Cornell Uniui i -,iiu i ,Ui ,t v 
 
 HN 389.H4 
 
 British social politics; materials illusi 
 
 llllllli 
 
 I 
 lll'lll 
 
 I'llll. 
 
 I 'III 
 
 3CIAL 
 
 ||' 
 
 3 1924 002 692 725 
 
 
 HS.YES 
 
THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL 
 
 OF 
 
 INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR 
 
 RELATIONS 
 
 AT 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924002692725 
 
BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 MATERIALS ILLUSTRATING CONTEMPORARY 
 
 STATE ACTION FOR THE SOLUTION 
 
 OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS 
 
 BY 
 CARLTON HAYES 
 
 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 GINN AND COMPANY 
 
 BOSTON • NEW YORK • CHICAGO • LONDON 
 
COPYRIGHT, 1913, BY CARLTON HAYES 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 
 
 Wit lattienauiii jltega . 
 
 GINN AND COMPANY • PRO- 
 PRIETORS ■ BOSTON • U.S.A. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The following pages are an attempt to place at the command of 
 college and university students some first-hand materials for the 
 study of current political and social problems. From many volumes 
 of parliamentary debates, reports, and statutes have been selected, 
 in the first place, a few of the most important Acts which have 
 been passed by the British Parliament since the Liberal Govern- 
 ment came into power in 1905, dealing with a vast range of social 
 problems and activities that the Industrial Revolution had brought 
 face to face with a typical rhodern democracy; and secondly, extracts 
 from the debates in the House of Commons and in the House of 
 Lords with a view to illustrating different points of view which 
 various classes, poUtical parties, and prominent persons have enter- 
 tained on these liberal and radical proposals. 
 
 To study the social problem in Great Britain should be a valu- 
 able introduction to the study of all the grave problems that con- 
 front every modern industrial state. To appreciate the efforts of 
 contemporary statesmen in Great Britain to provide governmental 
 solutions, partial at least, for these problems should be illuminating 
 not only to the student of present-day affairs, but likewise to the 
 historian who would sketch the development of society and social 
 legislation or trace the marvellous growth of state activity in mod- 
 ern times. And possibly knowledge of these matters will not be 
 confined to professional scholars ; the speeches of Mr. Asquith and 
 Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Churchill and many another have not an 
 exclusively academic flavour or interest — they are making history. 
 
 An introductory chapter serves as an apology for the title and 
 scope of this book. It makes no pretension to deal exhaustively or 
 even adequately ^tl|A'HifBSgil^''Yf"^ of the nineteenth century — 
 
iv BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 merely to point out a lane of approach to the study of contempo- 
 rary British history and how such study may be profitably linked 
 up with the great highway of general nineteenth-century history. 
 
 Many topics indirectly of social and political significance might 
 have been included in the volume had space permitted. But, in 
 general, land laws, Irish Home Rule, and Welsh Disestablishment 
 have been inexorably crowded out by Employers' Liabihty, Labour 
 Unions, Child Welfare, Old Age Pensions, Budget Reform, the de- 
 cline of the House of Lords, and National Insurance. It is quite 
 obvious, too, that the very nature of the subject-matter will militate 
 against its permanence. Most of the enactments herein presented 
 will no doubt be superseded, or, at least, amended in detail, in the 
 near future, for finality is not a common attribute of governmental 
 regulations, and the solution of one problem frequently acts to 
 create another. It is hoped, however, that occasional new editions 
 may keep the work near to date. 
 
 To several authorities I am under obligations. First of all 
 should be mentioned the reporters of the great mass of parliament- 
 ary proceedings, who, quite as anonymous as the monastic chroni- 
 clers of the Middle Ages, have infinitely surpassed the monks in 
 the wealth of information with which they have supplied us. Then I 
 would express gratitude to the compilers of the "Annual Register " 
 and to the writers on the London Times and the Spectator, from 
 whose digests and reports I have drawn freely. And I would con- 
 fess the stimulus which has been given this work by the perusal 
 of the writings of such enthusiastic British Liberals as Mr. David 
 Lloyd George, Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. J. A. Hobson, and 
 Mr. Percy Alden. To my colleague. Professor Charles A. Beard, 
 I am indebted for the immediate suggestion of the work, as well 
 as for a lively sympathy with its purpose and valuable criticism in 
 its completion. 
 
 CARLTON HAYES 
 
 Columbia University 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE i 
 
 CHAPTER I. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 20 
 
 I. The Home Secretary on Workmen's Compensation . . 22 
 Mr. H. J. Gladstone, Commons., March 26, igo6 
 
 i. Conservative Reply to the Home Secretary .... 32 
 Mr. A. Akers-Douglas, Commons, March 26, igo6 
 
 3. Labour Reply to the Home Secretary 34 
 
 Mr. G. N. Barnes, Commons, March 26, igo6 
 
 4. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain on Workmen's Compensation 36 
 
 Commons, March 36, igo6 
 
 5. Sir Charles Dilke on Workmen's Compensation ... 38 
 
 ComTnons, April ^, igo6 
 
 6. Employer's Attitude toward Workmen's Compensation 41 
 
 Mr. H. G. Montgomery, Commons, April 4., igob 
 
 7. Employee's Attitude toward Workmen's Compensation 43 
 
 Mr. J. R. Clynes, Commons, April 4., igo6 
 
 8. Foreshadowing National Insurance 45 
 
 Mr. H. J. Gladstone, Commons, December 13, jgob 
 
 9. Third Reading of Workmen's Compensation Bill . . 46 
 
 Mr. Joseph Walton, Commons, December ij, igo6 
 
 10. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 47 
 
 6 Edw. 7, ch. J 8 
 
 11. Workmen's Compensation (Anglo-French Convention) 
 
 Act, 1909 72 
 
 g Edw. 7, ch. 16 
 
vi BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER II. TRADE UNIONISM 77 
 
 12. Introduction of Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Bill 8o 
 
 Sir John Walton, Commons, March 28, iqob 
 
 13. Trade Disputes Act, 1906 85 
 
 6 Edvi. 7, ch. ^7 
 
 14. Trade Union Act, 187 i 87 
 
 34 &f 3S Vici., ch.31 (in fart) 
 
 15. Trade Union Act, 1876 ... 95 
 
 J9 <Sr= 40 Vict., ch. 22 {in part) 
 
 16. Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 ■ • 9^ 
 
 38 &' 39 Vict., ch. 86 (in fart) 
 
 17. Labour and the Payment of Members of Parliament 102 
 
 Mr. Arthur Lee and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Commons, 
 August 10, igii 
 
 CHAPTER III. CHILD WELFARE . 
 
 i8. Provision of Meals for School Children . . . 
 Mr. W. T. Wilson, Commons, March 2, igo6 
 
 19. Opposition to Provision of Meals 
 
 Mr. Harold Cox, Commons, March 2, igo6 
 
 20. Government Advocacy of Provision of Meals . . 
 
 Mr. Augustine Birrell, Commons, March 2, igo6 
 
 21. Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906 . . 
 
 6 Edw. 7, ch.j'/ 
 
 22. Introduction of Notifications of Birth Bill, 1907 
 
 Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, April 23, igoj 
 
 23. Introduction of Children Bill, 1908 . . . . 
 
 Mr. Herbert Samuel, Commons, February 10, igo8 
 
 CHAPTER IV. OLD AGE PENSIONS 
 
 107 
 no 
 
 116 
 
 119 
 
 124 
 
 130 
 
 24. Promise of Old Age Pensions 134 
 
 Mr. H. II. Asquith, Commons, Afril 18, igoj 
 
 25. Renewed Promise of Old Age Pensions 138 
 
 Mr. H. H. Asquith, Commons, May 7, igo8 
 
CONTENTS vii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 26. Second Reading of Old Age Pensions Bill 140 
 
 Mr. David Lloyd George, Commons, June ij, igo8 
 
 27. Opposition to Old Age Pensions Bill 143 
 
 Mr. Harold Cox, Commons, June ij, igo8 
 
 28. A Conservative Opponent to the Government Bill . 149 
 
 Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, June ij, igoS 
 
 29. Skepticism on Old Age Pensions 151 
 
 Mr. A. J. Balfour, Commons, July 9, igoS 
 
 30. Labour Defence of Old Age Pensions 157 
 
 Mr. William Crooks, Comtnons, July g, igo8 
 
 31. Opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords . . . 160 
 
 Earl of Wemyss, Lords, July so, igo8 
 
 32. Danger of Dispute with the House of Commons . . 163 
 
 Earl of Rosebery, Lords, July 20, igo8 
 
 33. An Anglican Bishop on Old Age Pensions . . 165 
 
 Bishop of Ripon, Lords, July zo, igo8 
 
 34. Old Age Pensions Act, igo8 167 
 
 8 Edw. 7, ch.40 
 
 35. Old Age Pensions Act, 1911 176 
 
 I &' z Geo. 5, ch. 16 
 
 CHAPTER V. THE UNEMPLOYED 185 
 
 36. Report of Poor Law Commission, 1909 . .... 187 
 
 Rhuml froTn the "Annual Register" 
 
 37. Government Proposals on Unemployment . . . . 191 
 
 Mr. Winston Churchill, Commons, May ig, igog 
 
 38. Conservative Position on Unemployment . . . 206 
 
 Mr. F. E. Smith, Commons, May ig, igog 
 
 39. Labour Party's Attitude toward Unemployment . . 209 
 
 Mr. Arthur Henderson, Commons, May jg, igog 
 
 40. Labour Exchanges Act, 1909 213 
 
 g Edw. 7, ch. 7 
 
viii BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER VI. SWEATED LABOUR 217 
 
 41. Introduction of the Trade Boards Bill 220 
 
 Mr. Winston Churchill, Commons, March 24., igog; 
 Sir Frederick Banbury, ibid. 
 
 42. Second Reading of the Trade Boards Bill .... 226 
 
 Mr. H. J. Tennant, Commons, April 28, igog 
 
 43. Sweated Labour and Foreign Competition . . 236 
 
 Mr. A. J. Balfour, Commons, April 28, igog 
 
 44. A Labour View of thE Trade Boards Bill . . . . 238 
 
 Mr. T. F. Richards, Commons, April 28, igog 
 
 45. The Lords' Debate — a Liberal View 241 
 
 Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, Lords, August 30, igog 
 
 46. The Lords' Debate — A Conservative View . . . . 245 
 
 Marquess of Salisbury, Lords, August 30, igog 
 
 47. Trade Boards Act, 1909 . 247 
 
 g Edw. 7, ch. 22 
 
 CHAPTER VII. THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM . 263 
 
 48. General Principles of the Housing and Town Plan- 
 
 ning Bill ... 269 
 
 Mr. John Burns, Commons, April 5, igog 
 
 49. Detailed Explanation of the Housing and Town 
 
 Planning Bill 278 
 
 Earl Beauchamp, Lords, September 14., igog 
 
 50. Dangers of Bureaucracy 285 
 
 Earl of Onslow, Lords, September 14, igog 
 
 51. Friendly Ecclesiastical Attitude toward Town Plan- 
 
 ning 287 
 
 Bishop of Birmingham, Lords, September 14, iggg 
 
 52. Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1909 291 
 
 9 Edw. 7, ch. 44 {in pari) 
 
 53. Conservative Opposition to the Development Bill . . 314 
 
 Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, September 6, igog 
 
CONTENTS IX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 54. Reply to Conservative Opposition to Development Bill 324 
 
 Mr, David Lloyd George, Commons, September 6, igog 
 
 55. Labour View of the Development Bill 329 
 
 Mr. G. N. Barnes, Commons, September 6, igog 
 
 56. Explanation of the Development Bill 330 
 
 Earl Carrington, Lords, October 14., igog ' 
 
 57. Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909 334 
 
 9 £ifw. 7, cA. ^7 {in part) 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET . . 347 
 
 58. The Budget Speech of 1909 361 
 
 Mr. David Lloyd George, Commons, April zg, igog 
 
 59. A Socialist's View of the Budget 381 
 
 Mr. Philip Snowden, Commons, November 2, igog 
 
 60. Ecclesiastical Opposition to the Budget 388 
 
 Bishop of Bristol, Lords, November 22, igog 
 
 61. A Liberal Ixjrd's Opinion of Ecclesiastical Opposition 390 
 
 Lord Sheffield, Lords, November 22, igog 
 
 62. An Attack upon the Sponsor of the Bill 392 
 
 Lord Willoughby de Broke, Lords, November 22, igog 
 
 63. A Financier's View of the Budget 394 
 
 Lord Revelstoke, fiords, November 22, igog 
 
 64. Ecclesiastical Support of the Budget 395 
 
 Bishop of Birmingham, Lords, November 22, igog 
 
 65. A Conciliatory Speech on the Budget 397 
 
 Lord Ribblesdale, Lords, November 22, igog 
 
 66. An Extreme Conservative View of the Budget . . 398 
 
 Duke of Marlborough, Lords, November 2j, igog 
 
 67. Lord Rosebery on the Budget 399 
 
 Earl of Rosebery, Lords, November 24, igog 
 
 68. Lord Morley on the Budget 402 
 
 Viscount Morley of Blackburn, Lords, November 2g, igog 
 
X BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 69. The Lords' Rejection of the Budget 406 
 
 Earl of Crewe, Lords, November 30, igog 
 
 70. Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 408 
 
 10 Edw. 7, ch.8 (in part) 
 
 CHAPTER IX. CURBING THE LORDS 421 
 
 71. Proposals for Restricting the Power of the House 
 
 of Lords 438 
 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Commons, June 24., igo'j 
 
 72. Defence of the House op Lords 449 
 
 Mr. A. J. Balfour, Commons, June 24, igoj 
 
 73. The Undemocratic Character of the House of Lords 456 
 
 Mr. D. Shackleton, Commons, June 24., Jgoy 
 
 74. Defence of Two-Chamber Government 460 
 
 Sir William Anson, Commons, June 24, igoj 
 
 75. The Issue between the Houses and the Parties . . . 464 
 
 Mr. Winston Churchill, Commons, June 2^, igoj 
 
 76. An Arraignment of the House of Lords 470 
 
 Mr. David Lloyd George, Commons, June 26, igoy 
 
 77. Exposition of the Parliament Bill 474 
 
 Earl of Crewe, Lords, November 21, igio 
 
 78. Opposition to the Parliament Bill 485 
 
 Marquess of Lansdowne, Lords, November 21, jgio 
 
 79. Government Haste against the House of Lords . . 494 
 
 Earl of Rosebery, Lords, November si, igio " 
 
 80. Futility of Reforming the House of Lords from 
 
 within 496 
 
 Lord Loreburn, Lords, N'ovember 21, jgio 
 
 81. Conservative Substitute for the Parliament Bill . . 497 
 
 Marquess of Lansdowne, Lords, November 23, igio 
 
 82. Support of the Lansdowne Resolutions 498 
 
 Lord Ribblesdale, Lords, November 23, igio 
 
 83. Parliament Act, 1911 ■<- 502 
 
 ' &' 2 Geo. 5, ch. 13 
 
CONTENTS xi 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER X. NATIONAL INSURANCE 506 
 
 84. Exposition of the National Insurance Bill 511 
 
 Mr. David Lloyd George, Commons, May 4, igii 
 
 85. Irish Support of the National Insurance Bill . . . 535 
 
 Mr. John Redmond, Commons, May 4, igii 
 
 86. Defence of the National Insurance Bill .... 536 
 
 Mr. Sydney Buxton, Commons, May 24., igii 
 
 87. Lessons from German Experience 543 
 
 Sir Rufus Isaacs, Commons, May 24., igii 
 
 88. Attitude of the Labour Party toward National 
 
 Insurance 547 
 
 Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Commons, May zg, igii 
 
 89. Attitude of the Unionist Party toward National 
 
 Insurance 555 
 
 Mr. H. W. Forster, Commons, December 6, igii 
 
 go. National Insurance and Self-reliance 561 
 
 Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, December 6, rgii 
 
 91. Defects in the Government Bill ... 563 
 
 Mr. Bonar Law, Commons, December 6, igii 
 
 92. Final Plea for National Insurance . . . . 568 
 
 Mr. H. H. Asquith, Commons, December 6, igii 
 
 APPENDIX. THE BRITISH CABINET, 1905-1912 .... 573 
 INDEX 575 
 
BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE 
 I 
 
 Two historical factors have conspired to bring about in our own 
 day a fundamental change in the convictions of many thoughtful 
 persons as to the proper scope and functions of government. In 
 the first place, the French Revolution not only abolished legal class 
 privilege and defined civil " rights " uniform for all citizens, but it 
 sounded the death knell of absolutism ; and its great dreams of 
 individual liberty and social equality and political brotherhood pro- 
 vided a powerful stimulus, throughout the nineteenth century, to 
 ever-recurring and increasingly successful movements throughout 
 Europe for the extension of the suffrage and the removal of legal 
 disabilities in society. In France, political democracy was gradually 
 evolved through kaleidoscopic changes of Legitimate Monarchy, 
 July Monarchy, Republic, Empire, and Republic. In England, a 
 like process was painfully in evidence during Peterloo Massacres, 
 and Chartist riots, and Reform agitations. In both countries, be- 
 fore the close of the century, the electorate had supposedly attained 
 a democratic mastery over one great institution — the government. 
 
 Of greater importance to us than the more or less theoretical 
 political principles proclaimed and exemplified by the French Revo- 
 lution are the very practical problems created by that series of 
 marvellous mechanical inventions and adaptations which has passed 
 under the name of the Industrial Revolution. Within the last 
 hundred years the whole social fabric has undergone a complete 
 
2 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 transformation, until it has brought forth present-day capitalism 
 and the factory system and a wage-earning proletariat huddled 
 in great towns ; and novel facts have presented themselves which 
 could not be faced in the manner of the eighteenth century nor 
 run away from as the laissez-faire economists of the last century 
 would have done. So long as highly-developed industrial states — 
 countries directly affected by the Industrial Revolution — pursued 
 a frank policy of governmental non-intervention, the capitalist class 
 seemed to grow wealthier and more powerful, while the mass of 
 wage-earners appeared to grow relatively poorer and more de- 
 graded. Under such conditions, written constitutional guarantees 
 of religious toleration and political equality did not suffice to ren- 
 der democracy real and vitaj. Soon after the French Revolution, 
 Baboeuf had declared : 
 
 When I see the poor without the clothing and shoes which they them- 
 selves are engaged in making, and contemplate the small minority who 
 do not work and yet want for nothing, I am convinced that government 
 is still the old conspiracy of the few against the many, only it has taken 
 a new form. 
 
 Gradually the working classes, whom the Industrial Revolution 
 called into being, came to share Babceuf's opinion and to complain 
 that they suffered from class privileges infinitely more oppressive 
 than any of those against which the French revolutionists con- 
 tended. They began to believe that political rights and written 
 constitutions, of themselves, might be quite sterile, and to demand 
 the employment of political agencies in order to secure equality of 
 opportunity for all classes and the well-being of each and every 
 citizen, worker as well as capitalist. It followed quite naturally 
 from the interesting union of two revolutionary currents — the 
 political and the industrial — that the people of each affected state 
 thought of using their democratic representative mastery over gov- 
 ernment, in proportion to the extent to which they had achieved 
 it, as a means through which to undertake industrial regulation 
 and general social control. That has meant the socialisation of 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 3 
 
 politics — government, in its widest significance, of the people 
 and for the people. 
 
 " Social politics " thus becomes a convenient phrase to indicate, 
 loosely perhaps, the present-day development of political democ- 
 racy and its utilisation for social purposes. Social equality is its 
 goal. Mr. Percy Alden, one of its distinguished advocates in the 
 British Parliament, writes in a recently published volume ' : 
 
 Without claiming too much for the new programme which the Liberatt 
 party has put forward, this, at least, may be asserted with confidence, that\ 
 it implies a desertion of the old individualist standard and the adoption of 
 a new principle — a principle which the Unionists call socialistic. If it be 
 true that a positive policy of social reconstruction savours of socialism, 
 then, of course, this contention can be justified. The main point is that 
 the function of the State in the mind of the Liberal and Radical of to-day 
 is much wider in scope than seemed possible to our predecessors. The 
 State avowedly claims the right to interfere with industrial liberty and to 
 modify the old economic view of the disposal of private property. Liberal- 
 ism recognises that it is no longer possible to accept the view that all men 
 have an equal chance, and that there is nothing more to be done than 
 merely to hold evenly the scales of government. As a matter of fact, the 
 anomalies and the injustices of our present social system have compelled 
 even our opponents to introduce ameliorative legislation. But the Liberal 
 of to-day goes further. He asks that such economic changes shall be in- 
 troduced as will make it possible for every man to possess a minimum 
 of security and comfort. Property is no longer to have an undue claim ; 
 great wealth must be prepared to bear burdens in the interests of the 
 whole community. Our social system must have an ethical basis. 
 
