-seven boards in Ireland. I believe, as a matter of fact, there are only forty-one, but as regards business the boards worth counting are only sixteen or seventeen, and it is absurd to talk of the rest as being part of the government of Ireland, Although these charges are frequently made in the House of Commons in regard to the serious effects in Ireland resulting from British rule, yet we never hear of the great strides which have been made in that country through the remedial legislation of successive Unionist Governments. We hear nothing of the work done by the Congested Districts Board and the Agricultural Department; we hear little but criticism of the work done under the various Land Acts, which culminated in the great Act of my right hon. friend the Member for Dover. Of all these things we hear little, yet I venture to say that any impartial man going through Ireland at the present moment, who knew Ireland five and twenty years ago or thirty years ago, must, if he makes inquiry with an open mind, come away—as everyone has done who has gone to Ireland and made investigation—deeply impressed by the progress and advance made not in one part of Ireland only, but throughout the whole country, and also by the fact that the legislation passed by successive Unionist Governments has not been fruitless but has already done good work in improving the condition of the people. Do not let it be supposed for one moment that I am not anxious, or those who act with me, to see the condition of Ireland much more improved. Do not let it be imagined for one moment that we are satisfied or prepared to cry a halt. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford referred to the cost of the government of Ireland, and he told the House quite accurately that the cost per head of the population was largely due to two causes—the cost of the police and the cost of education.

I never said anything of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me.

If I misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman I withdraw it.

Police and officialism.

Police and officialism, yes. Of course, if anyone makes a comparison between the number of police kept in any county in Ireland with the number kept in any county in England and Scotland, where there is a similar population and industries, it will be seen that the number in the Irish county is much the greater. But why is this? It is because there is a greater tendency amongst Irishmen to "go" for each other in a friendly way. And if proof is wanted of the fact, I can refer the House to a recent illustration of the accuracy of what I state, in what occurred at the election for the City of Galway. That had nothing to do with British Government, nothing to do with the iniquities of British Ministers. There was a strong difference of opinion between the two sections of Irishmen. One was in favour of one form of Home Rule, and the other in favour of another. The result was that Party feeling ran high, and very soon friends cracked each others' heads. In order to protect people in those conditions there must be sufficient police to be sent from one part of the country to another. The House will remember that on that occasion the hon. Member for Mayo telegraphed to say that the number of police was not sufficient.

I beg pardon. The hon. Member for Mayo sent no such telegram. The hon. Member for Mayo did send a telegram complaining that there were too many police cracking the heads of his supporters and not the heads of the others.

I do not think I need qualify that statement, because it shows what I have already said, that these circumstances arise in which feeling becomes very excited, and police have to be drafted at very short notice from one part of the country to another, which requires that there must be a sufficient force available. I do not care what Government might be in power, whether Unionist or Home Rule, I do not care whether the Government passed into the hands of the Home Rule Party to-morrow, the same results would follow; the same thing would occur and the same securities would have to be adopted. Therefore it is that the number of police in Ireland is excessive as compared with the number of police in other countries. The hon. and learned Gentleman brought a serious charge against the British Government, in connection with British administration, and the whole burden of his appeal rests on British administration. I admit that there is a great deal of work to be done in the way of making satisfactory provision for the most necessary work of education. There is a great deal to be done for the improvement of the status of the teachers, so that their duties may be discharged more satisfactorily, and that they may be more self-respecting and self-reliant in doing their work. There is a great deal to be done in regard to the number and class of teachers; but there again the hon. and learned Gentleman has laid the blame on British administration unjustly, because one of the great difficulties in connection with education in Ireland is that you have got there the purest form of denominational education, and in many a poor village of Ireland, with a small population, you have two or three schools to be repaired, equipped and maintained, where possibly one would be adequate. That is not the result of British administration. That is a cause of the difficulty which exists in Ireland, and it ought not to be attributed to British administration. You may adopt the argument, if you like, that this Parliament cannot do the work and that it must devolve some of it on other bodies. If you take that course, which is the one apparently indicated by the Prime Minister, and if you are going to make that form of devolution one which will fit in with the Constitution which you are going to create, then I am convinced, as Professor Dicey told us twenty years ago, that you might have to follow it up with other measures applying to other parts of the country, and you will have to cut up your country according to the measures applied, thus breaking up the Constitution the moment you attempt to enforce your remedies. There may be mistakes committed by the Government, but to say that they follow from the existence of a large number of boards is absurd. The new Chief Secretary will, I am sure, find that in the existing department of Dublin Castle not only are there honourable and high-minded public servants, but with the separate departments and the separate heads, save the Education Board, directly responsible to the Irish Government, an enormous advantage results. By having separate departments and distinct chiefs information can be obtained from men acting independently and responsible to the State Departments, and from that system I believe great benefits arise, and that it cannot be improved by placing the Boards all under one head. Then it is said that we should adopt Home Rule. I do feel that to attempt to justify Home Rule upon the grounds put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, is not just or fair to this Imperial Parliament or to either Party in it, because I am confident that much better results have followed from English administration than it is the fashion to admit in the debates in this House. No doubt we shall be told that we are resisting this proposal of Home Rule on narrow sectarian lines, because we are not willing to trust the people and do justice to them. I venture to say there is no justification whatever for any charge of that kind. I have known Ireland for forty years, and have the best reasons to be greatly interested in the country and to wish for her prosperity. I would do anything I could, consistent with the principles I hold, to advance the prosperity of Ireland, and would welcome any measure that promised to bring her prosperity. Firmly wedded though I am to certain political principles, if I thought that by a policy like this there would be found for Ireland that peace and quiet which she sorely needs, and which does exist in one part of Ireland, nothing would deter me from doing all I could towards that consummation. If those who act with me oppose Home Rule, it is not because we prejudge the case, but because we believe it will be fraught with peril to Ireland and with great disaster to the Empire as a whole. We oppose it conscientiously, because in our hearts and consciences we believe that if you give Home Rule you will do the worst day's work for Ireland and the Empire that has ever been done, and one which you will never be able to remedy.

I am much too new to my office to have recovered from my introduction to the sixty-seven boards, or the sixteen or seventeen boards to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, to be able to rise to the dithyrambic vein to which the right hon. Gentleman has attained, and I must confine my remarks, not only to a very short time, but also to a somewhat low tone. I wish I could adopt the simple remedy which the right hon. Gentleman does for the discontent and distress that exist in many parts of Ireland by a simple reference to the prosperity of Ulster. I cannot help thinking that to appeal to the Protestant garrison in Ireland and to its prosperity as an explanation for the discontent and misfortune in other parts of the country is a very singular reading of history. Supposing it had been the other way; supposing our Monarch, our Constitution, and our Church service had been those of the Church of Rome—one sometimes thinks they easily might be—and it had been the Protestants of Ulster who were subjected to penal laws and to the harsh treatment that the Roman Catholics of Ireland have received, I wonder whether then their prosperity would have been all that it now is, and whether content and satisfaction with the existing régime would then exist. It is all very well to support a Government when the Government is on your side. That does not require much philosophy; it does not require anything except the indulgence of your own love of aggrandisement. Therefore, I cannot really accept the right hon. Gentleman's reading of history as one in the least degree explanatory of the prevailing discontent in Ireland with their mode of government. I rejoice to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman admitted the comparative crimelessness of Ireland. Crime, in the ordinary sense, may be described as an exotic in Ireland; it ought not to be there at all, and when it is there you can generally trace it to one or two well-defined reasons. We now accept, and the right hon. Gentleman accepts, the crimelessness of Ireland. Of course, that deprives him of one of the arguments against entrusting the Irish people with a measure of self-government. Therefore, from the goodness of his heart and his love of truth, he really does genuinely delight in the fact that there is little crime in Ireland. At the same time, it somewhat weakens his argumentative position, which requires him to allege that the Irish people are in such a state that it would not be safe to entrust them with any large measure of self-government. He referred to the great extent to which "savage" boycotting, as he calls it, is to be found in Ireland. Although I have not been long in my office, I have been sufficiently long to be in possession of the police reports upon that subject, and all I can say is that I must have been very shockingly misinformed by those departments to which the right hon. Gentleman has paid so high a tribute. They must indeed be playing fast and loose with an inexperienced and incompetent Minister who has only been a fortnight in possession of his office, if there is any truth whatsoever in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Boycotting is limited, I should say, at the most to a score of cases [Opposition cries of "Oh"]—any boycotting to which the term "savage" can be applied. As to exclusive dealing, as to cutting people, I know enough of village Nonconformity to say that if a microscopic eye was focussed on our villages as it is focussed on the villages of Ireland, we should have a record too of that method of exclusive dealing which I deplore and deprecate, but is too often almost inevitable when feeling runs high. But when you speak of "savage" boycotting, then we know what the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind; and I say unhesitatingly, from information within my reach, there is no truth or accuracy in the statement that savage boycotting exists in more than a score of cases. Such, at all events, is the information I have received. The right hon. Gentleman is almost alone in his admiration of the existing mode of the goverment of Ireland. I have followed during the last few years with much interest the criticisms of that system, made, not only by Home Rulers, but by persons connected with Ireland who have, with hardly an exception, exposed that system to much criticism. It is quite true my experience is very little. Still, the experience of a Minister of ten days' standing has a certain value, a certain freshness, because very soon he gets absorbed in the details, he becomes a part of the machine, and he may lose, perhaps, a little of that freshness of mind which he carries into his office. I must ask hon. Members of this House to suppose a man—I was myself just such a man a year ago—without any previous departmental experience who was made the head of a single office—the Education Office. I remember well taking possession of that office. My courteous predecessor, who was there, introduced me to the Permanent Secretary. I shook hands with half a dozen gentleman, heads of different sub-departments, and then, with rather more sorrow than I thought I should have displayed in the circumstances, my predecessor took up his hat, coat and umbrella, and went out to enjoy a crust of liberty and left me in possession of the office. I fell at once naturally and properly into the hands of the very experienced chief. I was indebted to him and shall always remain indebted to him, for the loyalty of his service and, for the most part, for the accuracy of his information. He gave me a bird's-eye view of the nature of my duties. He generally initiated me, very gradually, into the mysteries of the machine, and for many a long day I was pretty helpless in the matter. Well, multiply that by ten at least, and you get some notion of my condition at the present moment. I find these great departments of State, or whatever you like to call them, admirably manned. I have not a word to say, I need scarcely add, against the distinguished officials at their head. They are all remarkable men; their abilities no doubt vary—such is the habit of mankind. Of their devotion to the public service I have no doubt, nor have I any doubt whatever of the mass of information that they acquire. I do not doubt their experience, I do not doubt that they have gained, and must necessarily have gained, great knowledge of Ireland. They are the machine, and they must of necessity either work me or I must work them. It is the very rudiments of government; there is nothing peculiar about it. I am not saying anything indiscreet; I am not saying anything that everybody does not know must be the case. There is the departmental view, and I do not suppose that anybody can get on without it. Any government is better that none. There must be the official governmental point of view. All these things must exist, and most valuable they are. But it is in this country always supposed to be the great advantage of our system that you from time to time bring a fresh mind to bear upon it; and no man is ever, I think, accredited with the somewhat easily acquired title of statesman who is not supposed to be able to control his department. It is one thing to control one department—that takes time. No sensible man will begin at once—in fact he would show himself to be unfit for his office if he began at once—without making himself acquainted with the regulations. He must first acquire all the department can tell him, otherwise he is unfit to exercise any control over it. But ultimately, after he has got possession of the facts, if he is going to make any reputation or to do any good in that department, he will bring a fresh mind to bear upon it and have ideas and views of his own which must sometimes be in contradistinction, and perhaps active opposition, to the views which in the department have hitherto prevailed. All these things are obvious. Put a man at the head of one department and multiply that by ten, multiply his staff and his advisers by ten, the people who instruct him by ten, and you get some notion of the position of the unfortunate individual who is now addressing you. I do not think the Irish Government has ever received the really intellectual support of anybody who has been actively acquainted with it. It is a question of intelligence, of what is good government and what is not. Therefore, I was a little surprised to find that a predecessor of my own, for whose character and zeal I have the greatest possible respect, should, I think simply from the exigency of Party feeling at the moment, have felt himself almost bound to assert that the present government by departments in Ireland was all that was to be desired.

I did not say that.

Then we are all of one mind. Then some reform is absolutely necessary. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to say that, because the Prime Minister is well known to be a Home Ruler, as I am, the mere fact that he entertains those opinions and gave expression to them in his speech the other day renders it absolutely essential that somebody, without a moments delay, should rise to his feet and expound the exact provisions, or, at all events, the main outlines, of the measure we propose to introduce later on in the session. I should have thought it was very much better, from the Party point of view, that the right hon. Gentleman should have a little time to go about the country raising this Home Rule bogey and exciting, so far as he can, wherever he finds an audience, a belief in the infamous character of the provisions of this Bill which has not yet been brought in. One thing I can assure him—I know perfectly well that when he has this Bill in his hands he will say it will lead up to Home Rule. That he will say—he must say.

That is not what I say. The Prime Minister himself said that any measure he would recommend for adoption should lead up to the larger policy.