 At least since Bismarck prevailed upon the German Reichstag 
 to enact measures to insure workingmen against sickness, accident, 
 unemployment, and old age, the progressive governments of every 
 civilised state have concerned themselves with a vast range of 
 social legislation. The labour of a life-time would hardly suffice to 
 study the various forms and activities of social politics in Aus- 
 tralia and New Zealand, in the Scandinavian states and in Bel- 
 gium, in France and in Germany, in Great Britain and in our own 
 
 1 Democratic England, pp. 5-7. 
 
4 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 American Union. Yet the subject is of such interest and imme- 
 diate importance to every student of comtemporary history and 
 politics — so portentous for the future — that its extent and com- 
 plexity should not stagger us ; there is but an increased need 
 of a dispassionate and scientific review of the causes and results 
 of social politics. 
 
 II 
 
 It would be difficult to find any country better adapted to an 
 introductory study of social politics than England, where, in a 
 nation of first-rate importance, the two requisite factors, to which 
 reference has been made, have been very much in evidence 
 throughout the nineteenth century. On the one hand, the revo- 
 lutionary spirit of democracy, since the time of Burke and Pitt, 
 has coursed through the veins of the old-time corporation govern- 
 ment of the country and has remade the body politic, until now 
 not a nation in the world can boast a more simple, direct, and 
 truly representative form of political democracy than the United 
 Kingdom. On the other hand, no country has been more, or 
 worse, affected by the Industrial Revolution ; no nation has had 
 graver industrial problems to face. It was in Great Britain that 
 the most important mechanical inventions were made; it was 
 British manufacturers who had a start of at least a score of 
 years over their continental rivals ; and to those islands through- 
 out the nineteenth century has clung that boasted preeminence 
 in industry and in trade. And anyone who takes the trouble to 
 peruse thousands of pages of parhamentary records and commis- 
 sion reports can begin to understand at what tremendous cost 
 that industrial supremacy has been secured and upheld — a cost 
 of veritable millions of human lives and of the physical and 
 spiritual degradation of other millions.^ The most serious social 
 questions have confronted England's political democracy. 
 
 1 Cf., in addition to the various Factory Commission and Poor Law Commission 
 Reports, Charles Booth, Life and Labour of the People in London, and Seebohm 
 Rowntree, Poverty : A Study of Town Life. 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 5 
 
 Nor would it be easy to find a country better fitted than 
 England to illustrate the elements of opposition to such a social- 
 ising tendency, for it must not be supposed that democracy has 
 been evolved in the United Kingdom suddenly, or without a 
 struggle, or that the entire English nation have at any time thor- 
 oughly understood the social problem or been over-anxious to 
 cope with it. The interested conservative classes have alwayi 
 had their many apologists, whether of the obscurantist type wh( 
 seek to justify opposition to change by reference to the mysterioui 
 workings of a Divine Providence, or of the so-called scientific tu: 
 who aim to clothe existent inequality and injustice in the language 
 of the economic schools. In fact, many clergymen and other 
 ethical teachers, and political economists with their laissez-faire 
 theories, and lawyers and judges with their juristic explanations 
 of the Englishman's right to freedom of contract, all contributed 
 support, directly or indirectly, throughout the greater part of the 
 nineteenth century, to that compact conservatism which, in the 
 name of law and order and security, or of sound economic doc- 
 trine, or even of God, checked the growth of the social democracy 
 and prevented the application of its remedies.^ 
 
 The whole problem has been rendered especially difficult in the 
 United Kingdom by reason of an established church and a landed 
 aristocracy, both of which have been naturally bent upon the pres- 
 ervation of the status quo. They have enjoyed the prestige which 
 belongs to ruling classes, and not only have they declined to see 
 advantage in a change which might molest their own abundant 
 wealth and large estates, but they have succeeded in inculcating 
 in many others a similar attitude of mind. The Return which Lord 
 Derby asked for in 1872, as a result of a criticism by John Stuart 
 Mill, incomplete and inaccurate as it was, showed certainly that 
 in that day 2250 persons owned nearly half the enclosed land of 
 England and Wales, 1700 owned nine tenths of Scotland, and 
 
 -1 Cf. A. V. Dicey, Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in 
 England during the Nineteenth Century (1905). 
 
6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 1942 owned two thirds of Ireland. From the same Return we 
 learn that 28 dukes held estates to the amount of nearly 4,000,000 
 acres, 33 marquises 1,500,000 acres, 194 earls 5,862,000 acres, 
 and 270 viscounts and barons 3,785,000 acres. Since 1872, 
 the number of landowners has considerably increased, but not to 
 such an extent as materially to alter the fact that, over against an 
 enormous land monopoly in the hands of the aristocracy, the vast 
 majority of British subjects possess no right whatsoever to their 
 native soil. Any such monopoly is bound to be inimical to politi- 
 cal democracy and social equality, yet it is not without its defence 
 by economists, jurists, and divines. 
 
 Of course, the landed aristocracy have by no means universally 
 opposed social legislation. For several decades, jealous of the in- 
 creasing wealth of manufacturers and merchants and traders whom 
 the new industrial system immediately benefited, and envious of this 
 newer aristocracy that was springing up about them, they contrib- 
 uted important support to the first discomfiture of the new capital- 
 ists. Such a man as Shaftesbury furnished a conspicuous example 
 in his support of factory legislation. These noblemen were often 
 zealous to attack the manufacturers, but were rigidly conservative 
 in the defence of their own landed interests. In time, however, 
 as the profits of their estates were invested more and more in 
 commercial and industrial enterprises, the former friction tended to 
 disappear, and the whole aristocracy, whether founded originally 
 on land or on trade or on manufacturing, have, in our own time, 
 discovered common interests in opposing labour legislation all 
 along the line. 
 
 In the political institutions of the country these privileged classes 
 have been deeply intrenched. For centuries the statutes have been 
 promulgated under the form, " Be it enacted by the King's most 
 Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords 
 Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament 
 assembled and by the authority of the same." Of course, the crown 
 was practically deprived of its legislative powers by the " Glorious 
 
INT RObUCTORY NOTE j 
 
 Revolution" of 1688, and Queen Anne exercised the sovereign's 
 veto right in 1707 for the last time. But the Lords Spiritual and 
 Temporal — the House of Lords — remained long afterwards a 
 powerful factor in legislation, or, more often, in staying legislation. 
 At the beginning of the nineteenth century not only was this House 
 an important governmental institution, of equal powers with the 
 Commons, save in strictly fiscal affairs, but its members, by means 
 of indirect influence or direct patronage, actually controlled a large 
 number of seats in the other House, and although the passage of 
 the Reform Bill of 1832 served partially to free the Commons from 
 the Lords, nevertheless the Upper Chamber remained to our own 
 day a conservative and usually successful opponent of democratic 
 legislation. The House of Lords has been a curious survival, a 
 historical anachronism, in the progress of British democracy. 
 
 Nor has the House of Commons achieved its present position 
 without a very long struggle. Emancipated in part from the An- 
 glican hierarchy and the higher nobility by the Reform Bill of 1832, 
 and rendered more representative of the country than it had ever 
 been before, it still remained far from democratic. Its restricted 
 electorate and peculiar method of election tended quite naturally 
 to limit its membership to the country gentry and to the newer 
 industrial and commercial magnates ; and the counsels of these 
 classes customarily prevailed in Commons' debates. To tell the 
 story of how the democratic spirit in the nation reacted upon the 
 House, and how the reforms of 1867, of 1872, of 1884, and of 
 1885 were secured, would far exceed the space and purpose of this 
 introductory note.^ The movement was painfully slow ; and it has 
 been only of comparatively recent date that the House of Com- 
 mons has become largely representative and able to assume seri- 
 ously and interestedly the responsibilities of social politics. Even 
 now, certain property qualifications prevent some half million of 
 adult British male citizens, who are in particular need of remedial 
 
 1 Cf. May, Constitutional History of England, edited by Francis Holland, 3 vols. 
 (1912). 
 
8 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 legislation, from exercising the suffrage, to say nothing of all the 
 female citizens of the kingdom. 
 
 Without entering into a discussion of the matter, it may not be 
 amiss at this point to suggest a possible further difficulty in the 
 British polity — the two-party system. For many years every vot- 
 ing Englishman was identified, largely by reason of historical acci- 
 dent, with one of two parties — the Tory, or Conservative, and the 
 Whig, or Liberal. The two-party system, whatever may be its 
 advantages, has certain defects, as we in the United States know 
 only too well, — a devotion to names rather than to principles, a 
 traditional, almost hereditary, alignment of voters on important 
 questions, and a loyalty to party often transcending loyalty to the 
 nation at large, — and evidences of these defects are not lacking 
 in English history. When one thinks of the party squabbles over 
 protection and imperialism and Irish Home Rule, and of the time 
 and energy spent in gaining some slight tactical advantage for a 
 political party, he wonders whether the most successful operation 
 of real democracy will not be through channels other than the two- 
 party system. At all events, the group systems that prevail in 
 Germany and in France, and that are now appearing in Great 
 Britain, do not seem to be barren of achievement. 
 
 IIP 
 
 That the old-line British parties promoted real progress along 
 certain lines is indisputable. Thus, it was the Whigs, or Liberals, 
 who sponsored the great Reform Bill of 1832 and a good deal of 
 the subsequent reform legislation, such as the democratisation of 
 
 1 The following brief outline of the development of the political parties in Eng- 
 land should be supplemented by readings in May, Constitutional History of England, 
 ed. by Francis Holland, 3 vols. (1912) ; Sir William R. Anson, Law and Custom of the 
 English Constitution, 2 vols. (2d ed., i8g6) ; H. Paul, A History of Modem England, 
 5 vols. (1904-1906) ; S. Walpole, History of England since 1815, 6 vols. (1890), and 
 History of Twenty-five Years, 2 vols. (1904) ; A. Dicey, op. cit., and The Law of the 
 Constitution (1885) ; A. L. Lowell, The Government of England, 2 vols. (1908) ; and 
 J. A. R. Marriott, English Political Institutions (1910), 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 9 
 
 the towns and cities, the repeal of the corn laws and establishment 
 of free trade, the abolition of slavery in the colonies, the reform of 
 the poor law, and the mild beginning of factory legislation. But 
 the Liberals, recruited chiefly from the townsfolk, the middle-class 
 traders and manufacturers, and the dissenters and Non-Conform- 
 ists, appeared far more anxious to rid their brethren of black slav- 
 ery beyond the seas than to check the growth of white serfdom 
 in their own factories at home. The free-trade agitation of Cobden 
 and Bright was the extreme radical plank in the Liberal platform 
 of those days ; the party failed utterly to appreciate the aggravated 
 distress of the working classes, or, if they did appreciate it, their 
 self-interest or economic principles restrained them from applying 
 remedies ; and it was Liberals quite as much as Tories who ridi- 
 culed and suppressed the Chartist movement. In their repugnance 
 to a wider democracy and to state action for the improvement of 
 the general welfare, the Liberals of the mid-century held fast to 
 the faith of their forefathers, the Burkes and the Pitts. 
 
 On the other hand, the Tory, or Conservative, party were taught 
 novel and strange doctrines by that bizarre and paradoxical genius, 
 Disraeli. While that remarkable leader never lost an opportunity, 
 in novel-writing. or in parliamentary debate, to keep alive the Tory 
 tradition of exalting the prestige of the landed aristocracy and the 
 AHglican Church, and of proclaiming them as the bulwarks of Eng- 
 lish liberty, he was moved by the same Zeitgeist which supplied 
 political theories to a Napoleon III and to a Bismarck. Disraeli, 
 like his great contemporaries on the continent, declared that some- 
 thing definite should be done for the poorer and working classes 
 in the community and that they should be educated to a proper 
 sense of what they owed to the crown, the lords, and the church ; 
 and in the meantime, a vigorous foreign and imperialistic policy 
 would distract public attention from the graver domestic ills. It was 
 Disraeli who both championed the Reform Act of 1867 and subor- 
 dinated social legislation at home to the prosecution of a glorious 
 diplomacy in India, in Afghanistan, in Egypt, in the Russo-Turkish 
 
lO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 War. And if the Conservative party were by no means unani- 
 mous in endorsing the Reform Act, the rest of his policy they 
 accepted quite readily, so that imperialism thenceforth became a 
 Tory shibboleth, along with the preservation of the landed aristoc- 
 racy and of the established church. There is no doubt of the sin- 
 cerity and good intentions of the great mass of Conservatives who 
 supported Disraeli's platform, but for some reason or other it would 
 not stand continued wear. Perhaps in the long run the working 
 classes came to the conclusion that foreign glory is not the most cer- 
 tain way of feeding hungry stomachs or clothing half -naked bodies. 
 When Gladstone returned to power, the Liberals managed to in- 
 crease the electorate Considerably by means of the Reform Bill of 
 1884, and to effect educational reforms and several other changes 
 along the line of political democracy. And a few minor acts were 
 passed to conciliate the working classes ; but the party leaders still 
 adhered too closely to the laissez-faire preachments of the Man- 
 chester school to be able to shake themselves free, or even want 
 to shake themselves free, from the strong grip of the manufactur- 
 ing and commercial classes. Such an honest philanthropist as John 
 Bright was blinded by prejudice to the advantages which the coun- 
 try at large might gain from better factory legislation, shorter hours, 
 and higher wages, all of which he insisted upon treating as an in- 
 terference with individual liberty. Then, too, party tactics and the 
 Irish question played the same role in drawing the attention of 
 the Liberals away from immediate social legislation as imperialism 
 had in the case of the Conservatives. Of course, from the stand- 
 point of the thoroughgoing democrat, the labours of the Gladston- 
 ian Liberals in behalf of Ireland deserved high praise : it was an 
 attack upon privilege to disestablish the Anglican Church in that 
 island and to seek to destroy the land monopoly ; • to espouse Home . 
 Rule was in the interest of representative and responsible govern- 
 ment. But only a beginning was made in dealing with the Irish 
 problem, and its most obvious result in Great Britain was the 
 disruption of the Liberal party, a considerable group of Liberal 
 
/tlnio) 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE ii 
 
 Jnionists following Mr. Joseph Chamberlain into the Conservative 
 j party, which had opposed the Irish reforms even more naturally 
 \th^ it had advocated imperialism. 
 
 A period of almost complete stagnation, so far as social legisla- 
 tion was concerned, followed the Unionist victory of 1895. The 
 new government gladly turned to imperialism once more, but the 
 conduct and final outcome of the Boer War were not such as to 
 enhance their reputation. An important group of the Conservative 
 party which gradually gathered about Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in 
 his advocacy of a close federation of the self-governing colonies 
 with the mother-country, urged with him, as a means to that end, 
 and in order to promote the national welfare, a complete revolution 
 in the fiscal arrangements of the state, involving the abandonment 
 of free trade and the adoption of a frankly protective tariff, with 
 special provisions for a system of preferential tariffs within the 
 empire. The earnest opposition or quiet indifference of Lord 
 Lansdowne, Mr. Balfour, and other influential Conservatives to 
 protectionism, tended to create dissensions within the party ; and 
 as long as the general financial policy of the government was un- 
 certain, it was impossible to satisfy the business interests of the 
 country or to provide any large surplus to utilise in radical social 
 reforms. Mr. Chamberlain, certainly, preached social reform in 
 season and out of season, and although he succeeded in pledging 
 the Conservative party to deal with the problems of the aged and of 
 the unemployed, the funds were never forthcoming to ensure effec- 
 tive legislation. Whether he grew tired of being as one crying in the 
 wilderness or despaired of human nature or merely of his colleagues, 
 it was Mr. Chamberlain who, after most enthusiastic and repeated 
 declarations in behalf of old age pensions, finally stood aside with 
 the somewhat cynical remark, " It is not in my department." 
 
 It is significant that the fall of the Unionist government in 1905 
 ' and"tlieT)eginning ot radical social legislation under Liberal auspices 
 "Coincided with the appearance ot the new^ Labour party. Since 
 U875, when they ■wefelffnal^Tegalised, the trade unions had been 
 
12 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 ^owly increasing in influence and power and pressing for political 
 redress of their grievances. This agitation, carried on outside the 
 two great parties and aided by the propaganda of the Social Demi 
 ocrats and the educative campaign of the Fabian Society, was\ 
 , crystallised into the Labour party directly as a result of the cele- 1 
 wated legal decision known as the Taff Vale Railway Company v. I 
 the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, in which the court 
 held that trade unions were corporations that were liable to costs 
 and damages for the action of any of their agents whenever such 
 action had caused loss to other persons. Representatives of trade 
 p unions and socialist societies were at once assembled in order to 
 form what was called a Labour Representation Comm ittee, and at 
 the first annual conference, in FebrHafyTTgoi , over forty-one trade 
 uriionvwTth~j537DiooTSeml5ers, together with seven tr ade councils , 
 -Ihe FaWanTBociety, and the independentLaboiirTarty (a socialist 
 .orga nisation whiclTSir. Keir Hardie had founded in i893)7joi^S~ 
 -tKecommittee. Thenceforth the movemenF spre ad rapid ly. At the 
 electiorrof- 19067 out of "50^ Labour Representation candidates 29 
 were elected, as well as 11 members of Parliament in connexion 
 with the miners' associations, which were not then affiliated. 
 Fourteen other workmen were elected either as Independent 
 Labour men or as Liberals, making a total of 54 who more or 
 less represented labour. The most recent conference of the new 
 party represented 1,450,648 trade unionists and the two socialist 
 societies, the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society, 
 while 155 trades councils and local labour parties were also affiliated, 
 the reported total membership being 1,481,368. 
 
 Next in significance to the rise of the Labour party was the in- 
 creasing ra dicalism of the"Li b eraIs7""TJnaou btedly the'secessiSJr of 
 the Unionists, to which reiexence was made above,^ while itjem- 
 porarily weakened the Liberal party and drove them from office, 
 nevertheless in the long run consolidated the Gladstonian Liberals 
 and afforded them a broader social outlook than they had ever had 
 before. Likewise the parallel growth of the Labour party, and the 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1 3 
 
 realisation that there was an important public work to be done, fired 
 the altruistic spirit of many younger men, such as Masterman, 
 Churchill, Lloyd George, and J. A. Hobson, who entered the Lib- 
 eral party full of enthusiasm for humanity and for social reform. 
 Another generation was to do a greater work than Gladstone's. By 
 1905, the ever-waning prestige of the Conservatives, the enthusi- 
 astic organising of the Labourites, and the optimism of the Liberals, 
 all betokened a revolution in British politics. Up to that time both 
 Conservatives and Liberals, acting on opportunist principles, had 
 occasionally allowed coUectivist measures, particularly for Ireland, 
 to pass into law ; both, more or less unwittingly, had enlarged the 
 area of State interference and replaced older individualistic meth- 
 ods by public action and safeguards. For a number of years after 
 1905, the controlling majority set about purposely to adapt politi- 
 cal democracy to social needs. The hour for major social politics 
 had struck in the United Kingdom. 
 
 IV 
 In the parliamentary session of 1905 the Conservative govern- 
 ment of Mr. Balfour presented three important proposals for social 
 legislation : a Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Bill, an Unem- 
 ployed Workmen Bill, and a Workmen's Compensation Bill. The 
 first-mentioned, which, among other objects, was designed to legal- 
 ise " peaceful picketing " in strikes, to free trade unions from the 
 dangers involved in the law of conspiracy, and to protect the 
 funds of the unions against the dangers opened up by the Taff 
 Vale judgment, was so mutilated in committee discussion, — even 
 ministers, particularly Sir Edward Carson, the solicitor-general, 
 voting for every destructive amendment, — that in May at the 
 instance of its promoters the bill was withdrawn. The coUapse of 
 this measure undoubtedly represented the mature judgment of the 
 Tory majority, but it could hardly fail to stultify the ministry and 
 to cause a considerable amount of irritation among the classes 
 whose expectations had been raised. Nor was the fate of the 
 
14 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 other measures more advantageous to the government. The Un- 
 employed Workmen Bill provided -for setting up an organisation 
 for the assistance of unemployed workmen — the establishment of 
 a local body in each metropolitan borough and a central body for 
 the whole area of London, whose duties would be to inquire into 
 the cases of applicants for employment and to divide them into two 
 classes : applicants honestly desirous of obtaining work but unable 
 to do so from exceptional causes, and applicants who might be re- 
 garded as proper objects of ordinary Poor Law relief ; but most 
 of the powers conferred by the measure were made discretionary 
 rather than obligatory, and the bill was finally enacted with an 
 amendment limiting its duration to three years. The Workmen's 
 Compensation Bill, an extension of the principle of employer's lia- 
 bility to several classes of workmen not enumerated in the Act of 
 1897, was amended out of any semblance of its original form and 
 at length failed completely. 
 
 Parliament was prorogued on August 11, 1905, the speech from 
 the throne setting forth a very meagre record of successful legis- 
 lation ; and the Conservative ministry, weakened by internal dis- 
 sensions and stultified before the country, resigned on December 4. 
 A few days later. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Liberal 
 leader, formed a cabinet which included Mr. Herbert Asquith as 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer ; Sir Robert Reid as Lord Chancel- 
 lor; the Earl of Crewe as Lord President of the Council; the 
 Marquess of Ripon as Lord Privy Seal ; Mr. Gladstone,. Home 
 Secretary; Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary; the Earl of 
 Elgin, Colonial Secretary ; Mr. Haldane, War Secretary ; Mr. John 
 Morley, Secretary for India ; Mr. James Bryce, Secretary for Ire^ 
 land; Mr. John Sinclair, Secretary for Scotland; Lord Tweed- 
 mouth, First Lord of the Admiralty ; Mr. David Lloyd George, 
 president of the Board of Trade ; Mr. John Burns, president of 
 the Local Government Board ; Earl Carrington, president of the 
 Board of Agriculture; Mr. Augustine Birrell, president of the 
 Board of Education; and Mr. Sydney Buxton, Postmaster-General. 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1 5 
 
 Preparations were already well under way for what proved to 
 be the most exciting and startling general election since 1880, if 
 not since 1832. As early as May 19, Sir T {pnry ramphelkBan- 
 nerman, in a speec h before th e Council of the National Liberal 
 Fe deration at Newcastle-on -Tyne, had practically identified "Eis" 
 positi on with that of the Labo \ir~rhembers ^F~ParIiamentr The^ 
 Council unanimously passed a resolution declaring that immediate 
 steps ought to be taken " to restore to workmen the right of 
 effective combination of which they have been deprived by recent 
 decisions of the courts." And the Liberal leader referred to the 
 " deplorable spectacle " when the Trade Unions and Trade Disputes 
 Bill had been so mauled and maimed in committee under the in- 
 spiration of the Conservatives, led by their own solicitor-general, 
 that the Labour and Liberal members had been obliged to leave the 
 room. He also expressed his sympathy with the movement for 
 giving members of Parliament a modest stipend, and, speaking 
 broadly, maintained that there was no material ^fferencfiJieteeen 
 Liberal ideas and the id eas"ofthose directly r e presenting labo ur in 
 Parliament. 
 
 'Two days earlier Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, from a different 
 standpoint, had directed a Conservative appeal to the trade union- 
 ists and workingmen generally. The great need of the labouring 
 classes, he said, was more employment ; that was the object of 
 trade unions, and it was his object. Tariff reform, and by that, of 
 course, he meant protection, would provide more employment. 
 
 The Trade Uni on Congress which was held at Hanle y in Sep- 
 tember was at tended by some / \ ^r, Heleg-atps, rppresenting about 
 a millioiTand a halforganised workers. The report of the Paf- 
 liamentary Committee took notice, among other matters, of the 
 mutilation of the Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Bill and its 
 subsequent withdrawal by its promoters, and of the failure of the 
 Workmen's Compensation Bill, and in conclusion urged that the 
 time was now ripe for great efforts on the part of trade unionists. 
 They found capital, said the Parliamentary Committee, arrayed 
 
l6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 agai nst the worker s, organise d as it had never been before, sup- 
 port ed by ttie immense influence _of an unjust state of law. The 
 first and foremost need was for more Labour men to be sent to 
 Parliament. The president of the congress, Mr. Sexton, in his 
 opening address spoke contemptuously of the Unemployed Work- 
 men Bill in the form in which it had ultimately become law, and 
 avowed the opinion that the abolition of private monopoly in the 
 land was the one way to solve the problem of unemployment. 
 Among the resolutions passed were declarations in favour of munic- 
 ipal jtrading, municipal bankingj^_and the natio nalisatio n of mines, 
 taaw^^^g gd^canate;— A l^lution deprecatiiig^ny dej^rtnre'from 
 the principles of free trade in the way either of protection, retalia- 
 tion, or preference, was carried by a majority representing 1,253,000 
 against 23,000. An educational programme was approved, em- 
 bracing gratuitous education at all stages, with maintenance scholar- 
 ships so arranged that all young people whose usefulness would be 
 enhanced by secondary or technical or university education should 
 be able to enjoy it, and secular education in all state schools, — 
 such schools to be administered by directly elected representatives 
 .of the people, but all additional cost involved in the proposed 
 changes to be borne by the national exchequer, aided by the resto- 
 ration and democratic administration of valuable misappropriated 
 educational charities and endowments. In accordance with another 
 important resolution adopted by the congress, the resources of the 
 state were to be drawn upon exclusively for the establishment of a 
 system of universal pensions of five shillings a week, to be enjoyed 
 by all citizens on attaining the age of sixty. 
 
 In dislike of the Tories and hatred for the House of Lords, the 
 Irish Nationalists were one with the Labourites. The United Irish 
 League of Great Britain, in a manifesto published on January i, 
 1906, reviewed and denounced the alleged results of the "twenty 
 years of resolute government for Ireland" demanded by Lord 
 Salisbury in 1886. During eighteen years of the interval, said the 
 manifesto, the Conservatives had been in power, and there was 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1 7 
 
 administrative confusion, growing poverty, universal discontent, 
 and a decrease of 700,000 in the population of Ireland. Irishmen 
 in Great Britain were urged to aid to their utmost the discomfiture 
 of the Unionist coalition. The interests of Catholic schools would 
 be best protected by increasing the power and influence of the 
 Irish party. Irish electors were advised to support the Labour 
 candidate if one were standing ; if there was no Labour candidate, 
 they wer e to vote for Liberals, except Unionl sT Libera ls__siJLj^)ort- 
 in g LoQi !!E2B^EqVpolicy.~No^refe£ence was-niade-to,the great 
 Unionistgiftsjto Ireland — Land Purdhase and Irish Local Gov- 
 ernment — perhaps because the initiative had first come from the 
 Liberal party. 
 
 A manifesto of the Social Democratic Federation, published on 
 the same day, demanded State maintenance of children, the State 
 organisation of unemployed labour, and old age pensions instead 
 of " workhouse pauperisation." It strongly denounced protection. 
 
 The final results of the election of 1906 showed 378 Liberals, 
 S3 Labourites, and 83 Nationalists, a total coalition of 514 sup- 
 porting the ministry, against 131 Conservatives and 25 Liberal 
 Unionists, a total of 156 in opposition. Of the Labour members, 
 however, 29 were approved by the Labour Representation Commit- 
 tee and pledged to sit and act as an independent party ; the other 
 24 were more or less identified with the Liberal party, making 
 its total 402. Of the Nationalists, again, three or four, including 
 Mr. William O'Brien, were independent of the regular Irish parlia- 
 mentary party. Within the Opposition, according to the statement 
 of the Duke of Devonshire, on March 6, 102 were tariff reformers 
 in Mr. Chamberlain's sense, 36 followed Mr. Balfour's extremely 
 mild programme of tariff revision, while 16 were returned as Union- 
 ist Free Fooders and 2 as independents. The Liberal and Labour 
 majority over all other groups combined was i3^<p' gnd tllti ijredig^ 
 tiorf^at Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman' s government would be 
 dependent on Nationalist votes was falsified.' 
 
 1 Annual Register, 1906, p. 12. 
 
1 8 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 The territorial distribution of parties also calls for some remark. 
 The Unionist strongholds were in Birmingham and its neighbour- 
 hood, in the better-class residential districts of London and its 
 suburbs, in Kent, and, of course, in Ulster, where the Protestant, 
 Unionist "garrison" struggled successfully against the Nationalists. 
 The universities, which still ranked as parliamentary constituen- 
 cies, were uniformly Unionist. Labour members were numerous 
 in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and came from most of the regions 
 where the population was predominantly industrial. Wales did 
 not return a single Unionist, and Scotland again became predom- 
 
 Jtly Liberal. 
 X iao6.-at Jhe-gpenin^ of the new Parliam ent, with i tejrn- 
 se majority in favour of liberal, radinal, a-^r l prnta :egai.vp prin- 
 ST-STr^HEnfyTampbell-jBannerman declared that underlying 
 ^.^.y proposal of his government would be a policy of sociaTreeon:^ 
 struc tionl55l«iTgT6wafa~a~git!gtei' equalisaHoh of we^l;b . ^nd th e- 
 de struction of the o ppressive monopolies of the land and of liquor. 
 Mr. Asquith, who succeed ed him i n 1908 in t he lea dership of the 
 Liberal" party and in the pre miership, stated that flig inj ustice o f^ 
 the existmg social system rendered a popular attack upon it in- 
 evitafle! " Property," said he, " must be_ assodated, in tlie_mind^ 
 of the masses of the people, with the ideas of reason and justice ." 
 
 s Notwithstanding the overwhelming popular majority of the 
 
 Liberals in the House of Commons and the determination of 
 their leaders to effect social ' legislation along radical lines, a 
 hereditary Tory majority dominated the House of Lords, quite 
 as overwhelming in numbers and quite as determined to thwart 
 any attack upon the existing social order. The House of Lords 
 resolutely came to the defence of all the interests and privileges 
 represented by its members. The Lords wrecked Mr. Birrell's 
 Education Bill because it appeared to clash with the rights of the 
 Anglican Church. They vetoed the Licensing Bill because it 
 penalised a trade which had given active and unremitting support 
 to the Conservative party and was ably represented in the Upper 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 19 
 
 Chamber. Proposals for a general land valuation and for the 
 abolition of plural voting were equally banned by the Lords as 
 leading to " dangerous novelties " and to a disregard of vested 
 interests. Finally, the Budget of Mr. Lloyd George, with itB 
 graduation of real cbLdLe duties^jind_income tax, its distinctioi 
 fcetWeen earned and unearned income, and its licensing duties 
 (roused all . the-ioxces;. of Conservatism to vigorous action ; in th« 
 Iforefront were the Lords. " Old Age Pensions, Trade Boards^ 
 [Labour Exchanges, Small Holdings, Housing and Town Plan- 
 ning, all these measures might have been overlooked, but the 
 policy which places the control of industry in the hands of the 
 people and provides equal opportunities for self-development, 
 which asserts the claims of the State to a share of the unearned 
 increment, is a policy which has aroused the fiercest opposition, 
 finally culminating in the revolt of the Lords and an attempt' to 
 assert their supremacy. The famous Budget of Mr. Lloyd George 
 discriminate d between income tha t is earned and mco me that is un- 
 eamed." ^ The test was to be not so much what wealth a man hadf 
 ^as-hpw he secured jt. _And this test was Jn_essence_revolutionary/ 
 In following, therefore, the debates and statutes containedindiis 
 volume it is well to bear in mind not only the great, governing 
 principles of the Liberal-Labourite coalition, but the theories and 
 tactics that from time to time handicapped or obstructed them. 
 The grave social problem has been complicated at every turn by a 
 serious political and constitutional problem. And although the two 
 general elections of igio — the first on the question of the Budget, 
 and the second on that of restricting the powers of the House of 
 Lords — reduced the Liberal majority in the Commons to such a 
 degree that the ministry became dependent upon the Nationalist, as 
 well as upon the Labour, group for support, nevertheless every 
 session of Parliament since 1905 has been marked by an ever- 
 increasing experimentation in social politics, an ever-growing record 
 of significant achievement in political democracy and social reform. 
 
 1 Percy Alden, Democratic England, p. 7. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 
 
 [On March 26, 1906, Mr. Herbert J. Gladstone, as Home 
 Secretary, introduced in the House of Commons the Govern- 
 ment's bill for workmen's compensation in case of accident. His 
 speech, given below {Extract i), reviews the measures which had 
 been enacted along similar lines in 1880, 1897, and 1900, but 
 studiously avoids any mention of the failure of the Conserva- 
 tive measures of 1905.^ The statement of Mr. Akers-Douglas 
 {Extract 2) represents the favourable attitude of the Opposition, 
 and that of Mr. G. N. Barnes {Extract j), the position of the 
 Labour party on the question. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, whose 
 speech {Extract 4) practically closed debate on first reading of the 
 Bill, showed himself quite willing to go much further than the 
 Liberal Government in legislating on the matter. 
 
 The Bill came up for second reading in the Commons on 
 April 4. Sir Charles Dilke, the ardent Liberal, in moving an 
 amendment demanding a recognition and guarantee of insurance 
 sufficient to prevent the defeat of the legal expectation of com- 
 pensation created under the law, called attention {Extract s) to 
 foreign experience and raised the fundamental issue of compulsory 
 workmen's insurance. Mr. Gladstone, in reply, doubted whether 
 any European country had really solved the problem, and pointed 
 out the need of inquiry before preparing a scheme for Great 
 Britain. In the course of the important debate on second reading 
 the employer's point of view was ably presented by Mr. Mont- 
 gomery, Conservative member for Somersetshire {Extract 6), 
 
 1 Cf. supra, p. 14. 
 20 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 21 
 
 and that of the employed by Mr. Clynes, Labour member for 
 Manchester {Extract f). 
 
 On December 4 the Commons took up the Report stage of 
 the Bill as amended by the Standing Committee, which had been 
 begun on November 29. Insurance by small employers had 
 been facilitated, and, by way of a compromise with the Labour 
 members, workmen or their representatives were enabled to claim 
 compensation for injuries resulting in death or disablement, even 
 if attributable to their own misconduct. On December 5 a com- 
 promise was effected as to compensation for industrial diseases. 
 Six such diseases were scheduled, but Mr. C. F. G. Masterman 
 proposed an amendment tending to include within the operation 
 of the clause sufferers from any disease incidental to their 
 employment, on which Mr. J. C. Wedgewood, another Liberal, 
 remarked that no disease but delirium tremens would be ex- 
 cluded. Ultimately an amendment giving power to the Home 
 Secretary to extend the list of scheduled diseases was carried by 
 281 to 47. An amendment moved by Mr. Marks, Conservative 
 member for Thanet, in Kent, extending the Act to domestic ser- 
 vants, was resisted by the Home Secretary, but supported from 
 both sides of the House, and eventually this far-reaching change 
 was accepted by the Prime Minister. This was a singularly profit- 
 able move both for the mover and for his party. Next day the 
 Home Secretary proposed to empower aged or infirm workmen 
 to contract with their employers for compensation below the 
 ordinary rate, the object being to make it easier for such men 
 to obtain employment. The Labour members protested, the Gov- 
 ernment left the amendment an open question, and it was rejected 
 by 211 to 133. 
 
 The Bill passed third reading in the Commons, without division, 
 on December 13, 1906, accompanied by the speech of the Home 
 Secretary, foreshadowing a general scheme of national insurance 
 {Extract 8), and the supporting speech of Mr. Joseph Walton 
 {Extract p). 
 
22 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 The progress of the Bill through the House of Lords from 
 December 13 to 19 was uneventful, as the support afforded it 
 by the Unionists removed it from the field of partisan politics; 
 and it received the royal assent on December 21. 
 
 Extract 10 is the Workmen's Compensation Act as thus finally 
 promulgated in 1906. Extract 11 is an amendatory measure 
 enacted in 1909 in order to bring the principal Act into harmony 
 with a treaty negotiated between the two great industrial coun- 
 tries of Great Britain and France, and is illustrative of the inter- 
 national character of the labour problem as well as suggestive of 
 possibilities for international solutions.] 
 
 Extract i 
 
 THE HOME SECRETARY ON WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 
 
 {Mr. Herbert J. Gladstone^ Secretary for the Home Department, 
 Commons, March 26, igo6) 
 
 Mr. Gladstone ^ : . . . Up to 1880 there was the common law 
 for the benefit of the workman, and in that year it was reinforced 
 by the Employers' Liability Act, which continued in operation, with 
 all the disadvantages attending the legal distinctions of negligence 
 and common employment, until 1897, when a totally new depart- 
 ure was made with the Workmen's Compensation Act, founded on 
 the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member 
 for West Birmingham [Mr. Joseph Chamberlain], that, when a per- 
 son on his own responsibility sets in motion an agency that creates 
 risks for others, he ought to be similarly responsible for what he 
 does. The acceptance of the liability of employers was made sub- 
 ject in 1897 to two considerations : first, the right of compensation 
 was limited to the most dangerous employments; and secondly, 
 the liability was limited to those employers who could either afford 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol, 154, col. 886 sqq. 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 
 
 23 
 
 to pay directly or through insurance against the risk. Then in 1 900 
 the Workmen's Compensation Act of that year was extended to 
 agricultural labourers and gardeners. In that Act two of the main 
 principles of the Act of 1897 '^^re abandoned, because it was made 
 to include two employments which are among the safest in the 
 country ; and in the second place, it included employment which 
 exposed small farmers to very considerable risks on the ground 
 that they would not be able to pay heavy compensation in case of 
 serious injury to a workman, and might not insure, because the 
 premium on insurance was out of all proportion to the risk. 
 
 The Government now think that the time has arrived for a wide 
 extension of the Act of 1897 to every class of labour, and in the 
 Bill a new principle is adopted which differentiates it from the Act 
 of 1897. That Act excluded all classes of workmen who were not 
 directly and expressly included ; and it is now proposed to reverse 
 this, and, subject to the definition of a workman in the Bill, all will 
 be included who are not expressly excluded. The definition is im- 
 portant, as it is really a governing factor in the Bill. A workman 
 includes any person not a police-constable, clerk, shop assistant, 
 outworker, domestic servant, or a member of the employer's fam- 
 ily dw^ling in his house who works under contract for wages or 
 serves under apprenticeship by way of manual labour or otherwise, 
 and whether the contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writ- 
 ing. Under that definition certain classes of the community are 
 excluded ; but the House will observe that workmen employed in. 
 workshops, in transport service, fishermen, postmen, and seamen 
 will be brought within the operation of the Act. With regard to 
 seamen, the Committee which considered the subject two years ago 
 recommended that their case should be dealt with under Section 
 207 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and hon. Members will know 
 that under that Act provision was made for seamen injured during 
 the voyage, but after landing they had to take their chance. The 
 Government consider that the best and simplest plan would be 
 to bring them under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and we 
 
24 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 propose, therefore, to deal with them in opposition to the proposal 
 of the Committee. When a seaman lands after a voyage during 
 which he has been partially or totally incapacitated, he will be able 
 to claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 
 The difficulty of small employers which considerably hampered 
 Parliament in 1897 is still with us. There are a number of small 
 workshops throughout the country and a number of small employ- 
 ments in which an employer is practically a workman himself ; and, 
 as hon. Members know, it is the small employer who, as a rule, 
 neglects to insure and in case of serious injury iS unable to pay 
 very heavy compensation. According to the evidence given before 
 the Committee, 25 per cent of the employers in the building trade 
 do not insure at all, and probably the greater proportion of that 
 
 25 per cent consist of smaU employers. It does not always 
 happen that small employers do not insure, for the report of the 
 Committee mentioned stevedores as an important exception, who, 
 though they paid a high premium, did as a rule insure. But, put- 
 ting aside exceptions, small employers prefer to take the risk of 
 accidents rather than to pay the minimum premium out of all pro- 
 portion to the risks in their particular trades. The Committee 
 spent a good deal of time on this question and pointed out that 
 the successful working of the Act of 1897 was largely due to the 
 organisation of the system of mutual insurance agencies and the 
 action of the larger trade unions. When there was organised co- 
 operation, the Act of 1897 had worked extremely well. But the 
 Committee went on to point out that in industries where employ- 
 ers and workmen were not organised it was doubtful if the same 
 results could be achieved, and it was difficult to say how far small 
 employers would insure. It is dangerous to concede by law a right 
 which in many cases will prove to be illusory ; and for that reason 
 we propose that employers whose workmen do not exceed five in 
 number shall not come under the operations of the Act. That lim- 
 itation does not apply to agriculture, — the clause relating to agricul- 
 ture provides that the test shall be one permanent workman, — and 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 25 
 
 there are some other exceptions. Under this limitation there will 
 no doubt be hardships and anomalies, but this Bill is not and can- 
 not be final. There is no reason why different classes of work- 
 people, such as shop assistants and clerks, should be excluded 
 from the Bill, but in certain cases small employers would have to 
 pay a premium out of all proportion to the risk in their particular 
 trade, and for that reason a large number would not insure at all. 
 Then, if there were an accident, the employee would not have a 
 substantial man to proceed against, and the employer probably 
 would be ruined. The ultimate solution of the whole question is 
 probably to be found in a scheme of compulsory insurance. When 
 we have seen how this Bill works, fresh proposals might be made 
 to make up proved deficiencies, to extend it to other classes, and 
 to get rid of limitations ; and some plan of cheap and easy insur- 
 ance on a small scale through the medium of the Post Office might 
 be possible. But we have not reached that point yet. There is 
 one important limitation to the exclusion of workmen under the 
 limit of five. It is provided that if the accident to a workman com- 
 ing under the definition is attributable to the use by the employer 
 of machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power, 
 or if the workman at the time of the accident was employed in 
 the care or management of horses, mining, quarrying, or building 
 operations, or in laying or repairing any electric line or works, the 
 limit of five shall not apply in the case of such workman. The 
 House will see that that is an important limitation of the exclusion, 
 and I think it will agree that it is a valuable and practical applica- 
 tion of the principle of workmen's compensation to cases which most 
 require it, and which otherwise would be cut out by the limitation. 
 I have now dealt with the basis and scope of the Bill. One inci- 
 dental advantage of the new form will be that our old friend, the 
 " undertaker," will go out of workmen's compensation, and we get 
 rid of the definition of included trades which has been so fruitful 
 of litigation under the Act. Most of the proposals in this Bill are 
 based wholly or in part on the valuable recommendations of the 
 
26 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Departmental Committee over which Sir Kenelm Digby presided. 
 In the first place, we propose to extend workmen's compensation 
 to industrial diseases. That involves a new departure. Of all the 
 casualties to which the industrial army is unf ortimately liable, those 
 arising from disease are the most pitiable and disastrous. The 
 Committee did not recommend that industrial diseases should be 
 included in the Bill, but the Government thought the case was 
 so strong that, although the difficulties were great, a strong effort 
 ought to be made to stumount them. Therefore, we propose to 
 include in the Bill the following diseases: anthrax, lead poison- 
 ing, mercury poisoning, phosphorus poisoning, arsenic poisoning, 
 and ankylostomiasis. The clause which deals with this question 
 contains the following general provision : Where a workman is 
 certified to be suffering from disease, and thereby partially or 
 totally disabled from earning fuU wages, and his disease is due to 
 the nature of the emplo)mient on which he has been engaged dur- 
 ing the previous twelve months, he is to be entided to compensa- 
 tion, the compensation to be recovered from the employer who last 
 employed him. But if the employer proves that the disease was, 
 in fact, contracted or developed while the workman was in the 
 service of another employer, or other employers, there is to be pro- 
 portionate and collective responsibility. In these cases the limit of 
 five is not applicable, and the Secretary of State is given powers 
 by Provisional Order to extend this provision to other diseases. 
 