The Prime Minister, like myself in that respect, is perfectly satisfied that ultimately the only solution that will give satisfaction to the great majority of the population of Ireland will be what is generally called a Home Rule Parliament; and, therefore, he says he would never make himself responsible for any measure which would be in any way likely to obstruct or interfere with the fulfilment of those hopes. I therefore say the right hon. Gentleman need have no alarm as to the argument he wants to present to the country, because I know perfectly well when he sees our measure he will say, as his first objection to it, that it will inevitably lead to Home Rule. He need be under no apprehension on that subject. This demand for detail is a little inconsistent with his own Loader's criticism of my friend Mr. Bryce's speech with regard to University education. The Leader of the Opposition reviled Mr. Bryce for having made a Second Reading speech on an education measure which was not before the House at all. With reference to that, as the Leader of the Opposition made a great deal about it, I should like to say Mr. Bryce asked my permission. Why he should have asked it I do not know. I was not appointed then, though he knew I was to succeed him. Mr. Bryce made his speech on a Friday, and I crossed over to Ireland—and a shocking bad crossing it was—only on Monday, and was not sworn in until Tuesday. On the following Monday—and I was not sworn in until Tuesday—Mr. Bryce asked me whether I had any objection to his receiving a deputation from the Presbyterians and making a statement to them. I said I certainly had not. I knew perfectly well that he had devoted an enormous amount of time and attention to the subject, that he was holding in his hands a great many threads, and endeavouring to secure the support of a great many different persons, and he would naturally desire before he went elsewhere to see one great party whose interests are very vitally connected with the settlement of this question. If I may criticise Mr. Bryce's speech, I am free to admit that had he shown it to me, while not quarrelling with the general outline of the scheme he unfolded, I think I should have ventured to suggest to him, knowing something of Parliamentary exigencies, that in some parts of his speech a little less rigidity of outline was desirable. Nothing adds so much to the charm of a landscape as a well-arranged bank of cloud on the horizon. These are only matters of detail. So far as he unfolded his scheme, or the Government scheme, I am the last person to have any right to complain of the course he took, but I think that, having regard to the criticism to which he has been exposed of having made a Second Reading speech on a Bill not yet in print, I should plead that as a good reason for not replying to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman, and now proceeding to unfold even in outline the proposals of the Bill which I hope at an early date to have an opportunity of introducing to secure a better kind of government in Ireland. Everybody agrees that I know nothing of, and have had no time to make myself acquainted with, the many vexed questions which arise in Ireland. I avail myself most heartily of that concession of ignorance, having no mind to plunge into controversy at an earlier date than is necessary. I shall endeavour to bring to bear on the enormous number of Government questions vitally affecting the peace and prosperity of Ireland a fresh mind, and, as far as I can, an independent mind, and, I am sure, a most sympathetic heart. I have received from both sides of the House a great number of letters congratulating me more or less upon my appointment, and many of those letters, I think, contain a somewhat grim reference, I thought an almost unkindly reference, to the fact that the office which I hold had been the grave of many statesmen's reputations. I am bound to say that looking back, as I have had to do during the past week, upon the action of previous Chief Secretaries, I found that most of them were able, at all events, to do some good. I see opposite the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. His name is associated with a very great measure of land purchase in Ireland, and if he is one of the statesmen whose reputation is buried in Ireland, I, at all events, congratulate him on having a very noble place of sepulture. Some day, after I have had my trial of office, I may be found creeping up within its shadow asking permission to shelter my weary bones beneath the same tomb. Perhaps I shall be able to say of it that like many another tomb it has been somewhat costly, and has not yet been wholly paid for. I associate myself with all previous Chief Secretaries, whichever side of the House they sat on, who have honestly and anxiously endeavoured to do their best. I, of course, as a Home Ruler, feel my position all the more difficult, because I cannot honestly say that I think I have any right to be where I am, or to be charged as the official head of so large a number of departments which are of necessity almost wholly concerned with exclusively Irish interests, demanding a kind of knowledge, a kind of interest, and a kind of sympathy, which is only born on the soil, and which can only be usefully entertained by residence in the country. Outsiders when they are sentimental are apt to be far too sentimental. They become more Irish than the Irish themselves, and very often associate themselves with schemes which will not bear impartial investigation on the Irish side. I, therefore, feel I am at a disadvantage in not honestly believing that the kind of thing I am called upon to do is capable of ever really accomplishing for the Irish people that which they have a right to demand. I can only assure them that I will do my best, and I rejoice to think, at all events, that when I come into this office Ireland is in a state of comparative peace and comparative crimelessness, but, undoubtedly, in a state of expectancy. It is also a time which synchronises with the existence, in Ireland, of a great number of currents of emotion and of feeling, not all in one line, affecting many subjects, and taking a good many things within their sphere not usually the subject of politics, but which do honestly represent a new spirit and a new feeling. I would invite the representatives of Ulster, and I would invite all, as far as they possibly can, to cease troubling the dry bones of a belated bigotry. All through Ulster this new feeling, I hope, exists. The time may come—we all pray it may come soon, and come ultimately I am certain it must—when Ireland will be what it ought to be—a firm and substantial increase of our strength, the pride of our hearts, as well as the joy of their own.

said that in regard to the rhetorical and most amusing character of the speech which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he could not speak too highly, but when they came to examine the contents of that speech they found that they were not expected to derive much information from it. It would make, he thought, a fitting addition to that volume of the right hon. Gentleman known by the title of "Obiter Dicta." He had told them very plainly that it would be unfair to expect him to make anything like a detailed statement as to the Irish question and, of course, hon. Members on that side of the House, and Irishmen specially, thoroughly agreed with that. They could not expect anything in the nature of a detailed explanation of the measures which he proposed to introduce this session. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, made one statement which was interesting to himself and his colleagues. He had stated that he was an ardent Home Ruler, and that the measure which would be brought in at alater data would be one which was not inconsistent with Home Rule. That, of course, they knew would be the case, but it always helped them to have it stated definitely by the Government. Hon. Members opposite were the persons who had the destinies of Ireland in their hands. He wished to point out to them that those measures which were going to be introduced by the Government at a later date were not only not inconsistent with Home Rule, but that they would be specially designed to lead up to that "larger measure," to use the words of the Prime Minister. They were going to have a measure introduced this session which, he had no doubt, would not on the face of it bear very many of the imprints of Home Rule, but if the Bill were passed the foundation stone of Home Rule would have been laid. Once that foundation stone was laid, it would only be a matter of time—it might be five, it might be ten, or it might possibly be twenty years—as to when the full measure of Home Rule would be granted to Ireland. That was the position of the Home Rule question at the present moment. The Prime Minister, and many members of the Party opposite, who, like the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, were convinced Home Rulers had made it perfectly clear in their speeches that it would be an impossibility to introduce a Home Rule Bill in the full sense of the term, such as Mr. Gladstone introduced, or a Bill conferring on Ireland a system of government more or less like that enjoyed by the British colonies at the present day. To introduce such a Bill in the present state of feeling in this country they had admitted would be an impossibility. They had also admitted that they were going about the compassing of this object by a roundabout method. Was the House of Commons of opinion that the time had arrived when Ireland should have Home Rule? The Unionist Members from Ulster said the time had not arrived, and personally he did not see any hope of that happy day arriving for many years to come. The Nationalist Members believed that it had come long ago, but that was a point which the House of Commons had to decide. Let not hon. Members delude themselves that they could pass any measure which was to be a half-way house to Home Rule. They could not do it. Once they had realised that fact—Unionists were fighting strenuously to stave off what they considered would ruin their country—then he believed that half their battle was won. What was the claim put forward by hon. Members below the gangway, and one of the reasons adduced by the Chief Secretary, for Home Rule? It was that Ireland was discontented; and they said, alluding to the Ulster Unionists, that if these changed places with the Nationalists and Roman Catholics, would the Unionists not have the same burden as the Nationalists and Roman Catholics? Did the right, hon. Gentleman know his history so little that they in the North of Ireland had in their time suffered persecutions as great and striking as the Roman Catholics did 200 years ago? Did he not know that in the latter end of the eighteenth century, between 1770 and 1800, the oppression coming from the Established Church of Ireland and used against the Presbyterians of that day was so great that in a new and flourishing colony the conditions were made so hard for the Presbyterians that for a series of years there was a drain from Ulster—from the counties of Armagh, Antrim, and Down—which culminated in 1795 or 1796 in no less than 18,000 persons emigrating to America? He regretted to say that in the past—not in the immediate past—Ireland had been governed as badly as any country could be. No person who had read Irish history could have any doubt on that point. But since the Union everything had been done by England to make up for the bad time which preceded it. They had passed the Catholic Emancipation Bill, and from that time Roman Catholics had enjoyed the same rights and liberties as the Protestants in the North of Ireland. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Education."] He would not divert from his main argument to deal with education at that stage, but would deal with it later on. His contention was that in every way the condition of the Roman Catholics in the other provinces of Ireland and of the Protestants in the North of Ireland had been absolutely identical. It was said that in the past the industries in the South and West of Ireand had been strangled. He admitted that certain industries had been put out of existence owing to the jealousy of the people of this country. That was unfortunately true. But it was 200 years ago. Were they, however, to be told now that the present condition of Ireland was due to the action of persons who were dead and gone 150 or 200 years ago? It was absurd. Whatever was the cause of the suffering in Ireland at present, no person who had properly diagnosed the case would say that it was due to any want of thought or care on the part of the English Government during the last ninety or 100 years. The Chief Secretary had referred to the prosperity of that part of the country to which he belonged. He contended that that was the strongest argument which could be used in favour of the position adopted by the Ulster Members. The North of Ireland was less favoured by nature than most parts of the country—hedid not say less than the congested districts; but everybody knew that the North of Ireland was in an incomparably better position, richer, and more prosperous than any other part of Ireland. It was all very well to scoff at that argument, but how was it to be explained? It could not be said that the industries in the North had been developed by subsidies. Their two great industries were linen manufacturing and shipbuilding. Nothing had been done for the shipbuilding industry, nothing had been done for the linen industry for the last 150 or 200 years. From the time the latter had taken root in the North of Ireland it had spread and had brought contentment and comparative riches to vast numbers of persons in that part of the land. Then as to agriculture, the farming population in the North of Ireland had prospered, though not to the extent they would all like it to have done, but to the extent that the farming community were able to live in a state of comfort which compared favourably with the farming communities of either England or Scotland.

Was not that brought about by the existence of the Ulster custom?

said the Ulster custom was set aside in 1881, although possibly it had given the Ulster farmer a good start. In 1881 the Ulster custom was granted to the tenants of all other parts of Ireland. His own impression, and that of those whose minds were still open, was that there must be some reason why they heard complaints from other parts of Ireland which they did not hear from their own district. He was inclined to think that it was a racial reason. If that was correct, then he said no very great reason had been adduced for changing the system of government under which Ulster had become comparatively prosperous and contented, and it ought to be possible for the people in other parts of the country to become the same. But if Home Rule were granted to-morrow he was certain that it would not have the effect of suddenly changing the condition of the other parts of Ireland. He particularly wished to impress on hon. Members and on those outside the House upon whom ultimately the fate of the Bill which was to be produced would depend, that whatever measure was introduced it would lead to a Home Rule Government. That was a strong argument to his mind and also to many Englishmen—it was the separation argument. They were told by the President of the Board of Trade in Belfast that separation in the full sense of the word was unspeakable and unthinkable, but he asked hon. Gentlemen to peruse the speeches not made in the House by some hon. Members, but in Ireland, and by the Leaders of the Nationalist movement not only in Ireland but especially in America, and they would see from them that the ultimate end and aim of the Nationalist movement was the complete and absolute separation of Ireland from England. That argument had no terrors for him; for long before that came about they in Ulster would have lost all that they held dear; and if they ever came within measurable distance of complete separation he would join hon. Members below the Gangway in giving the last kick. Before that time was reached all the harm which they in Ulster feared would have been done, and therefore it would not matter to them whether the north of Ireland remained part of the British Empire or not. That, however, he was sure would never happen. He had listened for four years to almost every speech made by the Leader of the Nationalist Party in the House, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had never added a new argument to those introduced twenty years ago, when Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill was before the House. He therefore held that if there was no new argument there was nothing new in the position, and that the stand taken twenty years ago by English and Scottish electors should be maintained. It made no difference to Ulster Members whether the Government produced a small Bill at the present which might fit in with and ultimately form part of a greater measure, or whether they produced immediately a full blown Home Rule Bill. The effect would be precisely the same. They would prefer to know the worst at once. He believed that if the proposed Bill was passed it would be but the foundation stone for a larger edifice to follow. The Government admitted that they could not with any anticipation of success introduce a Home Rule Bill now. They said they must be circumspect. They must introduce Home Rule by instalments, and he desired to bring that home to those hon. Members opposite whose minds were perplexed on the matter. There were three classes of opinion among hon. Members- There were the full blown Home Rulers to whom no argument need be addressed. There was a second category of Members who had every desire to improve the position of Ireland and who had an idea that some measure could be introduced which, while improving the condition of Ireland, would not in any way tend towards Home Rule. Then there was a third category which he hoped was the largest of the three, those who were as much opposed to Home Rule as Ulster Members were. It was to the second category of hon. Members that he particularly addressed himself when he asked them to realise that such a Bill as would be introduced this session, no matter how small and how harmless it might appear, was designed with the one and sole object of leading up to a full measure of Home Rule. They were without details and therefore they were limited to a large extent in discussing the matter, but Ulster Members claimed that they were face to face with a crisis much graver and much more important for their country than any crisis through which it had hitherto passed. In his opinion it was fifty times more critical than the crisis when Mr. Gladstone's Bill was before the House. He only wished they were in a similar position now, so that they knew where they were. Hon. Members opposite would then realise that the sole object of the Government was to lead up to and end in Home Rule. Unfortunately they were not treated in that way. It was his desire to convince the House that the effect of this Bill would be exactly the same as a Home Rule Bill. If hon. Members considered the matter carefully he felt convinced that when they came to hear the arguments which would be adduced against the details of the Bill when it was produced they would agree with him that Ireland must be saved from one of the most ruinous Acts which any Government could pass.

hoped that as a Scottish Member he might be permitted to say a few words, for, although he represented a Scottish constituency, he had an estate in Ireland. It had been assumed that the prosperity in the north of Ireland was due entirely to the race and blood which existed in that part of the country, but everyone familiar with the country knew perfectly well that the industries of that portion of the country had been specially protected by Act of Parliament, and not only so, but particular covenants were introduced in favour of the Protestants.

wished to point out that any assistance which had been given to the linen industry in Ireland dated back fifty years. From that time the industry had been, independently self-supporting and prosperous.

pointed out, as a man who had been engaged in business, that there was nothing more difficult than to establish a new industry. Efforts had been made to establish the linen industry in Glasgow, but in consequence of the competition of Manchester, where the industry had previously been established, they had been unsuccessful. It was only because in the north of Ireland particular industries had been encouraged that that part of the country enjoyed its particular prosperity. The hon. Members who had spoken had made no reply to the statements of the hon. I Member for Waterford, in regard to the decrease of the population and the increase of lunacy in Ireland. These were facts which hon. Members always ignored; they gave no explanation of the points brought forward by hon. Members and did not deal with the remedies they suggested. His main object in intervening in this debate was to impress, if he might do so, with great respect, upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland that in framing the measure which was to be brought before Parliament, he should pay every attention to the wishes and desires of the Members from Ireland. He had read through the whole of the debate on Mr. Gladstone's Land Act of 1881, and a large number of Amendments which were proposed by the Nationalists and opposed by the Government would, had they been carried, have avoided a great many of the difficulties which they had had to deal with in Ireland ever since. Nearly all the Bills which had since been proposed had been brought forward to meet difficulties which the Amendments then proposed would have avoided. Perhaps he might be permitted to say that during the summer he went through the congested districts of Ireland, and he was agreeably surprised to see the change which had been brought about in those districts through the operation of the Land Act of 1903. Anyone acquainted with some parts of the estates which he visited must have noticed the difference. The moment the people got hold of the land themselves, and had the security of the soil, they set to work in a manner which showed that the Irish people were not un industrious and idle. To say so was a simple travesty of facts. He sincerely trusted that the measure which would be brought before the House would be a large and comprehensive one and would meet the full and legitimate demands of the Irish people.

said that before the general discussion closed he should like to express to the House the views of an unofficial, unattached, and independent Member upon the gracious Speech from the Throne, and the discussion which had arisen out of it. The impression on his mind in regard to the Speech was one of considerable disappointment, and that disappointment had been deepened and strengthened by the course which the discussion had taken. He was glad to be able to claim the position of an unofficial, unattached, and independent Member, because if he could not on that occasion have claimed that position his allegiance would have been strained by some of the arguments advanced, and the positions taken up at the instance of the Front Bench by supporters of His Majesty's Government. He had listened with some amazement to the discussion on the New Hebrides question, and when the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, as was now often the case, was put up as the emergency man of the Government to grapple with a sudden difficulty, he recollected an occasion twelve months ago when he was called upon to justify in the eyes of this House certain cries, somewhat germane to the New Hebrides question, which had served them so well at the general election, and he wondered if the Under-Secretary would be able by any etymological inspiration or anything else to extricate the Government from the difficulties with which they were surrounded. So far as that subject was concerned, however, he desired to say openly, without reserve and candidly, that having listened to every word of the debate, and having read the reports, he pleaded absolutely guilty to the charge of the Leader of the Opposition that they on that side of the House had been party to an ordinance which only by the most subtle arts of rhetoric could be distinguished from the ordinance which they condemned twelve months before. The Under-Secretary read some parts of the Convention which seemed to him like reading prison regulations in regard to a man under sentence of death, and which appeared to show that the condition of the unfortunate man was everything which could be desired. It was not necessary in the cause of Liberalism in the country to shut one's eyes to the facts, and when the Under-Secretary for the Colonies said that though there was inconsistency there was no insincerity he was prepared to accept that statement. But if there was no insincerity there must have been either culpable carelessness or moral cowardice. He would not say that there had been the latter, though it had been suggested that we were not able to enforce all our views because we were dealing with another great Power. He preferred to assume that it was a case of carelessness, and that, the Government being young in office and its members having been engaged in elections, and the Ordinance having probably been prepared in French, there had been a bad translation of its terms as in the case of the Transvaal Ordinance. But when there was a clause that the master "shall" repatriate the labourer, and it was sail that meant, if the labourer so desired, he could only say he would not be a party to such an excuse. He preferred to face the fact that there had been gross carelessness in the preparation of the ordinance. There was one point which had not yet been mentioned in this discussion, and that was that at least one Article in the Convention rather gave credence to the view of the Government that there should be no compulsory repatriation, and that was the clause which said that after a man's term had expired he should not enter into another contract for a longer period than twelve months. But so far as the treaty was concerned, the hours of labour, the rates of payment and the child labour, he preferred to face the facts, and when he went before his constituents, he would, remembering the Guiana Ordinance, the Transvaal Ordinance, and this, be bound to say it was half a dozen of one and six of the other. He re-echoed the regret expressed by hon. Members opposite that the Speech from the Throne omitted all reference to any provision for old age pensions. He looked upon that omission with some apprehension. When it was prophesied last night that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a substantial surplus to deal with, the right hon. Gentleman shook his head as one who would say "do not let any one talk about my surplus at this time." But whatever surplus the right hon. Gentleman might have at his disposal, he should ear-mark absolutely a certain amount to the foundation of an old age pension fund. He had always believed that £10,000,000 would be sufficient, and if the surplus at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman was not sufficient to do the whole it might be sufficient to do half. He believed that if such a fund were established by the right hon. Gentleman some of the great philanthropists, whose one desire now seemed to be to vie with each other in the monotony of their benefactions, would give the libraries a rest and devote their millions or hundreds of thousands to this object. There was also an ambiguity which was not without its ominous aspect about the statement in the Speech from the Throne with regard to the relations between the two Houses. The House was told that the Government had this matter "under its consideration." But that was not a very great advance to have made during the recess. They were assured that they were not to have constitutional reform, but that the relations between the two Houses were to be revised, and he had hoped that the Prime Minister in his speech on the previous day would have foreshadowed the lines upon which the revision was to proceed. He was present on the previous day in another place and stood next to a distinguished member of the Labour Party whose eye roamed over the imposing presence; over the heads of the judges, over the purple Peers, over the peerless peeresses in the gallery and the feathered females on the floor. Happening to catch the eye of the hon. Member he asked him "Well, what do you think of it?" and the hon. Member replied—he would quote his exact words if he might—"I think that this sort of thing will take a damned lot of abolishing." He was glad to think that that was not the task to which the Government had set their hand, but he ventured to say that when they came to close quarters they would find that the Attorney-General was more in the right when he expressed the view that nothing but a series of general elections, and finally a revolution, would make any change between the two Houses. With regard to the threat of what was called licensing reform, he was very dubious of any good result arising from any further repressive legislation. All the so-called temperance reformers in this House admitted the decreasing revenue from this source, which went to show that there was what the Chancellor would call the alarming increase of sobriety in the country. The revenue from this source was diminishing, and he, as one who might find it incumbent on him to oppose further repressive legislation of this character, protested against a policy of driving out of the trade of the licensed victualler the respectable men for the sake of a certain section of this House. He repudiated the right of that section to arrogate to itself the title of the "Temperance Party." Where was the "Intemperance Party?"

What of yourself?

said the line which divided vulgarity from wit was sometimes a very thin one, and he was afraid that the hon. Member who interrupted him was somewhat near-sighted. They had tried this policy with regard to the Nonconformists in the Education Bill and it was a complete failure; they had tried it with the anti-gambling section in the Street Betting Act, and time would prove that that also was amiserable fiasco. With these few rambling remarks, which he thanked the House for listening to, he reserved to himself full liberty of action and criticism as the plans of the Government were developed.

said he particularly desired to refer to the subject of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. This matter had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in speeches made outside the House, and certain utterances of his had been interpreted in a manner of which, the right hon. Gentleman had since explained, he disapproved. It was now understood that he in no way desired to postpone dealing with this subject. Glad as his (Mr. Rees') own constituents would be to see a measure of licensing reform, and a measure dealing with small holdings, nothing could compensate them for any delay in dealing with disestablishment. He thought it was his duty to say that, as he had been desired to do so by his constituents, with whom he had just been in personal communication. Beyond that he only desired to express his congratulations to the Government and Viceroy of India on the success of the visit of the Amir of Afghanistan to that country. He noted what had been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, about "black birding," and wished to know whether the right hon. Member applied this expression to the working of indentured systems of labour by the Government of India in accordance with law and regulation in that behalf provided?

I said "black birding" was the phrase used in respect of the practice of carrying-off or kidnapping, but not under indenture, and not under Government sanction.

said he was glad to learn that the right hon. Gentleman did not apply such an expression to proceedings in which British subjects abroad were engaged. Recruiting agents under licence were no more blackbirders than captains in the British Mercantile Marine were beachcombers. As he had already said, he would not detain the House, who were anxious to get to the question of old age pensions, and as he enjoyed a pension himself it would ill become him to stand longer between the House and one who was to speak for so many who had not got, but wanted to get, and he hoped would get, pensions for themselves. He was, however, wholly unwilling to let the first possible opportuuity pass of informing the House of what he knew most occupied the minds of his own constituents, and he believed, what the supporters of the Government in Wales had most at heart.

in moving the following Amendment to the Address—

"But humbly express our regret that your Majesty's advisers have not seen fit to include amongst the measures promised for this session one making provision of an adequate pension for the aged poor,"

said he hoped to disarm criticisms by assuring hon. Members that he, and those with whom he acted approached the subject in no carping spirit of factious opposition to the Government, but because they felt strongly on the matter, which they thought one of urgent public importance. The Amendment expressed regret that His Majesty's advisers had not seen fit to include in the list of measures for the session the provision of old age pensions.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are we to conclude since the hon. Member has raised this Amendment, that the general debate is now at an end?

The hon. Member will not be far wrong in arriving at that conclusion.

said the mover of the Address had said on the previous day that the list of Bills in the King's Speech was unusually long, but he ventured to say that it was not long enough, and that the omission of any mention of old age pensions had caused widespread regret throughout the country. He would carry everyone with him, at all events, when he said that election pledges had been given for many years, as the result of which people had been led to expect that something would be done in regard to this question. Nothing had been done, and he wanted now, therefore, to call attention to what he assumed to be the fact, that the old people had been unfairly, unsympathetically, and unjustly treated, as compared with other sections and classes of the community. In regard to the young, within his own memory, and he was hot old, it was customary for the boy or girl of working class parents to go out to work at a very tender age, six, seven, or eight years of ago, and to work in the factory or mill, or even down the mine. As the result of the development of a sympathetic public opinion, the young had been protected against exploitation for profit, and had been given an education which more or less fitted them for the struggle of life. But those for whom he now pleaded were those who had started work at the immature; age he had mentioned, who had been unable to save from their earnings, because there was not a margin beyond what was required to keep the family, from which to save, and who now in their old age found their power to continue failing them. He knew of no more pathetic figure than that of the old man or old woman, physically and prematurely worn out by long, incessant and underpaid toil, but who, with spirit still unbroken, continued, dependent on their daily work for their daily bread. Their number was constantly increasing. Formerly the employer took some little interest in his employees, but with joint-stock companies and syndicates, the human clement was being eliminated from industry, and the struggle of life was becoming harder. Machinery, sub-division of labour, and all those things, had so much increased the power of production, that competition was intensified, and people were thrown out of work at an earlier age than before. The struggle to live was harder, and many, when they found old age creeping upon them, saw the workhouse, as was the case in a good many instances, as their only refuge after a life of labour. The workhouse was an unsuitable and inappropriate provision for the aged. They ought to be dealt with by this rich and powerful country on the basis of reason, justice, sympathy and common-sense. The Old Age Pension Commission of 1893 recommended sixty-five years as the age for pensions; for himself he saw no reason why the age should not be sixty years; as a matter of fact, in France pensions had been started at that age. It was stated by the Commission that there were 1,980,000 people over sixty-five years of age at that time, of whom one-third did not require anything; one-third were on the margin (one-third roughly represented 600,000), and one-third dependent on the Poor Law in some form or other. In any dealing with this question by the Government there must be no taint of the Poor Law, otherwise it would inevitably fail. Nor should any plan which was adopted be of a discriminating character—that was to say, there must be no sifting or sorting out of the needy and deserving. Who was going to be the judge of whether or not a man was deserving? Such a task would involve an inquiry into a man's heredity, his past, his special environment, and his temptations. It was a task far too big for a Government official or for anybody else. This question had been sympathetically tackled in one of our Colonies, New Zealand, some six or seven years ago, where they adopted a pension of 1s. a day, which had recently been increased to 10s. a week. He did not discuss what were their means to provide the pension; that was a point to be left to the New Zealanders themselves for settlement. In the Australian Commonwealth what did we find? One of the first Acts of that Government was to set up a Committee, which reported some eight or nine months ago in favour of some system of old age pensions to be instituted throughout the Commonwealth. Denmark and other countries had also dealt more or less sympathetically with the question. We in this country must, of course, settle it for ourselves in our own way, suitable to the habits of mind of our own people and to our own social conditions. We must settle it on a universal plan, giving pensions not as a consequence of poverty or desert but as a civil right to every man and woman who had conformed to the laws of the country and was entitled by residential qualifications. It was said that this was all very well as a principle, but the country could not afford to carry it out. In reply to a Question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said there were 2,018,000 persons over sixty-five years of age in this country, and to give them a pension of 5s. a week would require a sum of £26,000,000. The plan he was suggesting did not propose anything of the sort, because there were a considerable number of persons in this country already provided for, not upon the scale of 5s. a week, but upon a good deal more than that, and the scheme he and his friends put forward did not propose to pay those pensions twice over. Not long ago he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what number of pensioners there were on the Imperial funds, and he was told that the number was 173,000, and they cost last year £7,903,000. As to the number of pensions granted to those who had been servants of local authorities, the President of the Local Government Board had informed the House that they numbered 25,000, and they cost the country £1,353,800. This latter total did not take in Scotland or Ireland, and therefore he might say that there were roundly 200,000 pensioners in this country costing £10,000,000 every year. When they heard these excuses about the country being unable to afford old age pensions, it ought to be sufficient to retort that the country was at any rate able to pay vast sums as pensions to these 200,000 persons. But there were other savings which might be effected. From a return moved for by the right hon. Member for Morpeth he found that there were in the workhouses of this country 490,000 old people who were costing not 5s. per week but more than double that amount, and it was very difficult to find out how much they did actually cost. After very careful inquiry a friend of his had informed him that it cost something like 12s. 3d. per week to maintain these old people in the workhouses. If by the initiation of some system of old age pensions they could get a great many of these old people out of the workhouses they would be able to get rid of at least half of that charge. Many of them would find a place in the homes of their own sons and daughters, whom they could help to pay the rent and mind their children, and in every way this would be a benefit and would save the country a very considerable sum of money for old age pensions. Nevertheless, he agreed that an old age pension scheme would cost a considerable sum of money, and the hon. Member for Hackney had put the cost down at £10,000,000; but even if the scheme cost so much the resources of the country were very large. When it was; a question of prosecuting a war in South Africa they never inquired as to where the money was to come from, and yet it was forthcoming. If the pressure upon the Government was sufficiently strong he had no doubt the money would be forthcoming to provide old age pensions. He had discovered that £585,000,000 of the national income—amounting to some £1,700,000,000 to £1,800,000,000 yearly—was taken by a paltry quarter of a million receivers, and that constituted a very convenient source to tap. At the present time the aged were kept in a cruel and barbarous manner and were mostly maintained by the poor. It was customary for old people to live with a son or a daughter, but under an old age pension scheme there would be a redistribution of this burden, a burden which ought to be taken off the shoulders of the poor people and transferred to the receivers of those incomes which he had mentioned. In the year 1900 he found that nine persons had died and left estates amounting altogether to £19,032,000. During the intervening years the number of people leaving over a million numbered forty-six, and they had left wealth amounting to the enormous sum of £78,577,609. Therefore in view of such figures it was absolutely absurd to talk about the country not being able to afford it. It should not be forgotten that those enormous fortunes were never earned by the people who possessed them, because it was impossible for any person to earn such vast sums even if he lived to be as old as Methusalah. It was time that such sources of income as he had mentioned were tapped in the interests of the poor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hadalready assured them that there was the strongest and keenest desire on the part of the Government to farther this object. Only three months ago the right hon. Gentleman told a deputation the same thing, and the Prime Minister himself had assented and given his adhesion to the principle of universal old age pensions. Last year the President of the Local Government Board went the whole hog, and whilst agreeing to the proposal advised them to bring to bear sufficient well-organised pressure to compel the Government to provide funds to begin old age pensions. They were now trying to bring that reasonable and sufficient pressure to bear upon the Government. There were two ways to proceed in regard to this question. One was to provide the funds through the Budget, and the other was to make the necessary provision by a Bill. For his part he was in favour of the latter course. But he believed there was a surplus this year of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 or something of that sort, and he should like some statement from the Government. Bench as to what was going to be done with that surplus. Were the Government going to go in for retrenchment without reform? Were they going to consider the interests of the income-tax payers instead of the claims of the old and needy? If they did they would not be acting up to the expectations which had been raised by thousands of speeches made at the last election by the supporters of the Government. He hoped they would not belittle the question or belie the expectations which had been formed. He ventured to say that the public opinion of the country would back up any Government that dealt with this question in a broad, generous, and sympathetic spirit. The country had spent some of its best blood in opening up the darkest parts of the earth, and it had generally stood up for the weak and for the people under bad government in foreign countries. For his own part he refused to believe that the people of this country would stubbornly continue to leave their own kith and kin, who had spent long years in the service of the country in the workshop, to end their days in want and misery. These old people were just as much entitled to pensions as civil servants, soldiers, or sailors, and all that was wanted to bring about old age pensions was a strong lead from those who sat in the seats of authority. Therefore he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