 We have given effect to the Committee's recommendations in 
 respect of subcontracts, and the law will be amended to give the 
 workman security for the recovery of compensation, the principal 
 not to be liable, however, for accidents on premises which are not 
 under his control or management With regard to the payment 
 of compensation, this is not made under the existing law until a 
 fortnight has elapsed from the time of the accident. The Commit- 
 tee think that any interference with this provision of the law would 
 involve a grave departure from the system of 1897. The Govern- 
 ment have given serious consideration to this matter, knowing full 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 27 
 
 well that there is a strong objection to any interference with the 
 law as it stands. We have considered the case of industries which 
 are alleged already to be hampered by the cost of the Acts. The 
 Committee found that hitherto the pecuniary burden imposed by 
 the Acts upon the employers has not been excessive. On the other 
 hand, we have to remember that the employers have not yet come 
 to the point when compensation under the Act of 1897 will reach 
 its highest level, after which it will probably go down to a certain 
 extent. But since 1897, taking into account all available experi- 
 ence, the Government have come to the conclusion that trade has 
 not been hampered by the Act sufficiently to prevent what they 
 considered a further measure of justice. There was ample evidence 
 given to the Committee that large masses of men, women, and 
 children whose weekly earnings amounted to something between 
 5 s. and 25 s. a week are put to the most serious hardship by the 
 operation of the law as it stands. We have therefore come to the 
 conclusion that the two weeks shall be reduced to one. That is 
 the proposal in the Bill. Of course, it will put a certain increased 
 cost upon the employer. ■ The cost has been variously estimated 
 by experts before the Committee at from 25 per cent up to 50 per 
 cent. I will not at this moment hazard an opinion as to the inci- 
 dence of that increased cost. A small proportion possibly may fall 
 upon wages, but it will probably be distributed between the pro- 
 prietor and the customer — at any rate, it will be distributed upon 
 the resources of the trade without, as we think, doing any injury 
 at all to the trade, and it is a measure of justice which we cannot 
 leave out of this Bill. 
 
 Under the present law compensation is based on the wages re- 
 ceived or agreed to be paid while the workman is in the service of 
 the same employer. But the effect of the law as it stands imposes 
 a great hardship on some classes of workmen, especially on those 
 engaged in casual labour. The Committee have given instances 
 of hardship which occur under the present law. A man earning 
 from 6s. to 7s. a day may be awarded 3s. 6d. a week. A case was 
 
28 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 given in which a man went on for a night's work and, being in- 
 jured, received only 2S. a week. Another more extreme case was 
 that of a man who in five days earned 30s. and then went on to a 
 fresh job and was injured in the first hour, and his compensation 
 was reckoned out at 3 Jd. per week. It is quite obvious that there 
 are great anomalies under the law as it stands which must be re- 
 moved. Therefore, in the Bill, the Government have adopted the 
 recommendation of the Committee, which is founded, virtually, 
 upon the Employers' Liability Act standard. If a man has worked 
 with an employer for two continuous weeks or more, then his 
 compensation, when he is injured, will be founded on the wages he 
 is receiving in that employment, but if he has not worked for two 
 continuous weeks, then the court must have regard to the earn- 
 ings which such workman would receive in the same trade, in the 
 same employment, and in the same district. In regard to the re- 
 assessment for partial incapacity, the proposal of the Bill is that the 
 weekly payment is not to exceed one half the difference between 
 the amount of the average weekly earnings before the accident 
 and the amount which the workman is earning or is fit to earn. 
 That is to say, if a man who is earning £2 a week is injured and 
 is awarded compensation at the rate of ;^i a week, but on the 
 reassessment is found capable of earning £\ a week, he will 
 get I OS. a week compensation, so that he will be in a position 
 to earn 30s. a week. There is power under the Bill to commute 
 weekly payments which continued for not less than six months 
 for a lump sum not exceeding ;^soo. 
 
 With regard to the question of aged persons and minors, the 
 Committee find that the Acts have largely increased the difficul- 
 ties of old men finding and retaining employment, and the difficulty 
 is believed to be growing. They came practically to the same 
 conclusion with regard to infirm and maimed persons, and they 
 proposed that a lower rate of compensation should be payable in 
 regard to both these classes. The two cases of the aged person 
 and the infirm and maimed person appear to the Ggvernment to be 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 29 
 
 governed by somewhat different considerations. I confess that per- 
 sonally I am somewhat inclined to extend to both classes the pro- 
 posals of the Committee, but the difficulties are undoubtedly rather 
 more serious in the case of the infirm and maimed person. Other 
 considerations arise which I will not mention now, and so, on the 
 whole, the Government have decided only to deal with the recom- 
 mendation of the Committee in its application to the aged person. 
 After the age of sixty the employer is enabled to make special 
 arrangements with the aged person, under which, in case of death, 
 a maximum payment of £2^ is payable and, in the case of injury 
 and incapacity, weekly compensation with a maximum of los. a 
 week. The Committee suggested 5 s. The Government think that 
 is too small an amount, and they, therefore, extend it to los. In 
 the case of minors, again, very great hardships have arisen under 
 the present law. A boy, for example, receiving 4s. a week, who is 
 injured and incapacitated for life, cannot get more than 2s. a week 
 compensation. The Bill provides that, where a minor is injured 
 who earns less than 20s. a week, 100 per cent should be substi- 
 tuted for 50 per cent in respect of compensation based on his 
 weekly earnings, but the weekly payment is not to exceed los. a 
 week. If the case is reviewed within twelve months or more after 
 the accident, the amount of the weekly payment may be increased 
 to any amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the weekly sum which 
 the workman would probably have been earning at the date of the 
 review if he had remained uninjured, but not in any case more than 
 ^i a week. The Bill authorises the payment into court by the 
 employer of a lump sum in case of a fatal accident where depend- 
 ants are left, to be invested at the discretion of the registrar. The 
 Bill also deals with the case of widows, and provision is made, 
 where there is evidence before the court that a widow who obtained 
 compensation under the Act was prone to misconduct, for the 
 court to apply the whole or part of the compensation, which 
 otherwise would accrue to the widow, for the benefit of the 
 Other dependants, 
 
3° 
 
 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 I now come to the question of medical referees. As the law now 
 stands, when there is an accident and a workman is injured, he 
 has to submit himself to the employer's doctor, who reports to the 
 employer. If there is disagreement, then there is no remedy but 
 proceedings in the courts. If proceedings are taken under the Em- 
 ployers' Liability Act, medical evidence is taken, but it is not com- 
 petent to bring a medical referee into court ; but if they are taken 
 ■ under the Workmen's Compensation Act, after hearing the medical 
 evidence, a medical referee may be appointed, and his judgment 
 is final. But that leads to considerable delay and cost, and so under 
 the Bill it is provided that if there is no agreement after injury 
 between the employer and the workman, on the report of the em- 
 ployer's doctor, the employer or the workman, on payment of a 
 fee, can apply to the court, and the registrar may at once appoint 
 a medical referee, whose judgment will be final. And in case of 
 review, either party in the same way can apply to the court, and 
 the registrar will appoint a referee, whose judgment will be final. 
 The Government hope that that provision will save a good deal 
 of unnecessary cost and delay. Provision is also taken in the Bill 
 that the Secretary of State may, with the sanction of the Treasury, 
 appoint medical men to be referees under the Act, and, subject to 
 Treasury regulations, remuneration and expenses may be paid to 
 them out of public money. 
 
 There are various other minor points of detail, the consideration 
 of which I propose to leave to another stage. The Government 
 are aware that the change in the basis of the Act will bring out 
 new conditions and new points, and they will welcome suggestions. 
 They will have the benefit of the criticism and information of the 
 House, and I have no doubt that the Bill in its passage through 
 the House will be greatly improved and strengthened. 
 
 There is one important consideration on which I should like to 
 touch, and that is the question of safety under the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act. It was feared in 1897 that the adoption of 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 31 
 
 the new principle would lead to more accidents. It is maintained by 
 the Government, on the other hand, that the contrary result will 
 probably ensue. The Committee find no evidence of any great 
 improvement in the direction of safety to be placed to the credit 
 of the Act, and their conclusion on the matter has reference to an 
 important point which was raised in the evidence of Commander 
 Smith with regard to the power of the court, under the Act of 
 1897, to set any fines imposed under the Factory and Workshop 
 Act against the compensation due to the workman, and that that 
 provision removed the Act from any penal operation. The Com- 
 mittee propose that that particular part of the clause should be re- 
 pealed, and the Government have adopted that recommendation. 
 The Committee say : " On the whole we feel unable to come to 
 the conclusion that the operation of the Compensation Act of 1897 
 has had any marked or ascertainable effect, one way or the other, 
 upon the safety of the workman." ~ 
 
 Therefore, in considering this question anew, we must not flatter 
 ourselves that by providing compensation we provide increased se- 
 curity for the workman. In my judgment that increased security 
 will have to be found in the operation of other Acts, and more 
 particularly, of course, in the operations of the Factory and Work- 
 shop Act and the Mines Regulation Act. 
 
 There is one further point which I think will give general satis- 
 faction. The Bill which I propose to introduce is in the form of 
 a consolidating Act, incorporating the Acts of 1897 and 1900, so 
 that the House will have plainly before them, in more or less simple 
 English, the whole statement of the case with regard to the com- 
 pensation of workmen under the law. In these circumstances I 
 venture on an appeal to the House. The Government are sub- 
 mitting the whole subject of workmen's compensation and are 
 opening it all up, and as this is done for the convenience of the 
 House, I hope that questions which are not only settied, but which 
 are supposed to be satisfactorily settled, will not be unnecessarily 
 
32 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 reopened so as to hamper the progress of the Act. Our main 
 object is to pass the Bill into law this session, and we offer it to 
 the House in the hope that it will be of permanent practical benefit 
 to all that are included within the scope of its provisions. 
 
 Extract 2 
 
 CONSERVATIVE REPLY TO THE HOME SECRETARY 
 
 (Mr. A. Akers-Douglas, Commons, March 26, igo6) 
 
 Mr. Akers-Douglas^: I am sure I am voicing the opinion of the 
 whole House when I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon 
 the clearness and ability with which he has dealt with a very com- 
 plicated subject. We have all listened to him with very great pleas- 
 ure ; we have all felt the difficulty of his task and recognised the 
 excellent manner in which he has discharged it. I do not think 
 there is any difference of opinion as to the object to be aimed at. 
 We all welcome a Bill to amend the Act of 1897. We feel that 
 an Amendment of that Act is very much wanted. The Act, as the 
 right hon. Gentleman has explained, was a new procedure in legis- 
 lation in 1897, and for that reason it had to be to a certain extent 
 experimental and tentative, and, therefore, we need not be sur- 
 prised at the fact that after working eight or nine years it requires 
 some considerable amendment. The experience of those eight or 
 nine years, I think, on the whole, has been very satisfactory, but 
 certainly the time has now come when we might deal with many 
 matters which require amendment and, as the right hon. Gentle- 
 man proposes to do, very largely extend the Act in its operations 
 towards the people who come under it. I have listened very care- 
 fully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I gather from 
 him that not only is the Bill to be an amending, but a consolidating, 
 Bill. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this fact, and I 
 
 I Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 154, col. 895 sqq. 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 33 
 
 admire his courage in avoiding the temptation to legislate by refer- 
 ence. I know from the experience I had in introducing a measure 
 on this subject last year the very great difficulty of dealing with 
 it purely by an amending Bill, and I think that the right hon. Gen- 
 tleman has taken a wise and, I am bound to say, a courageous 
 course in bringing in the Bill in the form he has done. I may as- 
 sure him that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as my friends 
 on this side of the House are concerned, we will accept the sug- 
 gestion that he has made to us in regard to not opening up 
 unnecessary subjects. . . . 
 
 I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has taken care to 
 consult employers of labour, especially on his own side of the 
 House, with regard to this extra burden which he is placing upon 
 them. I am anxious to give every reasonable facility to cover 
 reasonable cases in the interests of the employees, but we must 
 not in our desire to act generously to them either make the Act 
 unworkable or throw unreasonable cost upon industry. The Com- 
 mittee which sat under the chairmanship of Sir Kenelm Digby 
 took a great deal of evidence on this point. As to the additional 
 risk incurred and the cost of insurance, the General Accident Com- 
 pany thought that the additional premium required would be 35 
 per cent and the General Insurance thought it would be 50 per 
 cent.. If the assurance companies still hold that these figures are 
 correct, we shall have seriously to consider whether such a scheme 
 would not throw too great a burden on the employer. I am most 
 anxious that the Act shall prove successful, and I hope that when 
 the Bill is in Committee this question of burden on the employers 
 will be carefully discussed. I do not want to press it now or on 
 the Second Reading, for I am anxious that the measure should 
 pass into law as quickly as possible ; but details can always be 
 more usefully considered in Committee than on the floor of the 
 House. I am sure that hon. Members of the Labour party below 
 the gangway want only a measure which will be fair as between 
 man and man, and that they will endeavour by their criticisms and 
 
34 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Amendments to make it a workable measure and one likely to be 
 accepted by all classes of Employers and employed, Whether the 
 right Hon. the Home Secretary has gone too far or not in amend- 
 ing the Act of 1897, or in extending the benefits of the Act to 
 further trades — the general principle being admitted — we must 
 wait to see ; but, so far as we could gather from the speech of the 
 right hon. Gentleman, the measure is satisfactory, and I trust, there- 
 fore, that the House will agree to the First and Second Readings, 
 leaving all these details to be considered fully in Committee. 
 
 Extract j 
 
 LABOUR REPLY TO THE HOME SECRETARY 
 
 (Mr. G. N. Barnes, Commons, March 26, jgo6) 
 
 Mr. Barnes said ^ he wished to offer a few observations on the 
 speech of the right hon. the Home Secretary and on the Bill which 
 the right hon. Gentleman had asked leave to introduce into the 
 House. First of all, on behalf of the Party with which he was 
 identified, he welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's statement of 
 the projected Bill as being, to a large extent at all events, satisfac- 
 tory from their point of view ; and he could promise that it would 
 have a helpful and sympathetic consideration with a view to having 
 it amended in their direction and passed into law. It seemed to 
 him that the name of the Bill was to some extent a misnomer. 
 The Bill would not compensate. It provided merely for a main- 
 tenance being 'given to a man who was injured. Therefore, it 
 seemed to the Labour party that there should be some Amend- 
 ment in the name of the Bill which would more accurately define 
 what the Bill really was. On the whole, however, he felt satisfied 
 that not only in its form but in its scope, as indicated in the speech 
 of the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill would to a very large extent 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 154, col. 900 sqq. 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 35 
 
 meet the wishes of the Labour party. The Act of 1897 had been 
 of inestimable benefit to a very large number of working people 
 throughout the length and breadth of the country. With all its de- 
 fects and blemishes it had proved one of the best bits of social 
 legislation that had been put on the Statute Book in recent years. 
 He wished to go a little further and to pay a well-merited tribute 
 of indebtedness to onewho was largely instrumental in getting that 
 Act passed through Parliament. That right hon. Gentleman long 
 ago contributed articles to magazines advocating what was then a 
 novel principle in English law. He introduced that principle as an 
 Amendment on the Bill of 1893, and had it afterwards successfully 
 embodied in the Act of 1897. It was needless to say that reference 
 was made to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham [Joseph 
 Chamberlain]. He was all the more satisfied to pay that tribute of 
 indebtedness to the right hon. Gentleman, for it was the vogue to 
 jump upon his by no means prostrate form. A good deal had been 
 said as to the deficiencies of the Act of 1897, but he believed that 
 a great deal of the litigation and of the money which had found its 
 way into the lawyers' pockets had been caused by the confusing 
 lines between the " ins " and the " outs." He remembered the re- 
 port of a debate eight or nine years ago in which it was predicted 
 by hon. Gentlemen in this House, especially those who represented 
 the mine-owners, that the Bill would lead to vast litigation ; and 
 some even went the length of describing it as a " Lawyers' Employ- 
 ment Bill." He had had a good deal of experience in regard to 
 the working of the Act of 1897, and had had the opportunity of 
 hearing the testimony of others who had had more, and all he could 
 say was that the cases which had been settled by the payment of 
 money without litigation at all were from 90 to 95 per cent of the 
 whole. From that point of view the Bill had been on the whole 
 satisfactory ; but there was no reason why the S or 16 per cent of ■ 
 litigation should not also be reduced. In his belief, there would 
 be no complete solution of the difficulty until all men, no matter 
 what employment they were in, were included in the scope of the 
 
36 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 measure. It had been said that only dangerous trades were in- 
 cluded in the last Act, but agricultural labourers were afterwards 
 included, and no one would seriously contend that agriculture was 
 a dangerous employment. He was sorry to hear that, while anyone 
 employing more than five men was to be included in the Bill, all 
 small employers having fewer than five employees were to be ex- 
 cluded. That would be a fruitful source of litigation and confusion 
 which would benefit the lawyers and the agents of the insurance 
 companies. He hoped that the Bill would be amended in these re- 
 spects. He knew many small workshops where fewer than five 
 men were employed under the most dangerous conditions — ■ prob- 
 ably more dangerous than in large workshops. But it would be no 
 good including them on paper only. Therefore, if they were to be 
 included, there must be some provision whereby the money should 
 be there when wanted. That carried with it some form of compul- |i 
 sory insurance. The right hon. Gentleman said that the time had ' 
 not yet come for that. That remained to be seen. He was inclined 
 to think that compulsory insurance would even now be necessary ; 
 but if the Bill was carried further than its present scope, he was 
 certain that compulsory insurance would be absolutely necessary. 
 He knew that there were some who said that compulsory insurance, 
 or insurance of any character, carried with it increased risk. There 
 might be something in that argument, but, after all, the contention 
 seemed to him to be advanced by those who strained at a gnat and 
 swallowed a camel. . . . 
 
 Extract 4 
 
 MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN ON WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 
 
 {Commons^ March 26, igo6) 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain ^ : . . . There was no desire to obstruct the 
 Bill in any part of the House. But, in regard to the time before 
 the compensation should commence to be paid, he would press the 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 154, col. 928 sqq. 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 37 
 
 representatives of the workingmen, both inside and outside the 
 House, to consider very carefully whether a provision which at first 
 sight might appear to be to the advantage of the workmen, might 
 not ultimately be not so much to the disadvantage of the manu- 
 facturer or the employer, as to the workman himself. They should 
 not desire to press on the employer any expenditure which was 
 not clearly in the interest of the workmen, because, after all, 
 whatever political economists might say on the subject, they all 
 knew that one of the factors in wages was the expense of produc- 
 tion, and if the expense of production was raised beyond certain 
 limits by legislation, it was conceivable that some part of that 
 charge might be transferred by the employer on to the workmen. 
 Before the Bill of 1897 was introduced, he consulted a large num- 
 ber of people acquainted with the principles of compensation insur- 
 ance, some of the principal officials of the great friendly and benefit 
 societies in this country, and representatives of insurance companies. 
 They all pressed upon him that in the interests of the workman, as 
 well as of the employer, a distinct and definite period should lapse 
 before compensation was payable. The reason was that, after all, 
 there was no great pressure for compensation where the accident 
 was so slight as to be represented by no more than a fortnight's 
 illness. In the second place, it was found by some of the friendly 
 societies necessary to protect themselves by a delay before com- 
 pensation became payable, in order to prevent fraud. He asked 
 whether it was worth while putting fifty per cent more expense 
 upon the employer in order merely to get compensation for the 
 first fortnight's absence from work. He urged the representatives 
 of the workmen to consider whether it was in their interests to 
 press for an alteration in the law which would be found to be 
 extremely unpopular and would place an increased charge on em- 
 ployers everywhere. When the Bill of 1897 was before the House 
 he had returns furnished to him of the number of accidents which 
 took place in every great trade in the country, and calculations 
 were deduced from these returns as to what the operation of the 
 
38 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Bill would cost. At the time he believed that the statements made 
 by the opponents of the Bill as to its cost were greatly exaggerated, 
 and that had been proved to be the case, because after some years' 
 experience of the working of the Act it was found that his original 
 calculations were absolutely correct. He was informed that of late 
 years there had been a considerable increase in the number of ac- 
 cidents. Why was that? [An Hon. Member on the Labour 
 Benches: Speeding up the machinery.] Well, if speeding up 
 machinery had taken place, with the result of an increase in the 
 number of accidents, then he for one was glad that means were 
 provided for compensation. If the House reduced the close period, 
 as it had been called, to seven days, he thought they would open 
 the way to a great deal more litigation, and to that extent they 
 would injure rather than benefit the working classes. 
 