in seconding the Amendment, said he thought the time for talking on this subject had almost passed and the demand made by the mover should now be given effect to by action on the part of the Government. It was not necessary to refer to the pledges and promises of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because they expected him to fulfil his promises. No less than four-fifths of the Members of this House were pledged to support the principle of old age pensions. As an illustration of the necessity for a scheme of this character, he would refer the House to the recent discharges which had been made by the London and North Western Railway at Crewe. He hoped that something would be done to prevent those old veterans from having to end their days in the workhouse. His hon. friend who moved the Amendment had referred to the fact that continental countries had systems of old-age pensions. Englishmen were fond of boasting that there were no other men on earth like them—unless it be Scotsmen. He hoped that the reproach on this country, so far as old-age pensions were concerned, would be done away with. At one time he used to wish that he was an income-tax payer, and after he became one he dared say that like most other people he grumbled. But the more he paid the happier he was, because it meant more income. He should like to see the income-tax remain at a shilling, if that would enable the Government to concede old-age pensions. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be not merely sympathetic on this matter, but that he would state to the House exactly what the Government intended to do.

I much regret, as I am sure will everybody in all quarters of the House, the disability which prevents the Prime Minister from being in his place to-day; but I hasten in the name of the Government to say that we are in entire sympathy with the objects the hon. Gentleman has so well described; although, of course, this being in the form of an Amendment to the Address, and therefore according to the rules of Parliamentary procedure equivalent to a vote of censure on the Government, we could not vote for the Motion. Something has been said by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment with regard to the pledges given in the past by individuals and by Parliament. So far as I personally am concerned, I have never at any time given any pledge to my constituents or, indeed, to anybody else on this subject of old-age pensions; not because I did not feel quite as strongly about it as I think anybody in the House; but because I have always been oppressed by the magnitude of the problem which had to be dealt with and by the undesirability of making specific promises on particular matters until you see, with some degree of clearness at all events, your way towards their redemption. But I go quite as far as either of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken so feelingly to-night and say that in my view—I said so a year ago in this House and I repeat it to-night—the figure of a man or a woman who, in old age, through no fault or default, is compelled to beg bread or lodging, is an eyesore in our social system, and a standing and, indeed, a crying reproach to our statesmanship. I can conceive no object of any politician—I do not care to what Party he may belong—whose privilege it is to be able to propose measures to Parliament with some chance of their being accepted by a majority of this House, which ought to be more dear to his heart or more coveted by his ambition than the possibility, if it be a possibility, of submitting to the House of Commons a workable scheme of old-age pensions for the people of this country. Everybody will admit that the problem is a grave one, and the difficulties in the way of a practical solution are considerable. I think they are sometimes a little exaggerated. When we have to read out, as I have had to do in answer to questions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, a bare enumeration of the persons who exceed a particular ago—60 to 65 or even 70, it is almost equally formidable whichever way you take it—and multiply that number by a pension of 5s. a week, you get into millions and tens of millions before you know exactly where you are. I do not myself think that these figures fairly represent what would be the net cost in the long run of a system of this kind to the taxpayers of the country. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has indicated a number of categories of necessary and reasonable deductions, and if the matter had been gone into in detail he would quite agree with me that that number might have been added to very substantially. Indeed, one of the great difficulties on which a practical politician, a Minister of the Crown, has to count in dealing with the subject is to form even an approximate idea of what the ultimate charge, after you have made all these deductions and economies, to the taxpayer would be. I content myself by saying that the amount is in some quarters, in my opinion, exaggerated. At the same time, no one who has gone into the matter will deny that the problem is a very large one, of which the practical solution can only be effected, consistently with the maintenance of our present fiscal system—I say advisedly, gathering from some movement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield that he intends to take part in the discussion—that consistently with the maintenance of our present fiscal system the practical solution can only be brought about in two ways, or by a combination of two methods. First, by economies in other branches of public expenditure, and when we remember the enormous figures by which our expenditure on these branches has risen during the last twenty years, I for one am far from despairing as to the prospects of such economies being made. Secondly, by some considerable readjustment both of the methods and of the objects of our taxation consistent with the main governing principles of our fiscal system, from which I, at any rate, do not intend ever to depart. "Ever" may seem to the hon. and gallant Gentleman a long word; but, as far as I can at present forecast, it is in those ways only that you can make solid and fruitful advance along the road towards the solution of this problem. I say again what the Prime Minister and I myself said in answer to a deputation of hon. Gentlemen some weeks ago, that in our view there are two conditions of a practical kind to which any system of old age pensions must conform. In the first place, I reject as altogether inadmissible and unworkable the so called contributory schemes. I do not believe it is possible to adjust contributory schemes in such a way as that the burden will fall equitably on the shoulders of those who ought to bear it, and the result you want to attain—a really genuine system of pensions for old age—be really secured. The second condition to which we attach equal importance is that both in the working and in the administration of any such scheme it should be dissociated from what I may call the ordinary machinery of the Poor Law. It ought not to be regarded as a substitute for any of those doles or pauperising subventions which at the present time, and under our present system, inflict disabilities and carry with them a certain amount of public discredit. Where am I going to find the money? That is the practical question after all. I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to make a start; but let me say that I have long since come to the conclusion that it is not necessary—I am not sure that it would be either expedient or politic—to proceed by what I may call a direct frontal attack, and attempt to take the whole position at a single blow. I believe, on the contrary, that you will have to proceed more or less tentatively and by stages. But I am most anxious—more anxious, I believe, than any other Member in the House—to make a beginning. The hon. Member spoke of my being the prospective possessor of a surplus of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. I do not know where he got his information; but it seems to me that there is considerable confusion in the public mind—or at any rate in some quarters—on this question of the existence or the size of a surplus. We use the term surplus to describe two entirely different things. There is, on the one hand, the realised balance of the year, with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has nothing to do; and there is the estimated or prospective surplus of the forthcoming year, which it is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to dispose of to the best of his ability. The figure which has been quoted—considerably in excess, as far as I can gather, of what is likely to be the actual surplus—applies only to the expected realised surplus of the present year, which has been artificially and accidentally augmented by a number of windfalls the recurrence of which we are not in the least degree entitled to expect. It may be that an unwonted mortality among a limited class of persons known as millionaires adds to the revenue in a particular year and therefore seems the subject of congratulation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But then the exceptional number of deaths among millionaires is no reason for expecting a continuance of that source of income, and so it may be the reverse of fortunate for a Chancellor. The full realised surplus of the year must go by the operation of law to the reduction of debt—a very good purpose from which I would not for a moment ask Parliament to depart. Whatever the surplus might be which we could apply to this or any other purpose, it must be a prospective surplus, the dimensions of which it will be quite impossible to estimate until we have the year's Budget presented in April; and I am sure my hon. friends will not ask me now, in the middle of February, to anticipate a statement which it will, later, be my duty to make as to a surplus, if any, and the purposes to which I may propose to apply it. I must really ask, as all Chancellors of the Exchequer have asked, that in this matter I shall be left with a free hand until that time comes. If, when that time comes, when the disclosure is made of the financial conditions of the year and the requirements of taxation, the purposes to which a surplus, if any, is proposed to be applied do not commend themselves to the judgment of the House, a vote of censure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer will compel a recasting of his proposals. But, in accordance with reason and precedent, I must not be asked, at this time of the year, to make a premature disclosure. I must ask hon. Gentlemen to give me a little longer lease of their confidence. I have told them of my aspirations and where my sympathies lie; and I should be guilty of an imprudence and of something approaching to political dishonesty if I were to make anything in the nature of a specific promise in the absence of knowledge that I have the means effectively to perform it. Speaking frankly, for myself and the Government, there is no object within the sphere of social reform we are more desirous to have a share in bringing about than the starting of a really effective scheme, even though it be on a small and limited scale, on lines socially and financially sound for further development. There is no object my colleagues and myself more ardently desire, none which has more constantly engaged our thoughts and hopes; and if and when the time comes, as I earnestly hope it may, when we can invite the House to take effective steps towards the solution of the question, it will be with the universal goodwill of all Parties and confidence that we are making in a real and substantial stride in advance along the path of true social reform.

said he fully recognised the position taken by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that at this period of the session he should not be called upon to anticipate his annual financial statement. Any proposal to be brought forward by the Government, or from other parts of the House in regard toold-age pensions, should be discussed on its merits apart from all Party feeling. They were all anxious to find a practical, workable solution of the question, and to take a division now, when it was technically a question of confidence in the Government, would be misleading. Therefore, after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

hoped the House would allow him to state a few reasons for opposing this Motion. The proposal embodied in it was not desirable, and even if it were desirable, it would be unattainable, for it was impossible to find the money for it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated a desire to begin in a small way, but they all knew how from small beginnings expenditure had a way of growing rapidly. Not long ago he had pointed out that to give a pension of 5s. a week at the age of sixty-five would cost £26,000,000 a year, and where was the fund from which such an amount could be drawn? Hon. Members had referred to the fact that we had spent so much money on the South African War, but that was no reason to justify us in spending £20,000,000 more. It was just because we had spent so many millions in South Africa that we had not the money for old-age pensions now. He knew that some people believed that a very large revenue might be obtained from a graduated income-tax. The late Select Committee on the subject had reported that only a few millions would be realised from such a source, and Sir Henry Primrose expressed great doubts as to whether any additional revenue at all would be obtained in that way. It was generally agreed that a shilling income-tax in time of peace was too high a tax to be maintained. Every Member had come to the House pledged to economy and to a reduction of taxation, and it would be very remarkable if one of their first acts was to increase the expenditure of the country by £26,000,000 a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he would begin in a small way, but he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that that was exactly the argument used by the tariff reformers in favour of protection—they also wanted to begin in a small way.

Hear, hear.

Exactly; his hon. and gallant friend opposite was perfectly wise in his generation in supporting the Resolution, for the surest way to promote protection was by public extravagance. That had been the case in the United States of America. It would be rather strange if the Party returned to maintain free trade should act as the forerunners of the Tariff Reform League! In regard to beginning in a small way, they had had extremely valuable information from various Royal Commissions and Select Committees which had investigated the subject. Lord Rothschild's Committee examined a hundred schemes for beginning in a small way, and they came to the conclusion that not one of them was workable. Then they had a Select Committee of which Mr. Chaplin was chairman. That Committee recommended a scheme whereby persons earning less than 10s. a week should be entitled to a pension of 7s. a week. But that involved them at once in the difficulty of trying to draw a poverty line, because a man who was just above the poverty line would be taxed to support a man just below that line. For instance, a man who had an income of 11s. a week would be taxed to pay a pension of 7s. a week to a man who had 9s. a week, thus making the income of the latter 16s. a week as against 11s. a week to the former. In the existing system of the administration of the Poor Law there was nothing so grossly unjust as that. Mr. Chaplin's scheme also proposed that there should be an investigation into the character of the recipients of the pension. He could hardly imagine anything more degrading than the kind of inquiry that would be necessary. Therefore, we were driven back to what was known as the "universal scheme," under which everybody, whatever his character or wealth might be, should still be entitled to his pension of 5s. a week. In London and other large towns 5s. would be insufficient, and to raise it to 7s. a week would mean the addition of £10,000,000 a year to national expenditure. Then why should the age for the receipt of a pension be fixed at sixty-five? Many men were worn out with hard work at fifty; on the other hand there were a great many men in this country who were physically fit at seventy or even eighty, and able to continue doing useful work for their country, thus supporting themselves in the manner most agreeable to themselves. If they were to lower the pension age to fifty the cost would be enormously increased. On the other hand, if they fixed the age limit at sixty-five what were they to do with the men who were a little under that age. The man who was getting 5s. a week in the way of old-age pension could take on work at a lower wage, and therefore the natural consequence would be that the employers; would discharge men under sixty-five years of age, and employ men over sixty-five years of age, because a man who was over sixty-five years of age would be able to work 5s. a week more cheaply. The result would be that men under the age limit would be discharged and the men over it would do their work more cheaply; so that men would be thrown out of work because other people had pensions. That; argument might be mot by hon. Gentlemen saying that the man who had a pension should not be allowed to work, but if they were to allow a man who got a £1,000 a year pension to work, they could not say to a man who had 5s. a week that he should not do anything to add to so scanty a sum. They were therefore in a dilemma, because they had to do an injustice either to the men who had reached the pension age or to the men who had not yet reached it. On whose behalf were old-age pensions asked for? They were asked for on behalf of those who had made no provision for themselves. But why had they made no provision for old-age? There were only two possible reasons. Either because, they had not earned sufficient to enable them to do so, or because they had misspent their earnings. [An Hon. Member: Had not been paid enough.] That was what he meant. Either they had not been paid enough in wages or had misspent what they earned. He would take the second case first, the case of the man who had misspent his earnings. An hon. Member opposite had said that a good many people in the workhouses would be able to get out if only they had pensions. He denied that absolutely. He had visited many workhouses, and everywhere he hoard the same tale, that they could not let these people out even if they had the pension, because eighty to ninety per cent. of the people in the workhouses were there through drink and drink alone. There was one fund from which they might get the amount necessary to pay for old-age pensions, and that was the money spent upon drink. He was told that a sum of £170,000,000 a year was spent upon drink. That would supply all the old-age pensions they wanted. But how could they secure that fund except by appealing to the man to abstain from drink and provide for his old age. If, however, they said to any workman "Drink away as much as you like, for when you grow old, you shall be supported in comfort at the expense of your colleagues who have nut drunk," then dearly they were subsidising drunkenness. If they did that, they were taxing men who spent their money well, in order to subsidise the men who spent their money ill. Might he point out also, that it was by no means certain that even if they paid these pensions they would diminish the number of persons in workhouses. They might indeed oven increase them. He was going over a workhouse the other day, and he asked whether they had any youngish people there, and the master said—

"We have an exceptional number of youngish men here, and the reason is that it is a pay station for Army pensioners. They draw their pensions once a quarter, spend the money in drink and then come back into the workhouse."