 Extract 5 
 
 SIR CHARLES DILKE ON WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 
 
 {Commons, April 4., igo6) 
 
 Sir Charles Dilke ^ : . . . The other day — and he dared say 
 they would see the same to-day — the House seemed inclined to 
 bless almost unanimously the principle of universal insurance, but, 
 having done that, to take no steps towards giving it effect. How 
 long was that to go on ? It was no new question ; it was a very 
 old question. In 1883 Germany adopted her present law. He was 
 not advocating the adoption of that law here. It was too bound 
 up in other laws for it to be practicable here; but in 1883-1884 
 Germany and Austria called the attention of the world to the 
 subject, and they adopted their law, admirable from their point of 
 view, which so completely dealt with the question for them, and 
 which had received only unimportant amendments of detail from 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 155, col. 523 sqq. 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 39 
 
 that time. Then the right hon. Member for West Birmingham 
 [Mr. Joseph Chamberlain] brought the matter before this House, 
 not on the lines of his subsequent Bill, which they were now amend- 
 ing, but on the lines of the Amendment. He moved an Amendment 
 in 1893 to the Employers' Liability Bill, raising this very question. 
 He moved that no amendment of the law could be satisfactory 
 which did not provide compensation for workmen for all injuries. 
 He made only one exception, and he stated that he had placed his 
 Amendment upon the Paper with a view to telling the House an 
 alternative system of dealing with the whole question. He quoted 
 a conversation he had had with a well-known former Member, 
 Mr. Knowles, who had just died, a great Tory employer, who was 
 of opinion that universal liability was the only satisfactory settle- 
 ment. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham added that 
 universal liability meant universal insurance. Within the last few 
 weeks it had been alleged that it was too soon to bring about 
 so sudden a change, but 1893 was a good many years ago, and 
 it was then already alleged that the thing was premature. The 
 right hon. Member for West Birmingham asked the then Liberal 
 Government, '" Why do you not take this opportunity of complet- 
 ing your work ? " It was answered that public opinion was not 
 prepared for so great a change, and he said, " How do you know 
 that ? It is the duty of Government to lead and instruct public 
 opinion. Opinion is making rapid strides in this direction." That 
 was in 1893, and yet they had had nothing in that direction, 
 although they raised these speeches and discussions against the 
 right hon. Member for West Birmingham in 1897 and since. 
 They were told that the Bill of 1897 was a tentative measure, 
 and it was suggested that ultimately steps might be taken in 
 their direction. 
 
 In 1898 France and Italy both suddenly adopted the very prin- 
 ciple which he was now maintaining, a principle far ahead of that 
 of 1897, of far more general satisfaction to the workmen, far more 
 complete, and having the effect of giving far more money to the 
 
40 
 
 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 working-classes than any Bill in operation in this country or than 
 the Bill now proposed. The late Secretary of State for the Colo- 
 nies, Mr. Lyttelton, following the right hon. Member for West Bir- 
 mingham, actually went so far as to suggest that the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act was a handicap from which our competitors 
 were free, but in France it was beyond all doubt five times more 
 severe than it was here. There could also be no doubt that the 
 benefits which it directly conferred upon the working-classes went 
 further than our own. It was carried suddenly in Italy and 
 France, and it was a compromise — such a compromise as they 
 might expect to get in this country — between those who insisted 
 on the individual liability of the employer, those who wanted to 
 make the liability as little as possible, and those who wanted to 
 make it a matter of State insurance. Those systems had been 
 working close at hand in Europe satisfactorily from that time 
 to this. . . . 
 
 His own main point was this : that by shutting their eyes for so 
 long a time and giving the go-by to this question, they were not 
 doing what the country expected and what so many hon. Members 
 told the electors, namely, that they were going to work towards 
 obtaining complete compensation for all workmen injured in all 
 classes of trade. In this matter we had fallen into arrear as com- 
 pared with other countries. Workmen's compensation treaties 
 between France and Italy, Italy and Switzerland, and Italy and 
 Germany were signed in 1904. Similar labour treaties were made 
 between Austria and Germany in 1905 and between France and 
 Belgium in 1906. Up to the present this country had not been 
 able to come to any treaty engagement of that kind, and, therefore, 
 they were unable to give or receive the advantages which all those 
 States were conferring upon their workmen abroad. He appealed 
 to the Government to give careful consideration to this subject in 
 regard to which they were falling day by day more heavily into 
 arrear. . . . 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 4 1 
 
 Extract 6 
 
 EMPLOYER'S ATTITUDE TOWARD WORKMEN'S 
 COMPENSATION 
 
 (Mr. H. G. Montgomery, Commons, April 4, igo6) 
 
 Mr. Montgomery ^ asked the indulgence of the House for a few 
 moments while he put before them the point of view of the 
 employer. He wished to give employees the fullest measure of 
 security, but at the same time the employer was entitled to know 
 what amount of compensation he had to pay. At the present time 
 he did not know. Unfortunately, he was one of those small em- 
 ployers of labour who, when the Act was introduced by the right 
 hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham [Joseph Cham- 
 berlain], joined with others in forming a mutual insurance of their 
 own. He was sorry to say the speculation was a very bad one. 
 They paid away a large sum in the first place in endeavouring to 
 ascertain what the Workmen's Compensation Act meant. They 
 had to fight a number of cases, and he was very much inclined to 
 think that the ambiguity of the Act was a godsend to half the 
 solicitors and barristers of this country. They had to defend a 
 number of claims that ought never to have been brought. There 
 were legal gentlemen who sent touts to the hospital in which an 
 injured man was, telling him that if a claim were preferred under 
 the Employers' Liability Act instead of under the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, the solicitor would be able to get a very much 
 larger sum. As very often happened, the man was persuaded to 
 make a claim under the Employers' Liability Act. He knew of an 
 instance where a man had a sprained ankle, and they were willing 
 to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but 
 the tout at a hospital got hold of the man, and a claim was made 
 under the Employers' Liability Act. In the end the jury gave a 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 155, col. 548 sqq. 
 
42 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 large sum, with the result that the firm had to pay ;£'4oo for a 
 sprained ankle, whilst the man was said to be dancing a jig a few 
 days after. He was told that the money did not all go to the 
 workman, but that it was divided between solicitor and client. He 
 was not sure that it was wise to give any workman a lump sum as 
 compensation, because he was very often inclined to spend it in 
 ways that he should not, and in a very liberal manner amongst his 
 friends. He thought that the Act ought to cover every kind of 
 accident that might possibly arise. He was in entire agreement 
 with the extension of the Act, and he should like to see it extended 
 to every form of service, even to the domestic who cleaned the 
 doorstep in the morning. He noticed that it was provided in the 
 Bill that if the employer could be proved to have been guilty of 
 negligence, he would have to pay a larger sum, but if the employee 
 was found guilty of negligence, it did not say that he should receive 
 a less sum. He did not think that was fair, because what was 
 sauce for the goose was also sauce for the gander. It had been 
 proved over and over again that negligence was not wilful miscon- 
 duct on the pa,rt of the employee. He knew a case where a man 
 was engaged to feed a brick-making machine, and instead of putting 
 the clay in with a shovel, as he ought to have done, he used his 
 foot. On one occasion his foot was caught and he lost it. He 
 received compensation and also got a wooden leg. Not more than 
 two months after, the wooden leg found its way into the machine 
 as well, and the man received a second measure of compensation. 
 They could proceed against the employer for allowing the man to 
 put his leg or wooden leg into the machine, but they should have 
 an Act which would deal fairly between employer and employed. 
 The House had been told that insurance companies did not make 
 any money out of workmen's compensation. He was sorry to differ 
 from the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division [Mr. William 
 McArthur] on this point, because he believed that if the insurance 
 was on a large scale, a large amount of profit could be made. 
 A larger body of factory inspectors would be better able than 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 43 
 
 anybody else to prevent accidents. If the Government would take 
 this question up as a business matter and conduct it on business 
 lines, he ventured to say that before two or three years had elapsed 
 they would have made sufficient profit to take sixpence off the 
 income tax and give every employee over seventy-five years of 
 age an old age pension. 
 
 Extract 7 
 
 EMPLOYEE'S ATTITUDE TOWARD WORKMEN'S 
 COMPENSATION 
 
 {Mr. J. R. Clynes, Commons, April 4, igo6) 
 
 Mr. Clynes ^ thought that they had heard too much about the 
 small employer in this debate, and that some share of their pity 
 should go out to those who suffered from injuries which this Bill 
 proposed to meet. The debate had not supplied so far any re- 
 minder of the number of people injured and killed during their 
 daily labour. He believed there were about 400 workpeople killed 
 every month in this country, and about 7000 injured in one way 
 or another. The first point which he desired to refer to was the 
 insufficiency of the compensation proposed by the Bill. The com- 
 pensation proposed was half the average earnings of the man. He 
 submitted that if a man fairly needed all his wages when he was 
 well, the family needed even more than the whole of the man's 
 wages when he was- ill. Let them take as an illustration a man 
 earning 30s. a week who was disabled for three weeks. The man 
 would lose £^ los., and under the Bill he would receive as com- 
 pensation only 30s. He submitted that that was not generous 
 treatment, and they were entitled to call upon the Government to 
 take a step in advance of the attitude assumed by the Government 
 some years ago when the compensation law was first passed. They 
 felt that the trades and industries generally could afford a greater, 
 strain. The profits of trading and the increase of the wealth of the 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 155, col. 1203 sqq. 
 
44 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 well-to-do appeared to him to prove conclusively that a heavier bur- 
 den for such a good reason could well be borne by the trades and 
 industries of this country. He did not accept the suggestion that 
 the small employers should be excluded from liability. He under- 
 stood the Home Secretary to advocate the exclusion of small 
 employers because they were indifferent and would not face their 
 responsibilities. It had been said that such men were very often 
 ignorant and did not do what the law called upon them to do. He 
 had yet to learn that indifference to and ignorance of the law were 
 sufficient reasons for escaping one's responsibilities in regard to 
 the common law of the land, and in this matter he thought the 
 Government should not exclude such a large number of workers 
 as would be excluded if these small employers of labour were 
 enabled to escape their responsibihties. The small employers of 
 labour in respect of their profits and trading conditions knew how 
 to combine, and if they could not singly accept the liability which 
 the principle of this Bill proposed, then they might act in associa- 
 tion in order to insure the lives and limbs of their workmen. He 
 submitted also that sufficient reasons had not been given by the 
 Secretary of State for the Home Department for the exclusion of 
 domestic servants from the privileges of the Bill. Reference had 
 been made by the right hon. Gentleman to the large number of 
 domestic servants employed by working people. The Labour party 
 made no plea that the wage-earners of the country should escape 
 their liabilities in respect of injuries sustained, by those whom they 
 employed. If necessary, they should call upon the ordinary working- 
 man to insure himself against the risk of accidents that might befall 
 his domestic servant. He did not think they ought to exclude clerks 
 from the operation of the Bill. They should not forget that there 
 was a class of clerk who moved about large works and shipping 
 yards amongst machinery in order to take down details, and he in- 
 curred almost as great a risk as the ordinary workingman. It had 
 been said upon both sides of the House that it was not advis- 
 able to depart from the present limit of a fortnight, because of the 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 45 
 
 malingering there was or might be if workingmen were entitled' 
 to compensation from the first day of injury. He would point out 
 that if a workingman went home and said he had been hurt, that 
 would not be taken as evidence of the injury, and his word would 
 not be taken as the foundation for the payment of compensation. 
 The doctor's evidence as to injury and incapacity would be required 
 before any workman could set up his title to compensation. He 
 thought the officers of the insurance company, the agents of the 
 employer, and all the things attaching to a workingman's condi- 
 tion of work would protect employers against the risk of having 
 to pay when a man was not disabled at all. There were many 
 points dealt with in this Bill which Labour Members warmly wel- 
 comed, but having accepted the payment of compensation as a 
 principle, and that industries must bear the cost of accidents and 
 deaths, he submitted that the House had had sufficient experience 
 of industrial life to justify it in going further in regard to the 
 amount of compensation, and in regard to the other items which 
 he had mentioned. 
 
 Extract 8 
 
 FORESHADOWING NATIONAL INSURANCE 
 
 (Mr. Herbert J. Gladstone, Secretary of State for the Home 
 Department, Commons, December ij, ipo6) 
 
 Mr. Gladstone ^ : . . . He had no occasion to detain the House 
 long upon this subject. The recent discussion extended over four 
 days, during which all the leading points of the Bill were fully dis- 
 cussed. But there was one matter upon which he desired to say a 
 few words. The House in its collective wisdom had shown an in- 
 veterate hostility to all the attempts of the Government to exempt 
 from the operation of this Bill the small employers. Now practi- 
 cally all classes of persons under contract of service, whether the 
 employment was dangerous or safe, were included in the purview 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 167, col. 693 sqq. 
 
46 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 of this Bill. While 6,000,000 people were brought within the 
 operation of the Act in 1897, and 1,000,000 in 1900, there were 
 now 6,000,000 in addition. This great extension did involve 
 benefit — he hoped great benefit — but it also, naturally, involved 
 some danger to which this House should not shut their eyes. A 
 number of small employers would be brought under the operation 
 of this Act, and it was to be hoped that they would be raised to a 
 sense of the duty imposed upon them by it — to a sense of the ne- 
 cessity which lay upon them to insure against the liability to which 
 they would be exposed, in order to be in a position to meet it in 
 compensating a workman who might be injured. Experience showed 
 that a mass of these people would not insure, whatever steps were 
 taken, and that experience was reinforced by the opinion expressed 
 in the Committee which considered this question. It was pointed 
 out that 24 per cent of those engaged in the building trades did 
 not choose to insure, although the Act had been in operation for 
 some six or seven years. If the Government required any pressure, 
 this knowledge and this information from the Committee would 
 hasten their desire to deal with the whole subject of national in- 
 surance in relation to the law of employers' liability. But in the 
 meanwhile they would do the best they could, through Government 
 agencies or otherwise, to warn employers, great and small, through- 
 out the country, of the risks they were under, and also to tell the 
 workpeople of this country what rights were given to them under 
 this Act. . . . 
 
 Extract g 
 
 THIRD READING OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL 
 
 {Mr. Joseph Walton, Commons, December ij, igo6) 
 
 Mr. Walton ■':... He felt sure that the 6,000,000 additional 
 workers — men and women — to whom this measure did what was 
 an act of justice in regard to this matter, would greatly appreciate 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 167, col. 708. 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 47 
 
 their inclusion within the scope of the measure. He had had no 
 sympathy or support whatever from the Tory majority in the 
 House, when he had introduced his Bill, but he gathered from 
 speeches made by Members of the same political Party now sitting 
 in Opposition that he might regard them as repentant sinners. It 
 was indeed a death-bed repentance when they rose the other night 
 and proposed the inclusion of 2,000,000 of domestic servants 
 within the scope of the Bill. He welcomed that inclusion, but it 
 was so hastily adopted by the House that he hoped, now that they 
 were included, it was clearly understood that in case of accident 
 they were to receive not only half their wages, but half the cost -of 
 their board and lodging as well, in case they were deprived of that, 
 as that formed the greatest part of their earnings. He cordially 
 supported the Bill. 
 
 Extract 10 
 
 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1906 
 
 {6 Edw. 7, ch. 3S) 
 
 An Act to consolidate and amend the Law with respect to Com- 
 pensation to Workmen for Injuries suffered in the course of 
 their Employment. (21st December 1906) 
 
 Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by. and 
 with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 
 and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the 
 authority of the same, as follows: 
 
 I. Liability of Employers to Workmen for Injuries 
 
 (i) If in any employment personal injury by accident arising 
 out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a work- 
 man, his employer shall, subject as herein-after mentioned, be 
 liable to pay compensation in accordance with the First Schedule 
 to this Act. 
 
48 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (2) Provided that — 
 
 (a) The employer shall not be liable under this Act in respect 
 of any injury which does not disable the workman for 
 a period of at least one week from earning full wages 
 at the work at which he was employed : 
 
 (l>) When the injury was caused by -the personal negligence 
 or wilful act of the employer or of some person for 
 whose act or default the employer is responsible, noth- 
 ing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the 
 employer, but in that case the workman may, at his 
 option, either claim compensation under this Act or 
 take proceedings independently of this Act; but the 
 employer shall not be liable to pay compensation for 
 injury to a workman by accident arising out of and in 
 the course of the employment both independently of 
 and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to any 
 proceedings independently of this Act, except in case 
 of such personal negligence or wilful act as aforesaid : 
 
 (c) If it is proved that the injury to a workman is attrib- 
 utable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that 
 workman, any compensation claimed in respect of 
 that injury shall, unless the injury results in death or 
 serious and permanent disablement, be disallowed. 
 
 (3) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as 
 to the liability to pay compensation under this Act (including any 
 question as to whether the person injured is a workman to whom 
 this Act applies), or as to the amount or duration of compensation 
 under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, shall, 
 subject to the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, be 
 settled by arbitration, in accordance with the Second Schedule to 
 this Act. 
 
 (4) If, within the time herein-after in this Act limited for taking 
 proceedings, an action is brought to recover damages independ- 
 ently of this Act for injury caused by any accident, and it is 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 49 
 
 determined in such action that the injury is one for which the 
 employer is not liable in such action, but that he would have been 
 liable to pay compensation under the provisions of this Act, the 
 action shall be dismissed ; but the court in which the action is 
 tried shall, if the plaintiff so choose, proceed to assess such com- 
 pensation, but may deduct from such compensation all or part of 
 the costs which, in its judgment, have been caused by the plaintiff 
 bringing the action instead of proceeding under this Act. In any 
 proceeding under this subsection, when the court assesses the 
 compensation it shall give a certificate of the compensation it has 
 awarded and the directions it has given as to the deduction for 
 costs, and such certificate shall have the force and effect of an 
 award under this Act. 
 
 (5) Nothing in this Act shall affect any proceeding for a fine 
 under the enactments relating to mines, factories, or workshops, 
 or the application of any such fine. 
 
 2. Time for taking Proceedings 
 
 (i) Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensa- 
 tion for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the 
 accident has been given as soon as practicable after the hap- 
 pening thereof and before the workman has voluntarily left the 
 employment in which he was injured, and unless the claim for 
 compensation with respect to such accident has been made within 
 six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, 
 or, in case of death, within six months from the time of death : 
 Provided always that — 
 
 (a) The want of or any defect or inaccuracy in such notice 
 shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceed- 
 ings if it is found in the proceedings for settling the 
 claim that the employer is not, or would not, if a 
 notice or an amended notice were then given and the 
 hearing postponed, be prejudiced in his defence by 
 
50 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the want, defect, or inaccuracy, or that such want, 
 defect, or inaccuracy was occasioned by mistake, ab- 
 sence from the United Kingdom, or other reasonable 
 cause; and 
 (^) the failure to make a claim within the period above speci- 
 fied shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such 
 proceedings if it is found that the failure was occa- 
 sioned by mistake, absence from the United Kingdom, 
 or other reasonable cause. 
 
 (2) Notice in respect of an injury under this Act shall give the 
 name and address of the person injured, and shall state in ordi- 
 nary language the cause of the injury and the date at which the 
 accident happened, and shall be served on the employer, or, if 
 there is more than one employer, upon one of such employers. 
 
 (3) The notice may be served by delivering the same at, or 
 sending it by post in a registered letter addressed to, the residence 
 or place of business of the person on whom it is to be served. 
 
 (4) Where the employer is a body of persons, corporate or un- 
 incorporate, the notice may also be served by delivering the same 
 at, or by sending it by post in a registered letter addressed to, the 
 employer at the office, or, if there be more than one office, any one 
 of the offices of such body. 
 
 J. Contracting Out 
 
 (i) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after taking steps to 
 ascertain the views of the employer and workmen, certifies that 
 any scheme of compensation, benefit, or insurance for the work- 
 men of an employer in any employment, whether or not such 
 scheme includes other employers and their workmen, provides 
 scales of compensation not less favourable to the workmen and 
 their dependants than the corresponding scales contained in this 
 Act, and that, where the scheme provides for contributions by the 
 workmen, the scheme confers benefits at least equivalent to those 
 contributions, in addition to the benefits to which the workmen 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 51 
 
 would have been entitled under this Act, and that a majority (to 
 be ascertained by ballot) of the workmen to whom the scheme is 
 applicable are in favour of such scheme, the employer may, whilst 
 the certificate is in force, contract with any of his workmen that 
 the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions 
 of this Act, and thereupon the employer shall be liable only in 
 accordance with the scheme, but, save as aforesaid, this Act shall 
 apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the 
 commencement of this Act. 
 