There they had a case in which the pension system was actually feeding the workhouse, and he gave that as an illustration of the way in which pensions might increase the number of paupers. That was happening in New Zealand at the present moment. Many people drew their pensions, spent the money, and then had to go to the workhouse. Turning to the other question of insufficient earnings or payment, that he believed was the main reason why a large number of people did not make provision for their old age, but even that, in his judgment, was not a sufficient reason. He knew agricultural labourers who, during the greater part of their lives, had only been drawing 15s. a week and they had made provision for their old age. They were all agreed that owing to our wise custom of observing Sunday in this country, a man must earn in six days a week enough to keep him seven days. Everybody recognised that, and nobody had been mad enough to propose that the State should provide a pension for a man's Sunday. If, however, there was the obligation upon a man to earn enough by six days work to keep him for seven days, surely there was an obligation upon him to earn enough during his youth and prime to provide for his old age. If they gave a man an old-age pension they relieved him from this obligation. He held that one of the duties of a workman was to combine with his fellows to raise the rate of wages, and if he did not do that, because he was looking forward to the future pension, he was injuring his class, and the State would be subsidising him to do injury to them. It might be argued that the obligation lay on the employer: he must say that he thought it was the duty of the employer to assist his workpeople to organise a system of old-age pensions. Many employers already recognised this obligation, but if State pensions were granted then such employers would be taxed as well as those who neglected their duty. It might be said that there were industries in which it was impossible for the employer to pay a sufficient wage to enable a man to provide for his old age, but he did not want industries kept in this country which made it impossible for a man to provide for his old age. Hon. Members opposite had used an argument which was quite fallacious, although many people were very fond of using it. They said that the State paid its civil servants and soldiers and gave them at the end of their service a pension; why should it not pay a pension to the wounded soldiers of industry? The State paid these pensions, not in its character of the collector of taxes, but in its capacity of an employer of labour. It made a bargain with its employees. It said "We will pay you so much during your working time, and at the end of that time will pay you a pension," and just because of that contract, the civil servant or the soldier accepted lower wages. But there was no contract of service between him and his hon. friend opposite, and there was no reason why his hon. friend should pay for a pension for him. He had never been in his hon. friend's employ—if he had, he had no doubt he would have been helped to make provision for his old age—but there was no obligation between them, except he hoped the obligation of friendliness, and there never had been any obligation between them to entitle him to go to his hon. friend and ask him to support him in his old age. They had to remember that it was ultimately from the private taxpayer that all public money came, and what they had to ask themselves was why should they take money from A. to subsidise B.? The hon. Member opposite had described this as only a redistribution of wealth. Undoubtedly the distribution of wealth in this, as in most countries, was very unequal, but he personally never laid much stress on the unequal distribution of wealth, because it seemed to him far more important that we should devote our efforts to creating a larger total for all; he believed that by so-doing we should automatically secure a better distribution. His objection to the socialist scheme was that they went about the matter in the wrong way. The only way to secure a better distribution of wealth was to get better wages for the working classes. If they got better wages for the working man it meant the lessening of the power which belonged to the rich man and the increasing of the power which belonged to the poor man, and they got redistribution of wealth in a way which was solid and permanent and could not slip away. But if they said "We do not care about more wages but care only about old-age pensions," they might diminish the incomes of the rich, but they would not add to the incomes of the poor. They would destroy the independence of the poor and make them dependent upon the charity of the State in their old age. His ideal was, that the time should come when every working man in this country should earn amply sufficient to enable him to provide money to support him in his old age. The mere sum of 6d. a week from the time when a man was under twenty, would supply him with a pension when he reached the age at which he needed it. Sixpence a week was the sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was taking from the agricultural labourer as the tax on tea and sugar, and if they abolished the tax on tea and sugar the agricultural labourers would be able to secure old-age pensions for themselves. The country would also get this advantage, that the working classes, having practised self-denial while they were young, would still practise it when they were old and maintain themselves without going to the workhouse. Those men, on the other hand, who had exercised no self-control when young would be unfit to take care of themselves when they got old. They would be the kind of man for whom the workhouse existed. Therefore he said that old-age pensions would not do the thing hon. Members wished. He was very much touched by what the hon. Member opposite had said about old people living with their children and grandchildren. That was an ideal which they all wished to see realised, but he thought that it would best be attained by teaching men and women that while young it was their duty to strive to obtain good wages and to combine for that purpose, and in addition to have sufficient self-control to spend their wages well so that in their old age they could enjoy their independence.

said that this was a subject in which he had been interested for many years, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not think that in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow he was supporting it in any Party spirit. When he sat on the back benches opposite in 1903 he brought in a similar Motion on the Address and divided the House upon it, not so much to call attention to the question of old age pensions as to the distress due to want of employment, a kindred subject. That was a question which was pressed upon their attention more and more every day, and if the Government ardently desired to do something in mitigation of this evil it was a matter of surprise that they did not mention it in the King's Speech. The old age problem was one that pressed very much upon us and the pressure was constantly increasing, because of the increasing difficulty of obtaining employment in old age largely owing to recent legislation. It was an undoubted fact that the liability attaching to employers at the present time for injury to workmen in the course of their employment made it imperative for the employers in their own interests to be very careful whom they employed in the great enterprises in which they were engaged. Those representing industrial constituencies constantly heard complaints that men found it increasingly difficult to find employment when they showed any trace of failing due to old age. If that was the case, largely owing to the action of this House itself, it was absolutely necessary for Parliament to find some means of compensating these unfortunate people who, by its act, had been placed in this position, and who either found it difficult to obtain employment or had been unable to put by sufficient for their old age. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made one very important admission. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he found it extremely difficult to find the necessary funds for this purpose consistently with the maintenance of our present fiscal system. That being so, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would modify in some degree the word "never" which he had used in connection with his intention of departing from our present fiscal system. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not dwell too much upon that word, because they would never bring it up against him if he saw fit to change his opinions. The fiscal system of this country was largely responsible for the difficulty the people found in getting remunerative employment at the present time, and by a modification of that system we could easily raise all the funds necessary for old age pensions. The cost of our poor law system at the present time in round figures approached £14,000,000 a year, and the Return of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for the six months ending January 31st, 1906, showed that there were 1,000,000 persons—or one out of every thirty-seven—in England and Wales who were in receipt of Poor Law relief. That was a terrible blot on our social system. Indoor pauperism showed a tendency very largely to increase, and able-bodied paupers were becoming more numerous. The indoor pauper of this country cost the community £14 a year, and the outdoor£6 18s. 3d. That was a very large amount, and a serious drain upon the public; and if anything could be done to improve the system, and take the blot of pauperism from our midst, it ought to be the highest object of a statesman and a Government to do it. We had passed through a year of comparatively good trade, but what did that admirable work, the Labour Gazette, show? It showed that although the number of trade unionists out of employment on the 31st of December was rather less than the year before, I namely, 29,212, yet, nevertheless, upwards of 80,000 had been registered by either trade union secretaries, labour bureaux, or relief committees as being at the present time out of employment. Anyone who gave the matter a moment's thought must know perfectly well that the figure of 80,000 did not represent the: real state of the case, but only represented the very worst cases. The cases themselves were much more numerous, but even if they were not, when one recollected that for every name registered there had to be added a considerable number of dependents—five was the average—it would be seen that an enormous number were suffering to an inordinate extent. When also we found that one out of every three over sixty years of age was dependent upon Poor Law relief it showed that the number of old people who had no other resource than the workhouse in the winter of their lives was great indeed. Anything that could be done to remedy this condition of affairs ought to be done at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member, in moving this Amendment, had mentioned France and other countries as being ahead of us in this matter, but he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman, he supposed by an inadvertence, had not mentioned Germany. Germany certainly led the way in this direction. Not only had it an admirable system of old age pensions, but it compelled thrift in so far that it compelled the employers to deduct for the purpose of old age pensions a certain proportion of the wages paid to every person in their employ. Germany had therefore taken the lead and had conducted these transactions in such a way that they did not pauperise. There was no escape. The book of the employer had to be verified every quarter by the local authority, the amount was paid in stamps, and the whole system worked very easily and with perfect satisfaction. There might be great difficulty in bringing such a system into force, because of its compulsory character.

The contribution of the State is very small.

said the contribution of the State was very small, but the result was very satisfactory, though the means by which that result was attained might not suit our own people. We had an admirable institution in this country, perhaps as successful as anything in any other part of the world—that was the institution of friendly societies. There were some 12,000 lodges of registered friendly societies, and he had always been of opinion that this matter might be solved by a contribution to friendly societies in respect of old age pensions. Unfortunately, when he brought this matter forward some years ago, he went rather fully into the plan for dealing with it, and attention was more concentrated upon that than upon the effect to which it was directed. The mover of the Amendment had erred somewhat in the same way. He had not been content with calling attention to the subject of putting the onus upon the Government, on whom it must lie, to deal with it, but he had gone in some detail into the way in which he himself would solve the difficulty. It was a mistake for individual Members to take upon themselves the functions of the Government of the day. He did not wish himself to be in that category, though he must say that, if asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could suggest means by which the money could readily be obtained. There could be no question about it, apart altogether from the fiscal question, that the competition of manufactured goods coming into this country was increasing to an enormous extent. The latest Return showed that nearly £156,000,000 of whole or partly manufactured goods were imported into this country last year.

How much was exported?

The hon. manufacturer can see for himself the figures.

I rise to a point of order, Sir. I want to know whether I should be described as an hon. manufacturer. I do not think it is Parliamentary.

said he only meant it in the most courteous way, and he should not have thought the hon. Member would think it necessary to call attention to the remark. The hon. Member had no doubt studied those Returns, and the figures had increased in this way from £9,000,000 in 1851, when we were supposed to be the workshop of the world. To raise the whole £15,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was necessary for old age pensions, 10 per cent. on wholly manufactured goods, and 5 per cent. on partly manufactured goods, would provide the whole of the money required, and the thing was done, wholly independent of the surplus, or a reduction of armaments—which would be serious to Sheffield, and expose it to a very great danger indeed—and wholly independent of the method of taxation or anything else. There was the £15,000,000 at once, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could distribute in pensions of thirty or forty pounds a year to every aged person who required one. How very much better that would be than talking about the matter.

The hon. and gallant Member is adopting the course which he said the hon. Member should not have adopted, by suggesting a means for raising the money. Would the manufactured goods continue to come in?

said 2s. in the pound on wholly manufactured goods, and 1s. in the pound on partially manufactured goods would not keep them out. Did the right hon. Gentleman call that a prohibitive duty? He was not proposing a prohibitive duty of 131 per cent. as in Russia, nor seventy or eighty per cent., as in the United States; such duties might keep the goods out. If the right hon. Gentleman was so desirous of bringing about old age pensions, and only experienced the difficulty of finding the cash, let him go home and study this point, and bring in a Bill directly the Address was done with—a Bill of three or four lines would be enough; they would pass it in two or three sittings, and the thing would be settled without the slightest difficulty in the world. He desired to give his fullest support to the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment, and he hoped he would have the courage of his convictions, and take a division, so that they might know who voted for it and who voted against it. Even if they beat the Government he did not mean them to resign at all, but let them bring in and pass a measure, and they would all be a happy family.

said that in discussing this subject some months ago the House of Commons accepted the principle of old age pensions. They had now gone a step further, because when they had the interview with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was admitted, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that night, that the scheme must not be a contributory one. In fact, as in all these debates, they had come round to the question of how the funds were to be provided. His feeling was that until they got the Chancellor of the Exchequer to budget for old age pensions and to have the courage to say that instead of taking 1d. off tea or 2d. off the income-tax, he would devote the amount to old age pensions, the financial side of the question would not have a chance of being dealt with. The temptation to every Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced his Budget, was to take off taxes, and often the pressure brought to bear upon him by private Members was strong. Until they got some system of ear-marking taxes for old age pensions, he was not very hopeful of the subject being tackled in earnest. If the taxes were not earmarked, the result was that the surplus of one, two, or four millions, whatever it was, would be used up for other purposes than that of old age pensions. All of them last January, at least all on that side of the House, had made great use of the £27,000,000 extra taxation which was put on by the late Government for war purposes six or seven years ago. Tea, spirits, beer, sugar, income-tax, each contributed to that war taxation; and the man who earned 20s. a week, paid something towards the extra taxation. The man with 30s. a week who supported his family on tea, sugar, and other comestibles, was helping to pay the taxation of the country. Thirty millions was spent on the Army and £30,000,000 on the Navy, and the man with 30s. a week asked himself why all the money coming from indirect taxation should go in that way, while those who paid the indirect taxation got nothing from it. He felt that there was a great deal too much said about the pauperising system of old age pensions. It was forgotten that the man with a small wage, who brought up a family, was paying already towards the taxation of the country; he was justified in saying, even from the economic point of view, and even on the Member for Preston's argument as to contributions, that everyone was contributing towards it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could claim ten, twenty, or thirty millions, and they on that side of the House would certainly welcome some sort of provision in this way; they would feel that it was not extra taxation such as to be a burden. £27,000,000 of extra taxation was put on for a definite purpose within the last seven or nine years. If the country could stand that amount for a war in South Africa, surely it could stand something for this beneficent reform which would give greater self-respect and less of the feeling of pauperisation to the hard working wage earners of this country. It had been said that employers should make this provision. At the present time many employers did so, and he had done it himself with his own employees for the last fifteen years. They could, however, only do it when the men were stable in their employment, because it handicapped a man to employ him for twenty years and then turn him off because his particular job came to an end. A man might leave his employment at the age of forty or forty-five, and any benefit which might be due to him from his employers in the shape of a pension he would lose. If they adopted the system of employers providing for aged work-people they would at once lose the mobility of labour, which at the present time was in the interest of both the employer and the employed. He welcomed the promise which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a beginning, for he would be very greatly disappointed if the Liberal and Labour Members of this House returned to their constituencies at the end of the present Parliament without having taken some step to bring about this much-needed reform.

said he desired to support the Resolution which had been moved by his hon. friend, and if it was pressed to a division he should feel obliged to vote against the Government, because he had looked forward to an old age pension scheme being included in the measures mentioned in the King's Speech. The speech which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him some encouragement, and did not make him so anxious to press the question to a division. He felt that this was a highly complex problem, and any Minister who took the question in hand was not asking too much if he asked for a reasonable time to consider the subject fully in order that his proposals might give some promise of a permanent solution. The hon. Member for Sheffield, as he expected, worked up to tariff reform at the end of his speech. He had stated that it was not the duty of a private Member to suggest ways and means in regard to old age pensions, but the hon. Member did ultimately suggest tariff reform as the remedy. Personally he was a strong supporter of old age pensions, but if this country adopted tariff reform, there would be not only no old age pensions, but very much lower wages. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston with amazement, for how in these days one could hold such opinions he could not understand. There was a great feeling of providence among the workers of the country, which acted as a propelling force towards saving and providing for old age, if their wages were sufficient. He had been told of cases of agricultural labourers in receipt of 12s. per week being expected to put a little on one side for a rainy day. His opinion was that if the hon. Member for Preston had to live on 12s. per week he would find them all rainy days. It was because wages were not sufficient as a rule to permit men to put anything on one side that they ventured to ask the Government to establish an old-age pension scheme. He was not particular whether they proceeded by way of a Bill orof a Resolution. All he was anxious about was to see an old-age pension scheme established. It was neither a sound nor a decent argument for a wealthy nation that could find £250,000,000 for a great war to say that it was unable to find money to protect the aged poor in the autumn of their days. Last year was a record one in regard to trade and commerce, and it was a year of the greatest commercial and industrial prosperity we had ever known. Surely that was an important factor to be taken into consideration. Another important factor was that the nation was now at peace with all the world, and no money Would be required in the coming Budget to make preparations for a war. Consequently there never was a time more favourable for creating an old-age pension scheme. If it was a question of finding the money they only needed to consider the fact that there were certain persons in this country deriving immense incomes from mineral royalties, and this was a source of wealth which might very well be taxed. Then there was the taxation of ground values, but he preferred to leave those questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Happily they had in the right hon. Gentleman a Minister in distinct sympathy with their proposals. When he remembered the speeches which had been made in all sincerity by the leading members of the present Government he had no hesitation in concluding that, as this House by a unanimous vote last year settled the principle of old-age; pensions, money would be found during this session for the establishment of an old-age pension scheme. It was absurd to talk about old-age pensions pauperising people, because we should only be doing for our soldiers of industry what we had already done for our soldiers of war. When a man had given a full life to the service of the State producing a share of the nation's wealth, surely he ought to be assured of an amount of money that would allow him to spend the end of of his days in comfort and respectability. They could not place these pensions as a charge upon industries, and in his opinion it was the duty of the State in its full responsibility to its citizens to provide the funds. He approached this question from the point of view of the responsibility of citizenship. When he spoke of the claims of labour he spoke of something that was very near to him, because with the workers he was bone of their bone. During the last vacation in the meetings he had addressed in his constituency, of all subjects mentioned or discussed none produced such marvellous enthusiasm as the idea of establishing an old-age pension scheme. He hoped the Government would take up this question with courage. He believed that the nation as a whole would rejoice with the workers and compliment with gratitude the Government if they made use of the present favourable opportunity for establishing an old-age pension scheme.

said he represented a constituency which was in a large degree a microcosm of the nation at large, inasmuch as it contained a few rich men and many poor ones. He had in his own division again and again advocated old-age pensions with all the enthusiasm possessed by the hon. Members who had just sat down, but he did not believe that any man in this House or out of it ought to rise to advocate old-age pensions unless he was perfectly clear where the money was to come from, because he might be raising hopes which he did not know how to fulfil, and that was neither wise nor statesmanlike. He agreed that there was not much need to argue the merits of this question, but its demerits had been very strongly and courageously put before them by the hon. Member for Preston, with whose views on this occasion he found himself largely in disagreement. If labour were properly paid he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Preston that the workers ought to provide their own old-age pension, and those who argued for old-age pensions were admitting that labour was underpaid. He thought that his hon. friend overlooked the fact that a labourer, whether he worked mentally or physically, worked not only for his employer, but for the nation at large, and that the nation as a conscious entity was coming increasingly to regard itself as an organisation. When that was once realised it was seen that the worker was not only a worker for an employer, but that he was in a very real sense a contributor to the greatness and wealth of his country, and, therefore, it became the duty of the State to assert itself consciously on his behalf. Several views had been put before the House in regard to the matter of ways and means, which, it seemed to him, lay at the root of the question. The hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Sheffield had brought forward the fiscal question, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reminded him that they could not at one and the same time keep goods out of the country and have goods yielding a revenue to the Exchequer. On that point he would like to remind him that he was perfectly right in supposing that a tariff, and even a high tariff, utterly failed to keep manufactured goods out of any country. At the present moment, in spite of the high tariff wall in the United States of America, they were importing quite as many manufactured goods as ourselves, and, therefore, accordingto the argument of his hon. friend, there must be as much unemployment caused by reason of their high tariff as by our free trade. There was another argument put forward by the hon. Member for North Worcestershire who thought that the workman ought to be made a contributor by having his sugar and tea taxed in order that a fund might be raised, or rather continued, to speak more accurately, to supply old-age pensions. He did not agree with his hon. friend's argument, for the removal of the tea and sugar duties was due to the workers, apart from any question of old age pensions. He joined issue with his hon. friend the Member for Preston on another point. His hon. friend had said that the Income Tax Committee, after sitting for a considerable period, had decided that no revenue was to be drawn from any particular form of graduated income-tax. He wished to point out that there was a most extraordinary omission in the Report of the Committee. Although in the first paragraph it promised to deal with the question of yield, it forgot all about that promise in the subsequent paragraphs. There was not a single word in the Report on the question of yield. The explanation was that when the Report was originally drafted paragraph 12 dealt with the question of yield. That paragraph did refer to the evidence given by Sir Henry Primrose, who gave his support to the view that only a few millions could be got out of the scheme, even if there were a high tax on high incomes. When the Committee struck out that paragraph they forgot to put anything in its place. He himself was glad that they struck it out, but he thought it was a pity that they did not put anything in its place. It was within the knowledge of all hon. Members that the sum of 900 millions gross had been brought under the survey of the Income Tax Commissioners, and after all deductions and allowances had been made he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified, in estimating the yield of a graduated tax, in taking the taxable amount as £750,000,000. His right hon. friend had stated that the cost of providing old age pensions of 5s. a week to every aged person in the country over sixty-five years of age would be £26,000,000. When they compared these two sums the difficulty in regard toold-age pensions began to disappear. But the difficulty disappeared a little further when they considered the number of times £26,000,000 was contained in £750,000,000. He asked the House to remember that the £750,000,000 which he took was the most modest sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified in estimating upon if he were making a graduated income-tax. The actual income of the income tax paying classes was far more than that. He thought the £750,000,000 might be divided into three parts in this way. Of that total £250,000,000 belonged to 800,000 income-taxpayers, £300,000,000 to 250,000 taxpayers, and £200,000,000 to 15,000 taxpayers. When they considered the £750,000,000 as divided in that way they had before them the very essence and the very root of the problem. They had here not merely the statistical facts of the distribution; they must remember that these figures represented millions of human creatures' work. They represented the under payment of millions and the over payment of thousands. The facts were of so tremendous a nature, they were such a reproach to them all, that unless they addressed themselves to the subject in this House, they would be always confronted with the questions of poverty, pauperism, and unemployment. Yet when they approached these questions from time to time they were dealt with on the Treasury Bench with a great deal of timidity. If the three classes were taxed in the way which he would suggest, they would find a solution of the difficulty of providing for old-age pensions. He would suppose that the first class of taxpayers was taxed at 2½ per cent., the second at 5 per cent., and the third at 10 per cent. The income-tax would yield £47,500,000, as compared with £31,000,000 at present. The difference between these two sums would be sufficient to put in operation a respectable scheme of old-age pensions. He had the support of one Chancellor of the Exchequer in proposing this method of taxation—the late Sir William Harcourt—who graduated the death duties. He ranged them from zero up to 8 per cent. He thought the work of Sir William Harcourt might be carried further, and that in connection with the income tax the scale might be continued up to at least 10 per cent. He alleged that the margin of error would not be greater than now obtained in regard to the death duties. That was to say, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented his Budget he could not say, in estimating the amount of the death duties, whether twelve millionaires or one would die during the course of the year. But, in spite of that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no difficulty in making up his Budget, because he had always a certain margin. So he maintained that while this graduated income-tax might produce £47,500,000, there was good ground for maintaining that, allowing for a margin, it would certainly yield £42,000,000 or even £45,000,000. What would be the result? At present the state obtained from the income-tax, graduated up to £700 a year by a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer,£31,000,000; and the modest scheme which he had suggested would be sufficient to put into operation what they all desired. If they put the economies which might be effected and a graduated income-tax together, the problem of old age pensions was solved. They knew that the efforts of the working classes of this country directed by the brains of the country had created such an amount of wealth that they could easily raise the sum required for old age pensions, and more if needed. If to make a practical beginning the pensions were limited to persons over seventy years of age it would only involve £9,000,000. The difficulty of establishing a scheme of old age pensions, he maintained, in conclusion, were not so great as was imagined; and he hoped that in some Budget, if not in the present, in some future year, they would reach the beginning of the end of the terrible condition of the aged poor.

said there had been a great many eloquent speeches in favour of the Amendment. He was sure that all the Members of the House had made great professions upon the platform, had spoken with all the fire and force they could command, and had committed themselves deeply to the principle of old age pensions. Surely the time had gone past for mere talk and the time for action had come. He therefore hoped that the Labour Party and their sympathisers would carry this Amendment to a division, so that once and for all it might be shown who were really in favour of old age pensions and who were not. The arguments so eloquently addressed to the House on behalf of the Amendment appeared even to have touched the hard, official heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he had given a sympathetic answer. Hon. Members, however, who had been in the House for a number of years would remember that that official sympathy had been extended to the project for a good many years without anything being done. In the last Parliament he had gone against his own Party on this question. The main argument in favour of these pensions was that a man, unable longer to work, and having braved the battle of life and been honest, sober, and industrious, should in the closing days of his existence have some prospect of comfort. He should not have to submit either to the cold comfort of the workhouse or to the degradation of casual charity That undoubtedly was the conviction of all who had given thought or study to the problem. The argument against such pensions was the old and serious one of cost. Other countries had faced this problem; our Colonies had faced it; and we, the richest country in the world, were surely most able to face it and grapple with it. The true solution and the most practical solution of the question would be the settlement of the fiscal problem. It had been contended that old age pensions would discourage thrift. He thought that there should be a test of character before pensions were granted. How could habits of thrift be expected in labourers receiving only 13s. or 14s. a week? There were hundreds of such labourers in his own constituency, and they could not be expected to keep themselves and their wives and children on such small wages and have any margin left. The granting of pensions would bring a new hope for the closing days of the lives of the poor instead of the haunting dread of the workhouse which was a very real dread indeed. He therefore had the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

said he had listened with very considerable interest to the hon. Member who had outlined a method by which he would obtain the money for the purpose of granting old age pensions. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated that, in apportioning the savings of the people or new capital, every person who desired some reform or other was apt to lay hold of the same factors, which were like Goldsmith's piece of furniture which was a chest of drawers by day and a bed by night. The most remarkable instance of double duty being performed by the same thing was afforded by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield. That day the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to apportion for the purpose of old age pensions the income to be derived from a 1s. or a 2s. duty on manufactured articles imported into this country. But last year the hon. and gallant Gentleman made this same duty of 1s. or 2s. on imported manufactured articles fulfil a totally different function. Last year, when the the debate was on the unemployed, the hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out that the effect of the 2s. duty on manufactured articles would keep them out of the country, thereby give employment to our own workmen, and that consequently unemployment would be done away with. The best thing was not to indicate with exactness the source from which this taxation was to be raised; and he thought he might indicate it without going beyond that canon—the general lines. It was that the wealth of the country and the wealthier classes ought to pay more. There had been a remarkable monotony about the debate. Only one hon. Gentleman had spoken against the reform which all the rest of them desired. He would hardly venture to cross swords with that hon. Gentleman from a political economy point of view, but there were three points in connection with that argument on which he desired to touch. The hon. Member had certainly spoken as if there would be a tendency for this £26,000,000 to be withdrawn in some way. He seemed to think that if it was given to the aged poor in the shape of pensions it would be withdrawn and not come back to others in the way of wages. He thought the hon. Member had omitted one of the most important aspects of the case. This £26,000,000, when it was given to the aged poor, was not given to them to put in their pockets or to lock up in a cupboard. It was given them to spend in procuring the necessaries of life, and it would thereby increase the trade of the country as well as employment. It was a very important thing, therefore, from that point of view, that the poor man should have larger funds at his disposal. The hon. Member had used a rather fantastic argument when he said that employers of labour would be inclined to dismiss the man who was a little under sixty-five in order to employ the man who was a little over sixty-five, and in that way by giving smaller wages fill their pockets with the money raised for old age pensions. As an employer of labour he said that was the most fantastic argument he had ever heard. Putting out of account the trade unions, who could very well deal with a question of that kind, did anyone think that an employer would employ a more aged man, still less that he would do so because he thought he could save money out of that man's pension? The thing was ridiculous. He was, as he had said, an employer of labour himself, and he had done the best he could in connection with old age pensions, but in the case of the private employer it was essential that it should be a permanent employment, and it was not an easy thing to do then. If they looked out on the great world of labour employments were not largely permanent, and he did not know whether it was a desirable thing, except that a man would be constantly employed, that he should bind himself to remain in one employment. The result was that the pension question could only be dealt with by the most high-minded and generous employer under the most favourable circumstances. It was therefore to the country they must appeal for the settlement of the matter. He had had considerable experience upon the question of old age pensions; he believed that 5s. a week was too little, and they ought not to shut their eyes to that fact. They would be glad to get it, however; but it was too little for any man or woman to live upon in the declining years of their lives. He noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer smiled, and the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that it was desirable to begin this matter in some partial manner. It was, however, a very difficult thing to begin old-age pensions in a partial manner. The only way in which he thought it could be done was either by reducing the amount to an undesirable figure or by raising the age at which old-age pensions should begin. He did not know of any other possible means, and he believed that they should begin by adopting these means if they could not do otherwise, but let them not try to begin by discriminating between the rich and the poor; let them not begin by bringing in any of those backstairs influences which frequently prevailed when people had to urge their own cases; let them not create a distinction between richness and poorness. Moreover he did not like to draw the line at character, so that a man should be deprived of a benefit as the result of some fault committed earlier in life. He did not like the idea of a character line of demarcation or of a poverty line of demarcation. They ought, he thought, to begin by giving the compensation to women as well as to men. It seemed to him that the hon. Member when he spoke of poverty had been suffering a great deal from what Plato called "The Eikon of Decay," and had been wandering among the shadows instead of the realities of life. The thing which made one thrifty was poverty, and the thing that caused one not to be thrifty was the uselessness of thrift, and if a man could add a little to the results of his own thrift by a pension then the latter was the greatest inducement to him to save. In the case of the highest class of society, what did they do? They all knew that what they tried to do was to safeguard the position of their sons and daughters in their old age. They did this by means of marriage settlements and in other ways. Did that do them any harm? Not a bit. It did them good, while the life of the working classes was very largely overshadowed and darkened by the prospects of their old age. There were two periods at which life could be brightened by the State, namely, the beginning and the end. They had done a great deal for the child but hardly anything for the old men and women, except to open the workhouse doors as a home for the failures in life. He knew that a great deal had been done, especially since the Report of the Royal Commission some fifteen years ago, in the way of discrimination in the administration of the Poor Law, but he entirely agreed that it was absolutely essential that the old-age pension system should be entirely divorced from the Poor Law. We could not, however, have an old-age pension system without having something in the nature of an infirmary or of a cottage hospital to which our old people could go and where some nurse could help them. That was a necessity of old-age pensions and he had found it to be so. The nation could carry it out through some form of infirmary, but when it was carried out it ought not to be in any way associated with the stigma of charity. This subject had animated him for many long years, and if upon it he felt so strongly, what must hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches feel whose fathers and mothers had had to undergo the struggles which he had depicted. Those struggles were outside his life and the life of others, but this question did strike most of the people in a tender place, and, representing as he did a very large constituency, he did not think that during the last two or three years there had been any question which raised such deep-seated interest and expectation among the working people as that of old-age pensions. It was not only a question which touched them deeply, but it touched their morality, and their whole self-respect, and if properly dealt with it would remove that horrible curtain which hung between them and their old age with the prospect of the workhouse in the future. It was difficult for some to realise the horror of their position, and that horror ought to be removed. One good result of this debate would be to bring home to His Majesty's Government, what he believed they recognised, that what was in the mind of this House of Commons, whether it was on one side of the House or the other, was the social well-being of the people, and that no fight with the House of Lords and no general question of whatever magnitude it might be, could be subtituted for the advance which they hoped for and expected in the social condition of the people. They wanted to fight the Lords and were willing to do so, but they were determined, and he believed the Government itself was determined, that before this House of Commons did that which all Houses of Commons did, namely, come to an end, something should be done for the poor—something which would make the rich more secure and which would secure the well-being of the poor in their old age.