 (2) The Registrar may give a certificate to expire at the end of 
 a limited period of not less than five years, and may from time 
 to time renew with or without modifications such a certificate to 
 expire at the end of the period for which it is renewed. 
 
 (3) No scheme shall be so certified which contains an obliga- 
 tion upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their 
 hiring, or which does not contain provisions enabling a workman 
 to withdraw from the scheme. 
 
 (4) If complaint is made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies 
 by or on behalf of the workmen of any employer that the benefits 
 conferred by any scheme no longer conform to the conditions 
 stated in subsection (i) of this section, or that the provisions of 
 such scheme are being violated, or that the scheme is not being 
 fairly administered, or that satisfactory reasons exist for revoking 
 the certificate, the Registrar shall examine into the complaint, and, 
 if satisfied that good cause exist for such complaint, shall, unless 
 the cause of complaint is removed, revoke the certificate. 
 
 (5) When a certificate is revoked or expires, any moneys or 
 securities held for the purpose of the scheme shall, after due pro- 
 vision has been made to discharge the liabilities already accrued, 
 be distributed as may be arranged between the employer and 
 workmen, or as may be determined by the Registrar of Friendly 
 Societies in the event of a difference of opinion. 
 
 (6) Whenever a scheme has been certified as aforesaid, it shall 
 be the duty of the employer to answer all such inquiries and to 
 
52 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 furnish all such accounts in regard to the scheme as may be made 
 or required by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. 
 
 (7) The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies shall include 
 in his annual report the particulars of the proceedings of the 
 Registrar under this Act. 
 
 (8) The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies may make regu- 
 lations for the purpose of carrying this section into effect. 
 
 4. Sub-contracting 
 
 (1) Where any person (in this section referred to as the prin- 
 cipal), in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business, 
 contracts with any other person (in this section referred to as 
 the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the 
 whole or any part of any work undertaken by the principal, the 
 principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the ex- 
 ecution of the work any compensation under this Act which he 
 would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immedi- 
 ately employed by him ; and where compensation is claimed from 
 or proceedings are taken against the principal, then, in the applica- 
 tion of this Act, references to the principal shall be substituted for 
 references to the employer, except that the amount of compensation 
 shall be calculated with reference to the earnings of the workman 
 under the employer by whom he is immediately employed : 
 
 Provided that, where the contract relates to threshing, plough- 
 ing, or other agricultural work, and the contractor provides and 
 uses machinery driven by mechanical power for the purpose of 
 such work, he and he alone shall be liable under this Act to pay 
 compensation to any workman employed by him on such work. 
 
 (2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under 
 this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person 
 who would have been liable to pay compensation to the workman 
 independently of this section, and all questions as to the right to 
 and amount of any such indemnity shall in default of agreement 
 be settled by arbitration under this Act. 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 53 
 
 (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a 
 workman recovering compensation under this Act from the con- 
 tractor instead of the principal. 
 
 (4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident 
 occurred elsewhere than on, or in, or about premises on which the 
 principal has undertaken to execute the work or which are other- 
 wise under his control or management. 
 
 5. Provision as to Cases of Bankruptcy of Employer 
 
 (i) Where any employer has entered into a contract with any 
 insurers in respect of any liability under this Act to any workman, 
 then, in the event of the employer becoming bankrupt, or making 
 a composition or arrangement with his creditors, or if the employer 
 is a company in the event of the company having commenced to 
 be wound up, the rights of the employer against the insurers as 
 respects that liability shall, notwithstanding anything in the enact- 
 ments relating to bankruptcy and the winding up of compainies, 
 be transferred to and vest in the workman, and upon any such 
 transfer the insurers shall have the same rights and remedies and 
 be subject to the same liabilities as if they were the employer, so 
 however that the insurers shall not be under any greater liability 
 to the workman than they would have been under to the employer. 
 
 (2) If the liability of the insurers to the workman is less than 
 the liability of the employer to the workman, the workman may 
 prove for the balance in the bankruptcy or liquidation. 
 
 (3) There shall be included among the debts which under sec- 
 tion one of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888, 
 and section four of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy (Ire- 
 land) Act, 1889, are in the distribution of the property of a bank- 
 rupt and in the distribution of the assets of a company being wound 
 up to be paid in priority to all other debts, the amount, not exceed- 
 ing in any individual case one hundred pounds, due in respect of 
 any compensation the liability wherefor accrued before the date 
 of the receiving order or the date of the commencement of the 
 
54 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 winding up, and those Acts and the Preferential Payments in 
 Bankruptcy Amendment Act, 1897, shall have effect accordingly. 
 Where the compensation is a weekly payment, the amount due 
 in respect thereof shall, for the purposes of this provision, be taken 
 to be the amount of the lump sum for which the weekly payment 
 could, if redeemable, be redeemed if the employer made an appli- 
 cation for that purpose under the First Schedule to this Act. 
 
 (4) In the case of the winding up of a company within the 
 meaning of the Stannaries Act, 1887, such an amount as afore- 
 said, if the compensation is payable to a miner or the dependants 
 of a miner, shall have the like priority as is conferred on wages 
 of miners by section nine of that Act, and that section shall have 
 effect accordingly. 
 
 (5) The provisions of this section with respect to preferences 
 and priorities shall not apply where the bankrupt or the company 
 being wound up has entered into such a contract with insurers as 
 aforesaid. 
 
 (6) This section shall not apply where a company is wound up 
 voluntarily merely for the purposes of reconstruction or of amal- 
 gamation with another company. 
 
 6. Remedies both against Employer and Stranger 
 
 Where the injury for which compensation is payable under this 
 Act was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in 
 some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect 
 thereof — 
 
 (i) The workman may take proceedings both against that per- 
 son to recover damages and against any person liable to 
 pay compensation under this Act for such compensation, 
 but shall not be entitled to recover both damages and 
 compensation ; and 
 (2) If the workman has recovered compensation under this Act, 
 the person by whom the compensation was paid, and 
 any person who has been called on to pay an indemnity 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 55 
 
 under the section of this Act relating to sub-contracting, 
 shall be entitled to be indemnified by the person so liable 
 to pay damages as aforesaid, and all questions as to the 
 right to and amount of any such indemnity shall, in de- 
 fault of agreement, be settled by action, or, by consent 
 of the parties, by arbitration under this Act. 
 
 7. Application of Act to Seamen 
 
 (i) This Act shall apply to masters, seamen, and apprentices 
 to the sea service and apprentices in the sea-fishing service, pro- 
 vided that such persons are workmen within the meaning of this 
 Act, and are members of the crew of any ship registered in the 
 United Kingdom, or of any other British ship or vessel of which 
 the owner, or (if there is more than one owner) the managing 
 owner, or manager resides or has his principal place of business 
 in the United Kingdom, subject to the following modifications : 
 (a) The notice of accident and the claim for compensation may, 
 except where the person injured is the master, be served 
 on the master of the ship as if he were the employer, but 
 where the accident happened and the incapacity com- 
 menced on board the ship it shall not be necessary to 
 give any notice of the accident : 
 (V) In the case of the death of the master, seaman, or apprentice, 
 the claim for compensation shall be made within six months 
 after news of the death has been received by the claimant : 
 (c) Where an injured master, seaman, or apprentice is discharged 
 or left behind in a British possession or in a foreign coun- 
 try, depositions respecting the circumstances and nature 
 of the injury may be taken by any judge or magistrate 
 in the British possession, and by any British consular offi- 
 cer in the foreign country, and if so taken shall be trans- 
 mitted by the person by whom they are taken to the 
 Board of Trade, and such depositions or certified copies 
 thereof shall in any proceedings for enforcing the claim 
 
56 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 be admissible in evidence as provided by sections 691 
 and 69s of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and those 
 sections shall apply accordingly : 
 
 (d) In the case of the death of a master, seaman, or apprentice, 
 
 leaving no dependants, no compensation shall be payable, 
 if the owner of the ship is under the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894, liable to pay the expenses of burial: 
 
 (e) The weekly payment shall not be payable in respect of the 
 
 period during which the owner of the ship is, under the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subse- 
 quent enactment, or otherwise, liable to defray the ex- 
 penses of maintenance of the injured master, seaman, or 
 apprentice : 
 
 (/) Any sum payable by way of compensation by the owner of 
 a ship under this Act shall be paid in full notwithstand- 
 ing anything in section 503 of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894 (which relates to the limitation of a shipowner's 
 liability in certain cases of loss of life, injury, or damage), 
 but the limitation on the owner's liability imposed by that 
 section shall apply to the amount recoverable by way of 
 indemnity, under the section of this Act relating to reme- 
 dies both against employer and stranger, as if the indem- 
 nity were damages for loss of life or personal injury : 
 
 (^) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 174 of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894 (which relates to the recovery of 
 wages of seamen lost with their ship), shall apply as re- 
 spects proceedings for the recovery of compensation by 
 dependants of masters, seamen, and apprentices lost with 
 their ship as they apply with respect to proceedings for the 
 recovery of wages due to seamen and apprentices ; and 
 proceedings for the recovery of compensation shall in 
 such a case be maintainable if the claim is made within 
 eighteen months of the date at which the ship is deemed 
 to have been lost with all hands : 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 57 
 
 (2) This Act shall not apply to such members of the crew of 
 a fishing vessel as are remunerated by shares in the profits or the 
 gross earnings of the working of such vessel. 
 
 (3) This section shall extend to pilots to whoin Part X of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, applies, as if a pilot when employed on 
 any such ship as aforesaid were a seaman and a member of the crew. 
 
 8. Application of Act to Industrial Diseases 
 (i) Where — 
 
 (i) the certifying surgeon appointed under the Factory and 
 Workshop Act, 1901, for the district in which a work- 
 man is employed certifies that the workman is suffering 
 from a disease mentioned in the Third Schedule to this 
 Act and is thereby disabled from earning full wages at 
 the work at which he was employed ; or 
 (ii) a workman is, in pursuance of any special rules or regula- 
 tions made under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, 
 suspended from his usual employment on account of 
 having contracted any such disease ; or 
 (iii) the death of a workman is caused by any such disease ; 
 and the disease is due to the nature of any employment in which 
 the workman was employed at any time within the twelve months 
 previous to the date of the disablement or suspension, whether 
 under one or more eriiployers, he or his dependants shall be en- 
 titled to compensation under this Act as if the disease or such 
 suspension as aforesaid were a personal injury by accident arising 
 out of and in the course of that employment, subject to the fol- 
 lowing modifications : 
 
 (a) The disablement or suspension shall be treated as the 
 
 happening of the accident ; 
 (p) If it is proved that the workman has at the time of entering 
 the employment wilfully and falsely represented himself 
 in writing as not having previously suffered from the dis- 
 ease, compensation shall not be payable ; 
 
58 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (c) The compensation shall be recoverable from the employer 
 who last employed the workman during the said twelve 
 months in the employment to the nature of which the 
 disease was due : 
 Provided that — 
 
 (i) the workman or his dependants if so required 
 shall furnish that employer with such infor- 
 mation as to the names and addresses of all 
 the other employers who employed him in the 
 employment during the said twelve months as 
 he or they may possess, and, if such informa- 
 tion is not furnished, or is not sufficient to 
 enable that employer to take proceedings 
 under the next following proviso, that em- 
 ployer upon proving that the disease was not 
 contracted whilst the workman was in his 
 employment shall not be liable to pay com- 
 pensation; and 
 (ii) if that employer alleges that the disease was in 
 fact contracted whilst the workman was in the 
 employment of some other employer, and not 
 whilst in his employment, he may join such 
 other employer as a party to the arbitration, 
 and if the allegation is proved that other em- 
 ployer shall be the employer from whom the 
 compensation is to be recoverable ; and 
 (iii) if the disease is of such a nature as to be con- 
 tracted by a gradual process, any other em- 
 ployers, who during the said twelve months 
 employed the workman in the employment to 
 the nature of which the disease was due, shall 
 be Uable to make to the employer from whom 
 compensation is recoverable such contributions 
 as, in default of agreement, may be determined 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 59 
 
 in the arbitration under this Act for settling 
 the amount of the compensation ; 
 
 ((/) The amount of the compensation shall be calculated with 
 reference to the earnings of the workman under the em- 
 ployer from whom the compensation is recoverable ; 
 (e) The employer to whom notice of the death, disablement, or 
 suspension is to be given shall be the employer who last 
 employed the workman during the said twelve months in 
 the employment to the nature of which the disease was 
 due, and the notice may be given notwithstanding that 
 the workman has voluntarily left his employment ; 
 
 (/) If an employer or a workman is aggrieved by the action of 
 a certifying or other surgeon in giving or refusing to 
 give a certificate of disablement or in suspending or 
 refusing to suspend a workman for the purposes of this 
 section, the matter shall in accordance with regulations 
 made by the Secretary of State be referred to a medical 
 referee, whose decision shall be filial. 
 
 (2) If the workman at or immediately before the date of the 
 disablement or suspension was employed in any process men- 
 tioned in the second column of the Third Schedule to this Act, 
 and the disease contracted is the disease in the first column of that 
 Schedule set opposite the description of the process, the disease, 
 except where the certifying surgeon certifies that in his opinion 
 the disease was not due to the nature of the employment, shall 
 be deemed to have been due to the nature of that employment, 
 unless the employer proves the contrary. 
 
 (3) The Secretary of State may make rules regulating the 
 duties and fees of certifying and other surgeons (including den- 
 tists) under this section. 
 
 (4) For the purposes of this section the date of disablement 
 shall be such date as the certifying surgeon certifies as the date 
 on which the disablement commenced, or, if he is unable to certify 
 such a date, the date on which the certificate is given ; 
 
6o BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Provided that — 
 
 (a) Where the medical referee allows an appeal against a 
 refusal by a certifying surgeon to give a certificate of 
 disablement, the date of disablement shall be such date 
 as the medical referee may determine ; 
 (i) Where a workman dies without having obtained a cer-. 
 tificate of disablement, or is at the time of death not 
 in receipt of a weekly payment on account of disable- 
 ment, it shall be the date of death. 
 
 (5) In such cases, and subject to such conditions as the Sec- 
 retary of State may direct, a medical practitioner appointed by 
 the Secretary of State for the purpose shall have the powers and 
 duties of a certifying surgeon under this section, and this section 
 shall be construed accordingly. 
 
 (6) The Secretary of State may make orders for extending the 
 provisions of this section to other diseases and other processes, 
 and to injuries due to the nature of any employment specified 
 in the order not being injuries by accident, either without modi- 
 fication or subject to such modifications as may be contained 
 in the order. 
 
 (7) Where, after inquiry held on the application of any em- 
 ployers or workmen engaged in any industry to which this sec- 
 tion applies, it appears that a mutual trade insurance company or 
 soci^ for insuring against the risks under this section has been 
 established for the industry, and that a majority of the employers 
 engaged in that industry are insured against such risks in the 
 company or society and that the company or society consents, 
 the Secretary of State may, by Provisional Order, require all em- 
 ployers in that industry to insure in the company or society upon 
 such terms and under such conditions and subject to such excep- 
 tions as may be set forth in the Order. Where such a company 
 or society has been established, but is confined to employers in 
 any particular locality or of any particular class, the Secretary of 
 State may for the purposes of this provision treat the industry, 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 6 1 
 
 as carried on by employers in that locality or of that class, as a 
 separate industry. 
 
 (8) A Provisional Order made under this section shall be of no 
 force whatever unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, and 
 if, while the Bill confirming any such Order is pending in either 
 House of Parliament, a petition is presented against the Order, 
 the Bill may be referred to a Select Committee, and the petitioner 
 shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the case of Private 
 Bills, and any Act confirming any Provisional Order under this 
 section may be repealed, altered, or amended by a Provisional 
 Order made and confirmed in like manner, 
 
 (9) Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in respect 
 of any such Order, Provisional Order, or confirming Bill shall be 
 defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. 
 
 (10) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a workman 
 to recover compensation in respect of a disease to which this sec- 
 tion does not apply, if the disease is a personal injury by accident 
 within the meaning of this Act. 
 
 p. Application to Workmen in Employment of Crown 
 
 (i) This Act shall not apply to persons in the naval or military 
 service of the Crown, but otherwise shall apply to workmen em- 
 ployed by or under the Crown to whom this Act would apply if 
 the employer were a private person : ' 
 
 Provided that in the case of a person employed in the private 
 service of the Crown, the head of that department of the Royal 
 Household in which he was employed at the time of the accident 
 shall be deemed to be his employer. 
 
 (2) The Treasury may, by warrant laid before Parliament, 
 modify for the purposes of this Act their warrant made under 
 section one of the Superannuation Act, 1887, and notwithstanding 
 anything in that Act, or any such warrant, may frame schemes 
 with a view to their being certified by the Registrar of Friendly 
 Societies under this Act. 
 
62 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 10. Appointment and Remuneration of Medical Referees 
 and Arbitrators 
 
 (i) The Secretary of State may appoint such legally qualified 
 medical practitioners to be medical referees for the purposes of 
 this Act as he may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determme, 
 and the remuneration of, and other expenses incurred by, medical 
 referees under this Act shall, subject to regulations made by the 
 Treasury, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. 
 
 Where a medical referee has been employed as a medical prac- 
 titioner in connection with any case by or on behalf of an em- 
 ployer or workman or by any insurers interested, he shall not act 
 as medical referee in that case. 
 
 (2) The remuneration of an arbitrator appointed by a judge of 
 county courts under the Second Schedule to this Act shall be paid 
 out of moneys provided by Parliament in accordance with regula- 
 tions made by the Treasury. 
 
 II. Detention of Ships 
 
 (i) If it is alleged that the owners of any ship are liable as such 
 owners to pay compensation under this Act, and at any time that 
 ship is found in any port or river of England or Ireland, or within 
 three miles of the coast thereof, a judge of any court of record in 
 England or Ireland may, upon its being shown to him by any per- 
 son applying in accordance with the rules of the court that the 
 owners are probably liable as such to pay such compensation, and 
 that none of the owners reside in the United Kingdom, issue an 
 order directed to any officer of customs or other officer named by 
 the judge requiring him to detain the ship until such time as the 
 owners, agent, master, or consignee thereof have paid such com- 
 pensation, or have given security, to be approved by the judge, to 
 abide the event of any proceedings that may be instituted to re- 
 cover such compensation and to pay such compensation and costs 
 as may be awarded thereon ; and any officer of customs or other offi- 
 cer to whom the order is directed shall detain the ship accordingly. 
 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 63 
 
 (2) In any legal proceeding to recover such compensation, the 
 person giving security shall be made defendant, and the production 
 of the order of the judge, made in relation to the security, shall be 
 conclusive evidence of the liability of the defendant to the pro- 
 ceeding. 
 
 (3) Section 692 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall apply 
 to the detention of a ship under this Act as it applies to the deten- 
 tion of a ship under that Act, and, if the owner of a ship is a cor- 
 poration, it shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to 
 reside in the United Kingdom if it has an office in the United 
 Kingdom at which service of writs can be effected. 
 
 12. Returns as to Compensation 
 
 (i) Every employer in any industry to which the Secretary of 
 State may direct that this section shall apply shall, on or before 
 such day in every year as the Secretary of State may direct, send 
 to the Secretary of State a correct return specifying the number of 
 injuries in respect of which compensation has been paid by him 
 under this Act during the previous year, and the amount of such 
 compensation, together with such other particulars as to the com- 
 pensation as the Secretary of State may direct, and in default of 
 complying with this section shall be liable on conviction under the 
 Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds. 
 
 (2) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State containing 
 such directions as aforesaid shall be laid before both Houses of 
 Parliament as soon as may be after they are made. 
 
 13. Definitions 
 
 In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires — 
 
 " Employer " includes any body of persons corporate or un- 
 incorporate and the legal personal representative of a 
 deceased employer, and, where the services of a workman 
 are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the 
 person with whom the workman has entered into a contract 
 
64 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 of service or apprenticeship, the latter shall, for the pur- 
 poses of this Act, be deemed to continue to be the em- 
 ployer of the workman whilst he is working for that other 
 person ; 
 
 " Workman " does not include any person employed otherwise 
 than by way of manual labour whose remuneration exceeds 
 two hundred and fifty pounds a year, or a person whose 
 employment is of a casual nature and who is employed 
 otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or 
 business, or a member of a police force, or an outworker, 
 or a member of the employer's family dwelling in his house, 
 but, save as aforesaid, means any person who has entered 
 into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship 
 with an employer, whether by way of manual labour, clerical 
 work, or otherwise, and whether the contract is expressed 
 or implied, is oral or in writing ; 
 
 Any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where 
 the workman is dead, include a reference to his legal per- 
 sonal representative or to his dependants or other person 
 to whom or for whose benefit compensation is payable ; 
 
 " Dependants " means such of the members of the work- 
 man's family as were wholly or in part dependent upon 
 the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, or 
 would but for the incapacity due to the accident have been 
 so dependent, and where the workman, being the parent 
 or grandparent of an illegitimate child, leaves such a 
 child so dependent upon his earnings, or, being an illegit- 
 imate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent 
 upon his earnings, shall include such an illegitimate child 
 and parent or grandparent respectively ; 
 
 " Member of a family " means wife or husband, father, mother, 
 grandfather, grandmother, step-father, step-mother, son, 
 daughter, grandson, granddaughter, step-son, step-daughter, 
 brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister ; 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 65 
 
 " Ship," " vessel," " seaman," and " port " have the same 
 meanings as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; 
 
 " Manager," in relation to a ship, means the ship's husband 
 or other person to whom the management of the ship is 
 entrusted by or on behalf of the owner ; 
 
 " Police force " means a police force to which the Police Act, 
 1890, or the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, applies, the City 
 of London Police Force, the Royal Irish Constabulary, and ■ 
 the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force ; 
 
 " Outworker " means a person to whom articles or materials 
 are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, 
 ornamented, finished, or repaired, or adapted for sale, in 
 his own home or on other premises not under the control 
 or management of the person who gave out the materials 
 or articles; 
 
 The exercise and performance of the powers and duties of a 
 local or other public authority shall, for the purposes of this 
 Act, be treated as the trade or business of the authority ; 
 
 " County court," " judge of the county court," " registrar of 
 the county court," " plaintiff," and " rules of court," as 
 respects Scotland, mean respectively sheriff court, sheriff, 
 sheriff clerk, pursuer, and act of sederunt. 
 