said it was some years since he had the privilege of addressing the House, and he rose not in any carping or criticising spirit to support the Amendment. He would say at the outset that he had no sympathy with the speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield. In fact he had listened with amazement to the new-born zeal of some of their friends on the Tory Benches that evening. Let him take the House a few years back. The hon. and gallant Member's Party came into office in 1895, when the national expenditure was only ninety-two millions, and when they had a surplus at their disposal of three or four millions. In the election of 1895 old-age pensions played a more important part in London than anything else in capturing the vote of the working man. The Unionist Party had ample opportunity to give old-age pensions during the ten years they were in office, but they adopted an Imperialistic policy, and an Imperialistic policy could only be adopted by a nation by neglecting the social welfare of the people. The Unionist Government increased the expenditure by some £50,000,000. What, however, upset him as an industrial worker, was the speech of the junior Member for Preston, who only exposed his absolute ignorance of the conditions of the industrial classes of this country by the lecture with which he had favoured the House upon thrift. It was all very well to talk of the young man saving 6d. a week, but he would ask the hon. Member what he would do in his (Mr. Steadman's) case. He was apprenticed at the age of fifteen and earned 6s. a week. At the age of twenty he was earning 13s. How could he, the chief breadwinner for his brothers and sisters, afford to put away 6d. a week. He, however, adopted the policy of the hon. Member. He joined his trade union, because it was going to protect his labour, and his wife and little children when he married if he was thrown out of work. He joined the best friendly society in the civilised world—the Hearts of Oak. He got married. The question he wished to ask was, out of his wages as a mechanic, after paying his rent—and he believed in living in as decent a place as his wages would permit and in clothing and feeding his children as well as he could—and paying his way, what had he to put by for old age pensions? He had not even then what he considered sufficient for his position as a wage-earner. Nothing had done so much to solve this problem as the trade organisations. They did not ask the philanthropists and capitalists for money, they found it out of their own pockets, and out of the hardly earned shillings and pounds they had built up enormous funds for this object. The organisation of which the hon. Member who moved this Motion was a member had the finest old-age pension scheme in the country. The pension commenced with a minimum of 4s. a week and rose to a maximum of 10s., which meant a tax upon the members of 6½d. a week. That was more than they should be called upon to pay. He believed in the gospel that the strong should help the weak. He did not ask for selfish legislation, but for legislation to help those who could not help themselves. In this noble city, with all its wealth, there were to-day something like 500,000 adult workers whose average earnings did not exceed 15s. a week. It was impossible for those people to pay into a trade union or even to secure sufficient nourishment for their families, let alone provide for their old age. It was, it was true, all a question of cost, but he contended that until a scheme was actually in operation it was impossible to forecast; the cost. It did not follow that because they were entitled all people over the age of sixty would apply for a pension, and therefore it would be impossible even for the hon. Member for Paddington to calculate what the cost would be. He had been a Poor Law guardian, and was prepared, out of his experience, to say that we had the money now but were using it in the wrong way; that the people were being pauperised, and the question was not being solved. His experience as a Poor Law guardian was that they summoned a man before the Board to compel him to support his aged parents who were on the rates. The man might be a carman, and his wage anything from 18s. to 24s. a week. He would come before the Board with his wife and three or four children, as the case might be, to demonstrate his own position, and he (Mr. Steadman) would say to hon. Members of this House as he had said to his fellow members on the Board of Guardians, before they asked that man tocontribute a single shilling to the support of his parents they should put themselves in his place and see what they could do with 24s. a week. There were something like 500,000 men and women inmates of our unions, who cost 4s. 6d. or 5s. 6d. a week, according to the generosity of the guardians. That was the total cost per head, but the administration of the Poor Law cost from 10s. to 15s. a head. He contended that half the money expended under the Poor Law could be saved if the country possessed a scheme of old-age pensions. He would remind the House that all the social evils of today were not caused by drink. He quite admitted the evil caused by drink, but it did not cause the whole. In his parish every penny given in poor relief came out of the rates of the parish, and whenever they found a deserving case where a person was in receipt of a few shillings a week, they took the only course, the only Christian course, open to them, and gave that person a few shillings more to keep him or her out of the workhouse. The amount they gave amounted approximately to a 4d. rate; this had to come from local rates and meant—if it meant anything at all—that the poor had to keep the poor. He maintained that if we had a scheme of old-age pensions, there were good, honest men in this country who would always find a shelter for their parents, so long as the State stepped in and gave them a few shillings a week for a loaf of bread and a little butter. When out-door relief was given the recipient was robbed of his birthright. Charity sapped the manhood and womanhood of the people of this country. He maintained that men and women who had lived their lives up to a certain time of life without offending against the laws of God or man should have a better end to which to look forward than the workhouse. In giving his vote he was going to be consistent. He did not stand up, either in this House or out of it, for the idler and the loafer—for the men who would not work when work could be obtained. So far as the able-bodied paupers were concerned he would say they should be put upon the land, and if they would not work when they were able, let them starve. He believed the country should find employment if they could, and he hoped something practical at last would be done towards solving this, one of the greatest social problems of life.

said this was a question in which he had taken great interest for many years. He was first led to think about it by attending the lectures of the late Canon Blackley, and he came to the conclusion that the only certain way of getting old-age pensions was by a universal scheme of pensions out of the taxes for those who lived long enough to partake of them. That was the scheme elaborated afterwards by Mr. Charles Booth. He had the pleasure of saying what he could in the House during the Parliament of 1892, in defence and advocacy of universal old-age State-paid pensions. At that time, he was sorry to say, the great friendly societies were not favourable to State pensions, but he was delighted to have lived to see all the great friendly societies and trade unions heartily unanimous in desiring that there should be universal old-age pensions from the State. And now they had the Minister of the Crown and a unanimous Parliament approving. It appeared to him that they need not be frightened about the cost of this matter; it was really a system of co-operative insurance. Everybody who ate and drank contributed to taxation; there was no escape from it; so that they had a fund to which they were compelled to pay all their lives; and what was more reasonable than that, out of that fund, those who lived to a certain age should by able to draw old-age pensions? If it was recognised to be a good thing for an individual to insure, why should it not be a good thing for all? Why should not the whole nation combine and insure its members out of the fund which all helped to provide? We co-operated for our defence by the establishment of the Army and Navy; we co-operated for our police and our Post Office, and, as the House were reminded just now, we had taken the children of the nation in hand, and we were co-operating to provide them in food as well as schooling, if necessary. What was more suitable than that we should extend this co-operation to the other end of life, and see that our old men and old women were comforted by the thought that out of the common fund to which they had been paying all their lives they were sure to receive a pension? He felt that they were in sight now of the dawning of a day of great joy. Many in his own constituency would be bitterly disappointed if this Parliament came to an end without giving old-age pensions. They must, of course, be guided by circumstances, but the great thing was to begin somewhere. He would rather they began with 1s. a week and a sixty-fire years of age basis, than that nothing should be done. Let them even begin at seventy years of age, or seventy-five, if there was not money enough to begin younger, only let the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government let the people know that they did mean that old-age pensions should be begun. He had full confidence in the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the honesty of the declarations they had made. Let them not by voting for the Amendment show any distrust, but give with all their hearts support to the Government which had promised to begin straightway this great social reform. He rejoiced to have lived to see this day.

said that that night's discussion betokened a brighter era, he thought, for the working classes of this country. The interest taken in the debate indicated that not only would old-age pensions become a fact, but that many other matters affecting the well-being of the people would be dealt with. As usual they had heard the one speech against old-age pensions. It was made by the junior Member for Preston. But the speech of the hon. Member indicated to him that they were going on the right lines. It appeared to them that the junior Member for Preston was utterly retrograde on questions of this description.

He is Secretary of the Cobden Club. ["No,, no."]

thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in error as to that. Moreover, the Cobden Club did not govern them; but to-morrow they might have an opportunity of discussing that question on the official Amendment of the Opposition. They had heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they all recognised that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking not only for himself, but on behalf of the Government, and as those who acted with him in this matter desired to be quite fair and frank, he desired to say that they had raised the question as a matter of business, and not merely to be debated. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was favourable. It was distinctly hopeful, though clothed in the usual diplomatic language, and the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject with that power of speech which he had acquired as a lawyer. The Labour Members, however, regarded it as an indication of action on the part of the Government when the opportunity came, and they were inclined to think that the opportunity to make a beginning would come this year. The opportunity was the Budget, and in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman they must recognise that it would be his first Budget, his last Budget having been based on the decisions of the late Government. He and those around him would support the right hon. Gentleman in his efforts, and would oppose any relief of taxation until the question was dealt with. They held that it was a mockery to take off taxation, and at the same time leave the old people with promises and hopes unfulfilled. There were difficulties to be encountered, but, studying the question as they had for many years, they knew the difficulties were not so great as some people imagined. Moreover, it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet difficulties. Chancellors of the Exchequer had made their names in the country by facing the situation and facing it successfully. They hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman's name would be carried down as that of the man who brought forward the old-age pension Budget. The question was urgent, but as they felt sure that it was only postponed until Budget day, they did not intend to press the Amendment. ["Oh."] It was all very well for the Opposition to cry "Oh." They should have made a beginning during the fifteen years in which they had the opportunity. There was one pleasant feature about the subject, and that was that the House of Commons could come to a decision, if this was a Budget question, without the other House interfering. If the House would take the opportunity this year of starting with the subject they would give the country an object lesson in the difference between the power of democracy and the power of birth—the difference between the House of Commons, when it set to work, and the other place at the end of the corridor. He earnestly appealed to the Government to rise to the occasion, and to do so this year.

I rise to say on behalf of the Government that they share in the aspirations of the working classes for a scheme of old-age pensions and intend to do their best to achieve it. The means and the opportunities must necessarily be left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whose speech no one has a reasonable right to be disappointed, considering that the right hon. Gentleman made that speech a month or six weeks before the Estimates can be finally prepared and the Budget revealed. I think the House is indebted to the late Secretary to the Treasury for his statement that he could not see his way on the present occasion to vote against the Government because the Budget was not revealed and this was not the time when a Chancellor of the Exchequer should be pinned down to any pledge that he might not be in a position to carry out. It will be the first Budget of my right hon. friend, and until it is known what money is required for the Army and Navy and the Civil Service, it would not be fair or right to ask him how much of his problematical surplus he intends to devote to the beginning of an old age pension scheme. But whatever course the Government adopt in carrying out their policy, they certainly will not follow the ignis fatuus suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield, and we shall not attempt to solve the old age pensions problem by a 10 per cent. tax on manufactured goods coming into this country or a 5 per cent. tax on partly manufactured goods. Such a course might secure a very small pension for a diminishing number of people, but there are millions of people who will hesitate to adopt a five-shillings per week old-age pension at sixty-five or seventy years of age at the cost of a long-drawn-out life of dearer food and diminishing employment such as is involved in the proposals of the hon. and gallant Member.

I said nothing about food.