 14.. Special Provisions as to Scotland 
 
 In Scotland, where a workman raises an action against his em- 
 ployer independently of this Act in respect of any injury caused 
 by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, 
 the action, if raised in the sheriff court and concluding for damages 
 under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, or alternatively at com- 
 mon law or under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, shall, not- 
 withstanding anything contained in that Act, not be removed under 
 that Act or otherwise to the Court of Session, nor shall it be ap- 
 pealed to that court otherwise than by appeal on a question of law ; 
 and for the purposes of such appeal the provisions of the Second 
 
66 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Schedule to this Act in regard to an appeal from the decision of 
 the sheriff on any question of law determined by him as arbitrator 
 under this Act shall apply. 
 
 i^. Provisions as to existing Contracts and Schemes 
 
 (i) Any contract (other than a contract substituting the provi- 
 sions of a scheme certified under the Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1897, for the provisions of that Act) existing at the com- 
 mencement of this Act, whereby a workman relinquishes any 
 right to compensation from the employer for personal injury aris- 
 ing out of and in the course of his employment, shall not, for the 
 purposes of this Act, be deemed to continue after the time at which 
 the workman's contract of service would determine if notice of the 
 determination thereof were given at the commencement of this Act. 
 
 (2) Every scheme under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 
 1897, in force at the commencement of this Act shall, if re-certi- 
 fied by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, have effect as if it were 
 a scheme under this Act. 
 
 (3) The Registrar shall re-certify any such scheme if it is proved 
 to his sg.tisfaction that the scheme conforms, or has been so modi- 
 fied as to conform, with the provisions of this Act as to schemes. 
 
 (4) If any such scheme has not been so re-certified before the 
 expiration of six months from the commencement of this Act, the 
 certificate thereof shall be revoked. 
 
 16. Commencement and Repeal 
 
 (i) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of July 
 1907, but, except so far as it relates to references to medical referees, 
 and proceedings consequential thereon, shall not apply in any case 
 where the accident happened before the commencement of this Act. 
 
 (2) The Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1897 and 1900, are 
 hereby repealed, but shall continue to apply to cases where the 
 accident happened before the commencement of this Act, except 
 to the extent to which this Act applies to those cases. 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 6^ 
 
 17. Short Title 
 This Act may be cited as the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. 
 
 First Schedule 
 
 Scale and Conditions of Compensation 
 
 (i) The amount of compensation under this Act shall be — 
 (a) Where death results from the injury — 
 
 (i) if the workman leaves any dependants wholly de- 
 pendent upon his earnings, a sum equal to his 
 earnings in the employment of the same em- 
 ployer during the three years next preceding 
 the injury, or the sum of one hundred and fifty 
 pounds, whichever of those sums is the larger, 
 but not exceeding in any case three hundred 
 pounds, provided that the amount of any weekly 
 payments made under this Act, and any lump 
 sum paid in redemption thereof, shall be de- 
 ducted from such sum, and, if the period of the 
 workman's employment by the said employer 
 has been less than the said three years, then the 
 amount of his earnings during the said three 
 years shall be deemed to be one hundred and 
 fifty-six times his average weekly earnings dur- 
 ing the period of his actual employment under 
 the said employer ; 
 (ii) if the workman does not leave any such dependants, 
 but leaves any dependants in part dependent upon 
 his earnings, such sum, not exceeding in any case 
 the amount payable under the foregoing provi- 
 sions, as may be agreed upon, or, in default of 
 agreement, may be determined, on arbitration 
 under this Act, to be reasonable and proportion- 
 ate to the injury to the said dependants ; and 
 
68 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (iii) if he leaves no dependants, the reasonable expenses 
 of his medical attendance and burial, not exceed- 
 ing ten pounds ; 
 (b) where total or partial incapacity for work results from 
 the injury, a weekly payment during the incapacity not 
 exceeding fifty per cent of his average weekly earnings 
 during the previous twelve months, if he has been so 
 long employed, but if not then for any less period dur- 
 ing which he has been in the employment of the same 
 employer, such weekly pay ment not to exceed one pound : 
 Provided that — 
 
 (a) if the incapacity lasts less than two weeks no 
 
 compensation shall be payable in respect of 
 the first week ; and 
 
 (b) as respects the weekly payments during total 
 
 incapacity of a workman who is under 
 
 twenty-one years of age at the date of the 
 
 injury, and whose average weekly earnings 
 
 are less than twenty shillings, one hundred 
 
 per cent shall be substituted for fifty per 
 
 cent of his average weekly earnings, but 
 
 the weekly payment shall in no case exceed 
 
 ten shillings. 
 
 (2) For the purposes of the provisions of this schedule relating 
 
 to " earnings " and " average weekly earnings " of a workman, the 
 
 following rules shall be observed : 
 
 (a) average weekly earnings shall be computed in such manner 
 as is best calculated to give the rate per week at which 
 the workman was being remunerated. Provided that 
 where by reason of the shortness of the time during 
 which the workman has been in the employment of his 
 employer, or the casual nature of the employment, or the 
 terms of the employment, it is impracticable at the date 
 of the accident to compute the rate of remuneration, 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 69 
 
 regard may be had to the average weekly amount which, 
 during the twelve months previous to the accident, was 
 being earned by a person in the same grade employed 
 at the same work by the same employer, or, if there is 
 no person so employed, by a person in the same grade 
 employed in the same class of employment and in the 
 same district ; 
 
 (b) where the workman had entered into concurrent contracts 
 
 of service with two or more employers under which he 
 worked at one time for one such employer and at another 
 time for another such employer, his average weekly earn- 
 ings shall be computed as if his earnings under all such 
 contracts were earnings in the employment of the em- 
 ployer for whom he was working at the time of the 
 accident ; 
 
 (c) employment by the same employer shall be taken to mean 
 
 employment by the same employer in the grade in which 
 the workman was employed at the time of the accident, 
 uninterrupted by absence from work due to illness or any 
 other unavoidable cause ; 
 
 (d) where the employer has been accustomed to pay to the 
 
 workman a sum to cover any special expenses entailed on 
 him by the nature of his employment, the sum so paid 
 shall not be reckoned as part of the earnings. 
 ■ (3) In fixing the amount of the weekly payment, regard shall be 
 had to any pa3mnent, allowance, or benefit which the workman may 
 receive from the employer during the period of his incapacity, and 
 in the case of partial incapacity the weekly payment shall in no 
 case exceed the difference between the amount of the average 
 weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the aver- 
 age weekly amount which he is earning or is able to earn in some 
 suitable employment or business after the accident, but shall bear 
 such relation to the amount of that difference as under the circum- 
 stances of the case may appear proper. 
 
70 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (4) Where a workman has given notice of an accident, he shall, 
 if so required by the employer, submit himself for examination by 
 a duly qualified medical practitioner provided and paid by the em- 
 ployer, and, if he refuses to submit himself to such examination, 
 or in any way obstructs the same, his right to compensation, and 
 to take or prosecute any proceeding under this Act in relation to 
 compensation, shall be suspended until such examination has taken 
 place. 
 
 (5) The payment in the case of death shall, unless otherwise 
 ordered as herein-after provided, be paid into the county court, 
 and any sum so paid into court shall, subject to rules of court and 
 the provisions of this schedule, be invested, applied, or otherwise 
 dealt with by the court in such manner as the court in its discretion 
 thinks fit for the benefit of the persons entitled thereto under this 
 Act, and the receipt of the registrar of the court shall be a sufficient 
 discharge in respect of the amount paid in : 
 
 Provided that, if so agreed, the payment in case of death shall, 
 if the workman leaves no dependants, be made to his legal personal 
 representative, or, if he has no such representative, to the person 
 to whom the expenses of medical attendance and burial are due. 
 
 [6-22. Various administrative details omitted.] 
 
 Second Schedule 
 
 Arbitration, etc. 
 
 (i) For the purpose of settling any matter which under this Act 
 is to be settled by arbitration, if any committee, representative of 
 an employer and his workmen, exists with power to settle matters 
 under this Act in the case of the employer and workmen, the 
 matter shall, unless either party objects by notice in writing sent to 
 the other party before the committee meet to consider the matter, 
 be settled by the arbitration of such committee, or be referred by 
 them in their discretion to arbitration as herein-after provided. 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION J I 
 
 (2) If either party so objects, or there is no such committee, 
 or the committee so refers the matter or fails to settle the matter 
 within six months from the date of the claim, the matter shall be 
 settled by a single arbitrator agreed on by the parties, or in the 
 absence of agreement by the judge of the county court, according 
 to the procedure prescribed by rules of court. 
 
 (3) In England the matter, instead of being settled by the 
 county court, may, if the Lord Chancellor so authorises, be settled 
 according to the like procedure, by a single arbitrator appointed by 
 that judge, and the arbitrator so appointed shall, for the purposes 
 of this Act, have all the powers of that judge. 
 
 (4) The Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to any arbitration 
 under this Act ; but a committee or an arbitrator may, if they or 
 he think fit, submit any question of law for the decision of the 
 judge of the county court, and the decision of the judge on any 
 question of law, either on such submission, or in any case where 
 he himself settles the matter under this Act, or where he gives any 
 decision or makes any order under this Act, shall be final, unless 
 within the time and in accordance with the conditions prescribed 
 by rules of the Supreme Court either party appeals to the Court 
 of Appeal ; and the judge of the county court, or the arbitrator 
 appointed by him, shall, for the purpose of proceedings under this 
 Act, have the same powers of procuring the attendance of witnesses 
 and the production of documents as if the proceedings were an 
 action in the county court. 
 
 (5) A judge of county courts may, if he thinks fit, summon a 
 medical referee to sit with him as an assessor. 
 
 (6) Rules of court may make provision for the appearance in 
 any arbitration under this Act of any party by some other person. 
 
 (7) The costs of and incidental to the arbitration and proceed- 
 ings connected therewith shall be in the discretion of the committee, 
 arbitrator, or judge of the county court, subject as respects such 
 judge and an arbitrator appointed by him to rules of court. The 
 costs, whether before a committee or an arbitrator or in the county 
 
72 
 
 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 court, shall not exceed the limit prescribed by rules of court, and 
 shall be taxed in manner prescribed by those rules and such taxa- 
 tion may be reviewed by the judge of the county court. 
 [8-18. Various details omitted.] 
 
 Third Schedule 
 
 Description of Disease 
 
 Description of Process 
 
 Anthrax 
 
 Handling of wool, hair, bristles. 
 
 
 hides, and skins. 
 
 Lead poisoning or its sequelae . . . 
 
 Any process involving the use of 
 
 
 lead or its preparations or com- 
 
 
 pounds. 
 
 Mercury poisoning or its sequelae . 
 
 Any process involving the use of 
 
 
 mercury or its preparations or 
 
 
 compounds. 
 
 Phosphorus poisoning or its sequelae 
 
 Any process involving the use of 
 
 
 phosphorus or its preparations or 
 
 
 compounds. 
 
 Arsenic poisoning or its sequelae . 
 
 Any process involving the use of 
 
 
 arsenic or its preparations or com- 
 
 
 pounds. 
 
 
 Mining. 
 
 Extract 11 
 
 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (ANGLO-FRENCH 
 CONVENTION) ACT, 1909 
 
 (9 Edw. 7, ch. i6) 
 
 An Act to authorise the making of such modifications in the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1906, in its application to French 
 Citizens, as may be necessary to give effect to a Convention 
 between His Majesty and the President of the French Re- 
 public. (20th October 1909) 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 73 
 
 Whereas His Majesty the King and the President of the French 
 Republic have concluded the Convention set out in the Schedule 
 to this Act, but effect cannot be given to the Convention unless 
 certain modifications are made in the Workmen's Compensation 
 Act, 1906, so far as it applies to workmen who are French citizens. 
 
 Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, 
 by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and 
 Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, 
 and by the authority of the same, as follows : 
 
 I. His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such modifica- 
 tions in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in its application 
 to workmen who are French citizens, as appear to him to be neces- 
 sary to give effect to the said Convention ; and the Workmen's 
 Compensation Act, 1906, shall apply to such workmen, subject to 
 the modifications contained in the Order. 
 
 n. This Act may be cited as the Workmen's Compensation 
 (Anglo-French Convention) Act, 1909. 
 
 Schedule 
 
 Convention signed at Paris the 3rd day of July igog 
 
 Article i 
 
 British subjects who meet with accidents arising out of their 
 employment as workmen in France, and persons entitled to claim 
 through or having rights derivable from them, s^iall enjoy the bene- 
 fits of the compensation and guarantees secured to French citizens 
 by the legislation in force in France in regard to the liability of 
 employers in respect of such accidents. 
 
 Reciprocally, French citizens who meet with accidents arising 
 out of their employment as workmen in the United Kingdom of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, and persons entitled to claim through or 
 having rights derivable from them, shall enjoy the benefits of the 
 compensation and guarantees secured to British subjects by the 
 
74 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 legislation in force in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
 Ireland in regard to compensation for such accidents, supplemented 
 as specified in Article 5. 
 
 Article 2 
 
 Nevertheless, the present Convention shall not apply to the case 
 of a person engaged in a business having its headquarters in one 
 of the two Contracting States, but temporarily detached for em- 
 ployment in the other Contracting State, and meeting with an acci- 
 dent in the course of that employment, if at the time of the accident 
 the said employment has lasted less than six months. In this case 
 the persons interested shall only be entitled to the compensation 
 and guarantees provided by the law of the former State. 
 
 The same rule shall apply in the case of persons engaged in 
 transport services and employed at intervals, whether regular or 
 not, in the country other than that in which the headquarters of 
 the business are established. 
 
 Akticle 3 
 
 The British and French authorities will reciprocally lend their 
 good offices to facilitate the administration of their respective laws 
 as aforesaid. 
 
 Article 4 
 
 The present Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications 
 shall be exchanged at Paris, as soon as possible. 
 
 It shall be applicable in France and in the United Kingdom of 
 Great Britain and Ireland to all accidents happening after one 
 month from the time of its publication in the two countries in 
 the manner prescribed by their respective laws, and it shall remain 
 binding until the expiration of one year from the date on which it 
 shall have been cienounced by one or other of the two Contracting 
 Parties, 
 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 75 
 
 Article 5 
 
 Nevertheless, the ratification mentioned in the preceding Article 
 shall not take place till the legislation at present in force in the 
 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in regard to work- 
 men's compensation has been supplemented, so far as concerns 
 accidents to French citizens arising out of their emplo)rment as 
 workmen, by arrangements to the following effect : 
 
 (a) That the compensation payable shall in every case be fixed 
 
 by an award of the County Court : 
 (J?) That in any case of redemption of weekly payments the total 
 sum payable shall, provided it exceeds a sum equivalent to 
 the capital value of an annuity of 4/. (100 fr.), be paid 
 into Court, to be employed in the purchase of an annuity 
 for the benefit of the person entitled thereto : 
 (c) That in those cases in which a lump sum representing the 
 compensation payable shall have been paid by the em- 
 ployer into the County Court, if the injured workman 
 returns to reside in France, or if the dependants resided 
 in France at the time of his death or subsequently return 
 to reside in France, the total sum due to the injured work- 
 man or to his dependants shall be paid over through the 
 County Court to the Caisse Nationale Fran^aise des Re- 
 traites pour la Vteillesse, who shall employ it in the pur- 
 chase of an annuity according to its tariff at the time of 
 the payment ; and further, that, in the case in which a 
 lump sum shall not have been paid into Court, and the 
 injured workman returns to reside in France, the com- 
 pensation shall be remitted to him through the County 
 Court at such intervals and in such way as may be agreed 
 upon by the competent authorities of the two countries : 
 {d) That in respect of all the acts done by the County Court 
 in pursuance of the legislation in regard to workmen's 
 compensation, as well as in the execution of the present 
 
ye BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Convention, French citizens shall be exempt from all 
 expenses and fees : 
 {e) That at the beginning of each year His Majesty's principal 
 Secretary of State for the Home Department will send to 
 the Departement du Travail et de la Prevoyance sociale a 
 record of all judicial decisions given in the course of the 
 preceding year under the legislation in regard to work- 
 men's compensation in the case of French citizens injured 
 by accident in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
 Ireland. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 TRADE UNIONISM 
 
 [In 1906 there were 1200 unions in Great Britain with a total 
 membership of 2,113,806. They were recognised as legal associa- 
 tions by virtue of statutes enacted between 187 1 and 1876, but 
 the Taff Vale judgment had recently decided that they were cor- 
 porations which could be sued with costs and damages for the ac- 
 tion of any of their agents whenever such action had caused loss 
 to other persons. How Mr. Balfour's Government failed in 1905 
 to pass into law a biU to protect the funds of the trade unions, 
 which had been placed in jeopardy by that celebrated decision, has 
 already been noted.^ The judgment seriously threatened the future 
 welfare of trade unionism because, with the financial danger ever 
 before them, many workmen lost confidence in it. 
 
 One of the first steps taken, therefore, by the new Liberal Gov- 
 ernment was to present a measure intended to reverse the Taff 
 Vale judgment and to allow reasonable liberty to the unions in the 
 matter of " picketing." The bill was introduced in the House of 
 Commons on March 28, 1906, by Sir John Walton, the Attorney- 
 General {Extract 12), and was read a first time after a short de- 
 bate, in which several Labour members expressed a strong prefer- 
 ence for a solution of their own ; and Sir Edward Carson, Lord 
 Robert Cecil, and other staunch Conservatives protested against 
 provisions tending to convert trade unions into what they described 
 as a privileged class. 
 
 The Government proposed to limit the liability of trade union 
 funds for damages to cases where the act complained of was that 
 
 1 Cf. supra, p. 13. 
 77 
 
78 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 of the executive committee of a union or of its authorised agent 
 acting in accordance with its express or implied orders, or, at least, 
 not contravening them. The Labour members, however, preferred 
 that trade unions should not in any case be actionable for damages 
 sustained through the conduct of their members, and a Bill em- 
 bodying this provision was brought forward for second reading by 
 Mr. W. Hudson, one of their number, representing Newcastle-on- 
 Tyne. It was strongly opposed by Mr. F. E. Smith, who denied 
 that trade unions had ever enjoyed the immunity now claimed for 
 them and protested vigorously against the Bill as creating a class 
 privilege. Mr. Keir Hardie, supporting the Labour Bill, put the 
 difference between the Labour and the Ministerial measures neatly 
 by declaring that trade unionists would not be satisfied with mere 
 barbed-wire entanglements for the protection of their funds, but 
 would insist upon their removal out of the range of the ene- 
 mies' guns. The Prime Minister, after declaring that the suspicion 
 formerly entertained of trade unions had given place to a general 
 recognition that they were beneficial institutions, said that he had 
 voted two or three times previously for Bills on the lines of that 
 now under discussion, and he proposed to vote for the Labour 
 Bill. This announcement was loudly cheered by the Labour mem- 
 bers, and the Prime Minister proceeded to argue that the dif- 
 ference between the two bills was one of method rather than of 
 principle. Subsequently, after application of the closure, the second 
 reading of the Labour measure was passed by 416 to 66, several 
 Ministers and some sixty or seventy other Liberals not voting. 
 
 The original Government Bill was read a second time on April 25. 
 During the Committee Stage, the Attorney-General moved, on 
 August 3, the addition of the special clause which had charac- 
 terised the Labour Bill, prohibiting actions against unions, whether 
 of workmen or masters, for the recovery of damages in respect of 
 tortious acts. On the new clause Sir Edward Carson suggested 
 that it might have run : " The king can do no wrong ; neither can 
 trades unions." The Attorney-General defended the change at 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 79 
 
 length, and, after a number of legal members had spoken, the 
 clause was agreed to by 257 to 29 and the Bill was reported as 
 amended — the Labour members' alternative Bill of course having 
 been dropped. 
 
 The Bill passed through the various later stages against no little 
 opposition, especially among the Lords, and finally received the 
 royal assent on December 21. It was repeatedly affirmed that the 
 Lords would have rejected the Bill altogether had they not feared 
 the cumulative effect on the country of their rejection, in the same 
 year, of the Education Bill and the Plural Voting Bill. 
 