The hon. and gallant Member has missed the point; it is not what he has said, but what is behind his suggestion that is in question. I cannot conceive a tax on manufactured goods which does not inferentially make for dearer food. A change has come over the advocates of old-age pensions in the last three or four years, the all-or-none attitude adopted by the advocates of a compulsory universal scheme has gone entirely and the all-at-once attitude, I am pleased to see, has been abandoned in favour of an instalment process of old age pensions in proportion to means and opportunities. It would be wrong for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or myself or any member of the Government to raise false hopes by saying that the Government intend, or are able to provide, old age pensions; but the Government want to do it, and I believe they will do it so far as time, means, and opportunity allow. On behalf of the Government and with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I have risen to say that. But we have to remember that the surplus is not going to be so large as some people think, and the demands that are being made are great. These we are trying to some extent to meet in the way indicated in the King's Speech, by means of small holdings, rural housing, and other matters. There is also the increasing cost of Government Departments, I am glad to say, owing to higher wages to those who deserve it, and better conditions all round. Consistently with demands that have to be met the Government will do their best. There is one thing necessary to the proper consideration of this matter before any pension scheme is produced. We all regret the lamentable lack of precise and up-to-date information on all branches of the subject in the statistical form which the House is entitled to have. There are in this country 2,200,000 persons over sixty-five years of age, of whom 300,000 are paupers in our workhouses and infirmaries, who, partly by the rates and partly by the taxes, are maintained in their present condition. It does seem to me that it is essential for the proper financial consideration of this problem that we should know on reliable figures got through the great Departments to what extent the cost of the 300,000paupers over sixty-five years of age could be deducted from the total cost of an absolutely universal pension scheme, and I propose to get Returns as quickly as possible. I do not propose that a Committee should be appointed, but that this work should be done through the cooperation of the different Departments which can furnish the information. There is also another aspect of the pension and superannuation problem with which I propose to deal. Besides the 300,000 paupers over sixty-five years of age, the cost of whom we cannot tell, there are 200,000 men—it is a larger figure than some thought—who draw pensions or superannuation allowances from the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service, or from the local authorities. It is essential that we should know the extent to which, if any, the £9,500,000 paid for pensions or super annuations to these 200,000 people could be deducted from the total cost of an inclusive scheme. What is more, the House ought to know, and we must make some attempt to secure figures, although it is very difficult to get them, the extent trade unions and friendly societies have pensioned and superannuated mem- bers on their lists. The number is very problematical. I do not think it is over 30,000. We ought to have all the figures on these matters so as to have a just appreciation of this particular problem. I should say in passing that if every trade organisation contributed towards the solution of the problem as does the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, with which I am connected, it would not be so difficult to handle. That society pensions 5,300 of its members with an average pension of about 9s. per week at a cost of £120,000. That is what is done by one society alone, and I propose to gather the statistics of the various classes of people who are receiving payments in this way, and to present them to the House as soon as possible. We ought to try to do something else. We ought to ascertain where all the millions of money go to that the generous and charitable rich subscribe through benevolent and philanthropic societies for the aged and impecunious sick. I shall do my best to get these statistics, and then when this question is advanced another stage the House will be in a bettor position to deal with it. I appeal to the trade unions and friendly societies to assist the Government in obtaining information that will show whether the industrial age of the working classes is longer or shorter than it was thirty or forty years ago. On that matter we want reliable figures and information, not in any way to bias the Government in its action, but merely in order that in the consideration of this subject accurate knowledge may be brought to bear upon it. In the case of one society which I have in my mind the average age at death of the workmen associated with it has risen in the last fifty years from forty to forty-four years to fifty to fifty-four years. The House has a right to have all this information. I have risen to repeat the pledge which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given on behalf of the Government, and to say that I shall do my best to co-operate with the Home Office and the Board of Trade, with the assistance of the trade unions and the friendly societies, to obtain accurate information in order that we may come to close grips with this question, so that when we have the opportunity we shall be able to act on the instalment process. If we begin, the House ought not to stand on the order of its beginning, but to begin as soon as it is possible, and I can assure the House the Government so intends.

I regret to say that I have heard less of the debate than I should have liked to hear. I have not merely a direct personal interest in this question such as every Member possesses, but I have an inherited interest in it, because my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham with his active mind and keen interest in all social questions, was one of the first politicians, at all events in the front rank, to press this question upon the attention of the country. I recognise in this discussion an advance on the question. When the question was first raised there was a large section in this House and there were many people in the country who adopted the "all or none"attitude—an attitude which said that they should not do a little at a time but the whole thing at once. I recognise and welcome the more reasonable attitude which has prevailed in the discussion to-night. I make only one qualification in regard to it. I would be glad to see a beginning made even if we do not reach finality at once; but let us proceed on lines which really contemplate the whole magnitude of the problem. Let us not take a step that holds out hopes only to disappoint them, which involves us in expenditure which we do not see our way meet. In other words—[An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: Do not do anything.]—do not let us draw a Bill leaving somebody else to pay it, but provide at once, or in proportion as the demands come in, for the expenditure which we will have to meet. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to do his best to collect information as to what are, I admit, material factors in the problem as to the cost of maintaining the aged and infirm poor in workhouses and infirmaries. By all means let us know that; but do not let us suppose that by any scheme we can do away with the whole of the present expenditure of maintaining the aged and infirm poor in workhouses and infirmaries. In speaking on this subject I have always made a distinction which I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Finsbury make a few minutes ago. I have always said that for my part I would not be a party to treating the wastrel and the idler, as well as the deserving poor, at the expense in part of the deserving poor. But when you eliminate the wastrel and the idler, there remain a great number of poor people who cannot be provided for by any scheme of old-age pensions which can be contemplated. In the first place, there are the infirm poor who require nursing of a kind which they cannot have in their own homes, and whose children, if they have any, cannot afford the time and means to give them that nursing in their own home. Such nursing, therefore, can only be given them in some public institution. That expenditure would remain. Then those who already receive pensions from public sources in some form or another would be excluded from any scheme which it would be wise to contemplate. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he proposed to ascertain to what extent the aged poor were being supported out of Trade Union or Friendly Society Funds. I agree that it is desirable, that it is necessary, to get that information, but I do not understand for what purpose it is wanted. Is it to exclude them from any scheme for old-age pensions? Clearly not. It would be taking the worst possible course of action if it were said that those who had made provision for themselves for old age should be excluded from the benefits given to others. The object should be not to discourage, but to encourage personal thrift on the part of working men, and to make some provision for themselves in old age through their trade unions or benefit societies. Three things have hitherto prevented progress in this matter. First of all, the "all or none" attitude of a section of public opinion that was passing away. Second, the jealousy of the great national friendly societies lest any Government scheme should interfere with their operations, not only in regard to old-age pensions, but in regard to their work for the promotion of thrift. That also is passing away. I hope that these societies are beginning to realise that if the Government are going to assist them in their work, it is not thwarting them in their efforts, but assisting them in the best possible way. A Government scheme would help them to maintain the great burden of their financial stabilty in relation to their own Members. The third obstacle is that which was dwelt upon by the President of the Local Government Board, viz., the difficulty of finding the means for this scheme. The President of the Local Government Board said that it was the intention of the Government to deal with this subject as soon as time, means, and opportunity were favourable. There is no time like the present. There is no opportunity more opportune in a matter of this kind than the present. The right hon. Gentleman points to the King's Speech; he speaks with the Chancellor of the Exchequer beside him, and with a sense of responsibility he declines to hold out hopes that cannot be fulfilled at an early date. He points to the fact that the House from every quarter is constantly urging on the Chancellor of the Exchequer new expenditure, and that if the measures referred to in the King's Speech are to be carried out, new expenditure must be incurred. He looks forward to a general increase in Government expenditure, partly owing to the higher wages being paid to, and better conditions being provided for, those in the Government employment. All these claims—all these good claims—press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and do battle with old-age pensions for any surplus which is available. The President of the Local Government Board said that to give aged persons each 5s. a week—and I contend that nothing less than 5s. is worth while giving—would take about £26,000,000 or £28,000,000, which is something like the interest upon our National Debt. I ventured to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer lastyear that he had framed his estimates of income too low, but never in my wildest dreams have I ventured to think that he would have a surplus of £26,000,000 or £28,000,000. At the bottom of this, as of every other question, is the consideration of ways and means, and he who wills the end must will the ways and means. The movements for small holdings, for the better housing of the working classes, and for the better conditions of Government employment involve that those who urge them must be ready to raise the means if they intend to carry out the aspirations which they express. How do working men want old-age pensions? Do they want them as a dole and a charity, or do they want them as something which they have earned, to which they contribute a proportion of the provision, and which they may take without any loss of self-respect or any feeling that they are made paupers and dependants. This question was put by the hon. Member for Dudley who sits on the opposite side of the House, to his constituents the other day. He said he wished to be informed about it, and as I should expect of every working man, they said they expected it as a right to themselves, something which was due to them as citizens who had done their duty, and not as a dole to a pauper. Then said the hon. Member—

"If you wish it in that way you must do something to provide the sum of money which is necessary. Old-age pensions require large sums of money, but all of you have power to add your quota by increased payment for some articles of common consumption."

[MINISTERIAL laughter.] Before hon. Gentlemen laugh further I had better remind them that the hon. Member for Dudley sits on their side of the House. The hon. Member said—

"For instance you might pay a penny more upon tea which would produce a large revenue—"

I do not know whether the hon. Member had in his mind the revenue that tea produces—

"or (he said) you might put something on sugar, and if you mean to have the pension as a right and as self-respecting men that is how you must have it."

I do not say that the whole of the money for these purposes should be raised by additional taxation on articles of food, whether the articles be taxed or untaxed but I do say, speaking with the responsibility of one who has been Chancellor of the Exchequer, that you cannot raise the big sums required for all these purposes—pensions, housing of the working classes, and restoration of the people to the land—unless you extend your basis of taxation." Time, opportunity, and means," as the President of the Local Government Board said, are necessary, and the greatest of these is means, and if the means are there we can find the time and opportunity. At the bottom of this question is money, and our present resources do not enable us to find it. I rejoice to think that this question of old-age pensions is passing into a saner atmosphere, and that its necessity is being recognised in quarters where it was not recognised before. It is certainly becoming increasingly urgent. Probably the expectation of life of the working classes is greater now than ever before—greater than may be supposed from the average age at the time of death of members of trade unions. But I am terribly afraid that the industrial age limit is rather receding than increasing. If that is so, the problem of provision for old age of those who have worked for as long as they can becomes, for this reason alone, even if there were no other reasons, increasingly urgent. I do not need to press that, upon the Government. I do not underrate the difficulty of finding this great fund, but I say if the four parties in the country are really agreed in the view which the right hon. Gentleman opposite takes and the view I take of the urgency of this problem and the importance of providing for these people, then nothing stands between us in doing it but the question of means. For my part I am ready, at any time, to contribute to the raising of the means for this purpose by such an extension of our system of taxation as, while requiring contributions from the working men for the benefits they are to receive (which I think it should require) will also require a contribution from that portion of the community which is better off, for the relief of the poor in their old age.

said the interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to have for its central point the broadening of the basis of taxation in order to provide old-age pensions. Much as they desired old-age pensions, they would strenuously resist any attempt to use them as a bait to drag the working classes into the protectionist net. The Labour Party were inclined to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech meant that the Government intended this year to make a beginning with old-age pensions, and it was under that impression that their decision was announced a few minutes ago. But the speech of the President of the Local Government Board had not maintained that impression. It had, on the contrary, created the impression that the question was only to be dealt with after the reforms of the Army, the Navy, and other matters, which had prior claims, had been disposed of.

No, no.

said the speech of the right hon. Gentleman left that impression. The President of the Local Government Board had said that the all-at-once attitude had now been abandoned. It had not been abandoned by any section entitled to speak in the name of the working classes on this question. They were to have a Return, with a roving commission to discover what trade unions, friendly societies, and other bodies were doing for old-age pensions; but what had this to do with the question? What object was to be gained by it? Twelve months ago this House passed a unanimous resolution in favour of old-age pensions. About twelve months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Government would accept the Motion, and now they were told that not a single step had been taken to make a beginning. There had been four Commissions and several Select and special Committees which had already considered the facts and figures, and all that was required was to bring them up-to-date. But surely that could be done easily, and without requiring a long inquiry. He had been authorised to state on behalf of the Labour Members that they had come to the decision earlier in the evening not to press the Amendment to a division, but, if that decision had not been come to before the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, they would have divided upon the question. They would now, however, postpone it until the Budget had been introduced, and they would then expect a definite beginning to be made. They asked the Government to treat this question not as one to be dealt with only when the Chancellor of Exchequer found it convenient. If it was a question of Army or Navy reform, he presumed that the Cabinet would decide upon its policy and instruct the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find ways and means. What they asked was that the Government, having determined that this question should be dealt with, should

said he wished to ask the Home Secretary why he had thought it necessary to adopt the measures which were in force outside the House at the present moment. Any Member who had been in the precincts of the House within the last hour or two, must have seen a large number of mounted police, and innumerable policemen on foot; indeed the House of Commons had more the appearance of an armed place than that of a deliberative assembly. They were aware that a rather unfortunate incident had occurred this afternoon in connection with the attempts made by women of the country to secure the right to take an active part in the affairs of the nation. Women had rights as well as men. It was for the Home Secretary to say why he had made arrangements which exposed Members of that House to the imputation of cowardice, and of being frightened of women. The treatment accorded to the ladies near the Palace of Westminster would only add fresh troubles to those already surrounding the woman suffrage question. He believed that the women of this country had rights as well as men, and the Government could perfectly well deal with these troubles by promising some effective measure this session. Some of our best women were called upon to discharge onerous and difficult tasks on various public bodies, and there was mention in the King's Speech of an intention to allow women to take some further part in the management of the affairs of local bodies, as if that was the proper satisfaction of the demand of women to have the suffrage in a larger sense. He hoped the Home Secretary would be able to give some reason why he had caused the Palace of Westminster to resemble more a fortress than a place for the Government of the country. It came very singularly from the Government that they should think it necessary to take these steps, when at that moment, if they wont into any corner of London, they would find the supporters of the Government were endeavouring to get the suffrage of women for the County Council election by promising the ratepayers if they voted for Radicals that the County Council would appoint inspectors at the ratepayers' expense to teach mothers the art of nursing. If that was the spirit in which the Government and the majority of the House approached the question of woman suffrage, then he could say that women were entitled to make their protest. He hoped they would receive the assurance that this kind of action would not be repeated, as there was no sort of reason to fear any trouble from the woman suffragists, if tact and discretion were observed by men.

said that as far as he was concerned he had very little knowledge of what occurred outside.

Then you ought to have.

said he had been called from his room to answer the hon. Member, and he could only say that there had been a general instruction to the police, for the convenience of Members of the House, to secure for them a free and uninterrupted passage to and from the House. The police had done their duty, and no doubt would continue to do it.

said he had not intended to raise this question, but as it had been mentioned, he would only state that he had been informed, since the incident referred to, that the police had shown unnecessary violence. That was his information from persons who were eye-witnesses. He hoped the Home Office, in giving the instructions that might be necessary to protect the House, would also see that no unnecessary violence was used by the police in carrying out their duty.

said that, as hon. Members knew, the police were not expected to show any unnecessary violence, and if it were shown that there had been exercise of unnecessary violence, certainly notice would be taken of it, but he had no reason to think that it could be shown.