 The Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Act, in its final form, is 
 given as Extract ij. For convenience of reference, important por- 
 tions of the Trade Union Acts, 187 1 and 1876, and of the Con- 
 spiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, ^^^ inserted as 
 Extracts 14, 13, and 16, respectively. 
 
 It may be well to state at this point that trade unionism was 
 subsequently affected by another remarkable judicial decision — 
 the celebrated Osborne judgment, handed down by the House of 
 Lords on December 21, 1909, the effect of which was to make it 
 illegal to use the moneys of any trade union for pa)dng members 
 of Parliament. It had always been customary in the United King- 
 dom not to salary members of Parliament, with the result that the 
 poor man had been either excluded from the House of Commons 
 altogether or forced to accept financial aid from constituents or 
 special friends. The greater number of the Labour members who 
 entered the House in 1906 owed theii: places to funds advanced by 
 workingmen, especially by trade imions. In consequence of the 
 Osborne judgment, the Labour party felt that their very existence 
 was imperilled, but the Liberal Government reassured them in part 
 by securing statutory payment of all members (;£'4oo per annum), 
 beginning in 191 1. In Extract I'j are parts of two speeches deliv- 
 ered in the course of the debate on the payment of members, the 
 one by Mr. Arthur Lee, a strong Conservative opponent, and the 
 other by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, the Labour leader.] 
 
8o BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 12 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF TRADE UNIONS AND TRADE 
 DISPUTES BILL 
 
 (Sir John Walton, Attorney-General, Commons, March 28, igo6) 
 
 Sir John Walton ^ : . . . In their early days trade unions had 
 to struggle against the ban of common law and repressive statutes. 
 They were organisations which interfered with the perfect free- 
 dom of relationship between employers and employed and the free 
 course of trade, and until a very recent period of our history this 
 difficulty prevented any large extension of this industrial movement 
 In 1824 and 1825 repressive legislation disappeared; and in 1859 
 a declaration was made giving to these societies the right to exer- 
 cise the faculty of persuasion, provided they did so in a reasonable 
 and peaceful manner. In 1867 the pulse of the democracy was 
 quickened by the Borough Franchise Act of that year, with the 
 result that we had a Royal Commission followed by the charter of 
 trade unionism of 187 1, afterwards amplified and expanded by the 
 supplementary Act of 1875. It is true that the legislation of 1871 
 and 1875 was limited in its scope. Its main aim was to remove 
 the ban of the common law and the stigma of illegality from the 
 operations of these bodies. It enabled them to register themselves, 
 to frame rules, to amass property, to appoint agents, and to defend 
 themselves and their funds from attack. It also created an impor- 
 tant declaration limiting their criminal liability to those Acts only 
 which are criminal if committed by individuals. 
 
 But in regard to their responsibility to the civil law, legislation 
 is absolutely silent. That silence has led to serious controversy in 
 determining the aim of Parliament in connection with that legisla- 
 tion. The House of Lords, which is the authoritative exponent of 
 our law, and binds the High Court of Parliament as it binds every 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 154, col. 1295 sqq. 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 8 1 
 
 other Court in the realm, has pointed out that that silence does 
 not disturb the liability under which these unions rested under the 
 common law of the country, that the fact of registration made them 
 suable in respect of wrongful conduct in the name of the organisa-' 
 tion which was placed on the register, and that since the year 1883 
 the amalgamation of our systems of judicature as they existed under 
 the common law and in Courts of equity made that liability enforce- 
 able by a form of action which up to that moment was only known 
 in the Courts of Chancery. 
 
 The period of thirty years between 187 1 and 1901 was a period 
 of great material prosperity in regard to these unions. Their num- 
 bers increased, their branches spread, their wealth grew. The funds 
 which were available to meet claims that might be made upon them 
 induced actions to be. brought in numerous quarters for the purpose 
 of satisfying claims for redress for injuries attributed to conduct of 
 which members of the community complained, and from 1892 on- 
 ward a series of actions were successfully tried which at first took 
 the form of actions for injunctions and afterwards of actions for 
 damages. It is impossible to say that the result of this litigation 
 did not create a serious situation. Trade unions are institutions 
 which consist of the working-classes. Their funds represent the 
 hard-earned savings of a large and most worthy section of the 
 community, and they have been contributed in no small degree for 
 the purpose of making provision against misfortune. This liabil- 
 ity and its consequences have created a problem with which it is 
 necessary that Parliament should deal, and which the Government 
 have done their best to solve. In our opinion the law needs most 
 careful examination, redefinition, and modification, and some of the 
 general principles of the law require regulation in their application 
 to these bodies. 
 
 In the first place, let me call attention to the law of conspiracy. 
 The expression " conspiracy " is a little apt to shake timid nerves, 
 and to suggest periods of our history when our Constitution was 
 unstable and when sinister designs against the Crown and society 
 
82 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 were incidents of our public life. But conspiracy in law simply 
 means combination to violate the rights of another. Combination is 
 a conspiracy or agreement, and the fact that its object is to violate 
 a right, constitutes it a criminal act and makes it subject to a claim 
 for damages on the part of the person whose right has been vio- 
 lated by the act so committed. This is a part of our law which I 
 may describe as one of the blank spaces upon the juridical map. 
 There are a few rough tracks across it emanating from different 
 sources, and generally leading to different results. The wary and 
 prudent litigant gives it as wide a berth as possible because it is the 
 region of judge-made law ; and when he is once lost in that area 
 it is not easy for him always to know exactly where he is or by 
 what means he will escape from it. 
 
 We propose that this region shall be carefully plotted out, that 
 its frontiers shall be limited, and that there shall be carried through 
 it a statutory highway which, so far, at any rate, as these organisa- 
 tions are concerned, may be safely travelled by the most unwary 
 traveller. The legislation of 1875, while it defined the law of con- 
 spiracy in its criminal aspect, left that law, in so far as it is a de- 
 partment of civil jurisprudence, entirely untouched ; and the result 
 has been that this area has been the field of fierce struggles be- 
 tween disputants of legal eminence. I doubt whether in our time 
 the serene judicial atmosphere has ever been so much disturbed 
 as it has been by different theories with regard to the law of 
 conspiracy. . . . 
 
 We propose to call in aid the principle which was established by 
 the Act of 1875. It was there declared that the character of an 
 act committed by a trade union within the purview of the criminal 
 law should depend on the consideration of whether it was criminal 
 or not, assuming it to be the act of an individual. And so we 
 say in regard to the applications of the civil law, that that act 
 shall be right or wrong, shall be lawful or unlawful, according as 
 it would be lawful or unlawful, judged on the assumption that it 
 has been committed by an individual and not by a combination; 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 83 
 
 and I submit to the House that there is no other solution than 
 that which I have suggested. 
 
 The next subject upon which I propose to say a few words is 
 that of peaceful picketing, which I prefer to call the right of peace- 
 ful persuasion. What is the right of peaceful persuasion ? It is an 
 essential part of the right to strike. How is it possible to strike 
 unless you can persuade your fellows to join you ? How is it pos- 
 sible successfully to conduct a strike unless you may persuade men 
 who are introduced from a distance not to interfere between the 
 strikers and their employer? The right to persuade those who 
 would naturally join and swell your ranks, and the right to dissuade 
 those who are brought in with a view to prevent the success of a 
 strike, is absolutely essential for the effective conduct of an opera- 
 tion of that kind. The law at present is in a condition that I think 
 I may fairly describe as impracticable, if not absurd. How does it 
 stand ? It is held to be perfectly lawful to point out to the men 
 what are the points of difference. You may either ask for infor- 
 mation with regard to the strike, or you may give them information 
 with regard to the nature of the conflict between the workman and 
 the employer. But if you go one step further and so present the 
 information you give them as to make your appeal in the nature of 
 persuasion, you are then violating the law. The distinction is one 
 which a legal mind may grasp ; but it is impossible to suppose that 
 the distinction can be grasped by any advocate of a trade union 
 who endeavours within the limits of the law as it now stands to 
 give information to persons who are introduced from a distance 
 and who are sought to be employed to take the places which the 
 strikers have vacated. There are many illustrations in the decided 
 cases which show that unless this part of the law is altered it is 
 impossible to conduct a strike successfully. 
 
 Further, in enacting, as we purpose to enact m express terms, 
 the right peaceably to persuade, we are not calling upon the House 
 to make a new law. We are only reviving a law which is as old as 
 the year 1859, because in that year there was a provision put into 
 
84 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the statute upon this subject which was then passed, which attached 
 an interpretation to a restrictive provision in an earlier Act. The 
 statute used this language. It provided that no person should, 
 by reason merely of his endeavouring peaceably, and in a reason- 
 able manner, and without threats and intimidation, direct or indi- 
 rect, to persuade, be deemed guilty of molestation or obstruction 
 within the meaning of the Act of 1825, or should, therefore, be 
 subject to prosecution or indictment for conspiracy. It may be said 
 that the Act of 1875 repealed the Act of 1859. There is certainly 
 no indication of repeal in that Act, and the history of the debates 
 of that period shows that it was thought that the earlier provision 
 held good. Therefore, in regard to this matter, we are only pro- 
 posing to ask the House to take a step which occurs to us as emi- 
 nently reasonable, as representing practical justice, and one which 
 has the advantage of statutory precedent. . . . 
 
 Let me summarise in a word or two what we contend is the 
 result of all this legislation. In the first place, we remove the fet- 
 ter which is placed upon the operations of these unions by the 
 action of conspiracy. We give them permission, so long as they 
 observe the law as it affects individuals, to carry out their own 
 policy upon lines which commend themselves to their favorable con- 
 sideration, and we allow them to know beforehand whether the 
 conduct which they propose to pursue will or will not be in con- 
 formity with the law. In the second place, we restore and give 
 legislative sanction to the exercise of the right of peaceful per- 
 suasion. In the third place, we so define and regulate the appli- 
 cation of the law of agency as to obviate the injustice which I 
 have indicated and given illustrations of. We do that first of all 
 by giving to each of these unions an authoritative and articulate 
 organ. We allow them to speak through some defined agent. We 
 allow them to delegate their authority subject to certain restric- 
 tions. We give them the right to disapprove of or repudiate acts 
 which have been done in their name but without their approval 
 or sanction. 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 85 
 
 I think that when this Bill is considered by the House, and dis- 
 passionately considered by every section of this House, it may be 
 regarded as a satisfactory solution of a very complicated question. 
 At all events it is an honest attempt to solve the question. We 
 have sought, as far as we can, to do what we consider is justice to 
 these organisations without inflicting injustice upon the community 
 at large. It may be that the Bill will not commend itself to all 
 sections of opinion in this House. It is very seldom that Acts of 
 Parliament do, but it is undoubtedly the fact that some of the 
 statutes which have been most successful have on their introduc- 
 tion offended Members on both sides. Compromise, however, is 
 the genius of politics, although it is not a very pleasant lesson to 
 learn. . . . 
 
 Extract ij 
 
 TRADE DISPUTES ACT, 1906 
 
 {6 Edw. 7, ch. 4f) 
 
 An Act to provide for the regulation of Trades Unions and Trade 
 Disputes. (21st December 1906) 
 
 Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 
 and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the 
 authority of the same, as follows : 
 
 I. Amendment of Former Act 
 
 The following paragraph shall be added as a new paragraph 
 after the first paragraph of section three of the Conspiracy and 
 Protection of Property Act, 1875 : 
 
 " An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by 
 two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance 
 of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the act, if done with- 
 out any such agreement or combination, would be actionable." 
 
86 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 2. Peaceful Picketing 
 
 (i) It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their 
 own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual em- 
 ployer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, 
 to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or 
 works or carries on business or happens to be, if they so attend 
 merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating 
 information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or 
 abstain from working. 
 
 (2) Section seven of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property 
 Act, 1875, is hereby repealed from '" attending at or near " to the 
 end of the section. 
 
 J. Removal of liability for Interfering with Another Person's 
 Business 
 
 An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a 
 trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that it in- 
 duces some other person to break a contract of employment or 
 that it is an interference with the trade, business, or employment 
 of some other person, or with the right of some other person to 
 dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills. 
 
 4. Prohibition of Actions of Tort against Trade Unions 
 
 (1) An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or 
 masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of 
 themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect of 
 any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf 
 of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any court. 
 
 (2) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees 
 of a trade union to be sued in the events provided for by the 
 Trades Union Act, 187 1, section nine, except in respect of any 
 tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union in contempla- 
 tion or in furtherance of a trade dispute. 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 87 
 
 5. Short Title and Construction 
 
 (i) This Act may be cited as the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and 
 the Trade Union Acts, 1871 and 1876, and this Act may be cited 
 together as the Trade Union Acts, 187 1 to i$o6. 
 
 (2) In this Act the expression " trade union " has the same 
 meaning as in the Trade Union Acts, 187 1 and 1876, and shall 
 include any combination as therein defined, notwithstanding that 
 such combination may be the branch of a trade union. 
 
 (3) In this Act and in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property 
 Act, 1875, the expression " trade dispute " means any dispute be- 
 tween employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, 
 which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the 
 terms of the employment, or with the conditions of labour, of any 
 person, and the expression "workmen" means all persons employed 
 in trade or industry, whether or not in the employment of the em- 
 ployer with whom a trade disput^^ arises ; and, in section three of 
 the last-mentioned Act, the words "' between employers and work- 
 men " shall be repealed. 
 
 Extract 14 
 
 TRADE UNION ACT, 1871 
 {34 dr'ss Vict., ch.31, in part) 
 2. Trade Union not Criminal 
 
 The purposes of any trade union shall not, by reason merely 
 that they are in restraint of trade, be deemed to be unlawful so as 
 to render any member of such trade union liable to criminal prose- 
 cution for conspiracy or otherwise. 
 
 J. Trade Union not Unlawful for Civil Purposes 
 
 The purposes of any trade union shall not, by reason merely 
 that they are in restraint of trade, be unlawful so as to render void 
 or voidable any agreement or trust. 
 
88 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 4. Trade Union Contracts 
 
 Nothing in this Act shall enable any court to entertain any legal 
 proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or re- 
 covering damages fo'r the breach of any of the following agree- 
 ments, namely, 
 
 1. Any agreement between members of a trade union as such, 
 
 concerning the conditions on which any members for the 
 time being of such trade union shall or shall not sell their 
 goods, transact business, employ, or be employed : 
 
 2. Any agreement for the payment by any person of any sub- 
 
 scription or penalty to a trade union ; 
 
 3. Any agreement for the application of the funds of a trade 
 
 union — 
 
 (12) To provide benefits to members ; or 
 {V) To furnish contributions to any employer or work- 
 man not a merpber of such trade union, in con- 
 sideration of such employer or workman acting in 
 conformity with the rules or resolutions of such 
 trade union ; or 
 (c) To discharge any fine imposed upon any person by 
 sentence of a court of justice ; or, 
 
 4. Any agreement made between one trade union and another; or, 
 
 5. Any bond to secure the performance of any of the above- 
 
 mentioned agreements. 
 But nothing in this section shall be deemed to constitute any of 
 the above-mentioned agreements unlawful. . . . 
 
 6. Registry of Trade Unions 
 
 Any seven or more members of a trade union may by subscrib- 
 mg their names to the rules of the union, and otherwise complying 
 with the provisions of this Act with respect to registry, register such 
 trade union under this Act, provided that if any one of the pur- 
 poses of such trade union be unlawful such registration shall be void. 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 89 
 
 7. Buildings for Trade Unions 
 
 It shall be lawful for any trade union registered under this Act 
 to purchase or take upon lease in the names of the trustees for 
 the time being of such union any land not exceeding one acre, 
 and to sell, exchange, mortgage, or let the same, and no pur- 
 chaser, assignee, mortgagee, or tenant shall be bound to inquire 
 whether the trustees have authority for any sale, exchange, mort- 
 gage, or letting, and the receipt of the trustees shall be a dis- 
 charge for the money arising therefrom ; and for the purpose of 
 this section every branch of a trade union shall be considered 
 a distinct union. 
 
 8. Property of Trade Unions 
 
 All real and personal estate whatsoever belonging to any trade 
 union registered under this Act shall be vested in the trustees for 
 the time being of the trade union appointed as provided by this 
 Act, for the use and benefit of such trade union and the members 
 thereof, and the real or personal estate of any branch of a trade 
 union shall be vested in the trustees of such branch, and be under 
 the control of such trustees, theii' respective executors or adminis- 
 trators, according to their respective claims and interests, and upon 
 the death or removal of any such trustees the same shall vest in 
 the succeeding trustees for the same estate and interest as the 
 former trustees had therein, and subject to the same trusts, without 
 any conveyance or assignment whatsoever, save and except in the 
 case of stocks and securities in the public funds of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, which shall be transferred into the names of such new 
 trustees ; and in all actions, or suits, or indictments, or summary 
 proceedings before any court of summary jurisdiction, touching or 
 concerning any such property, the same shall be stated to be the 
 property of the person or persons for the time being holding the 
 said office of trustee, in their proper names, as trustees of such 
 trade union, without any further description. 
 
90 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 p. Actions by or against Trustees 
 
 The trustees of any trade union registered under this Act, or any 
 other officer of such trade union who may be authorised so to do 
 by the rules thereof, are hereby empowered to bring or defend, or 
 cause to be brought or defended, any action, suit, prosecution, or 
 complaint in any court of law or equity, touching or concemmg the 
 property, right, or claim to property of the trade union ; and shall 
 and may, in all cases concerning the real or personal property of 
 such trade union, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, in any 
 court of law or equity, in their proper names, without other descrip- 
 tion than the title of their office ; and jio such action, suit, prose- 
 cution or complaint shall be discontinued or shall abate by the 
 death or removal from office of such persons or any of them, but 
 the same shall and may be proceeded in by their successor or 
 successors as if such death, resignation, or removal had not taken 
 place ; and such successors shall pay or receive the like costs as if 
 the action, suit, prosecution, or complaint had been commenced in 
 their names for the benefit of or to be reimbursed from the funds 
 of such trade union, and the summons to be issued to such trustee 
 or other officer may be served by. leaving the same at the registered 
 office of the trade union. 
 
 10. Limitation of Responsibility 
 
 A trustee of any trade union registered under this Act shal not 
 be liable to make good any deficiency which may arise or happen 
 in the funds of such trade union, but shall be liable only for the 
 moneys which shall be actually received by him on account of 
 such trade union. 
 
 II. Treasurers 
 
 Every treasurer or other officer of a trade union registered under 
 this Act, at such times as by the rules of such trade union he should 
 render such account as herein-after mentioned, or upon being re- 
 quired so to do, shall render to the trustees of the trade union, or 
 
TRADE UNIONISM gi 
 
 to the members of such trade union, at a meeting of the trade 
 union, a just and true account of all moneys received and paid by 
 him since he last rendered the like account, and of the balance 
 then remaining in his hands, and of all bonds or securities of such 
 trade union, which account the said trustees shall cause to be 
 audited by some fit and proper person or persons by them to be 
 appointed ; and such treasurer, if thereunto required, upon the said 
 account being audited, shall forthwith hand over to the said trustees 
 the balance which on such audit appears to be due from him, and 
 shall also, if required, hand over to such trustees all securities and 
 effects, books, papers, and property of the said trade union in his 
 hands or custody ; and if he fail to do so the trustees of the said 
 trade union may sue such treasurer in any competent court for the 
 balance appearing to have been due from him upon the account 
 last rendered by him, and for all the moneys since received by 
 him on account of the said trade union, and for the securities and 
 effects, books, papers, and property in his hands or custody, leaving 
 him to set off in such action the sums, if any, which he may have 
 since paid on account of the said trade union ; and in such action 
 the said trustees shall be entitled to recover their full costs of suit, 
 to be taxe4 as between attorney and client. 
 
 12. Penalties 
 
 If any officer, member, or other person being or representing 
 .himself to be a member of a trade union registered under this Act, 
 or the nominee, executor, administrator, or assignee of a member 
 thereof, or any person whatsoever, by false representation or impo- 
 sition obtaiii possession of any moneys, securities, books, papers, 
 or other effects of such trade union, or, having the same in his 
 possession, wilfully withhold or fraudulently misapply the same or 
 wilfully apply any part of the same to purposes other than those 
 expressed or directed in the rules of such trade union, or any part 
 thereof, the court of summary jurisdiction for the place in which 
 
92 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the registered office of the trade union is situate, upon a complaint 
 made by any person on behalf of such trade union, or by the regis- 
 trar, or in Scotland at the instance of the procurator fiscal of the 
 court to which such complaint is competently made, or of the trade 
 union, with his concurrence, may, by summary order, order such 
 officer, member, or other person to deliver up all such moneys, 
 securities, books, papers, or other effects to the trade union, or to 
 repay the amount of money applied improperly, and to pay, if the 
 court think fit, a further sum of money not exceeding twenty 
 poundsy together with costs not exceeding twenty shillings ; and, 
 in default of such delivery of effects, or repayment of such amount 
 of money, or payment of such penalty and costs aforesaid, the said 
 court may order the said person so convicted to be imprisoned, 
 with or without hard labour, for any time not exceeding three 
 months : Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent the 
 said trade union, or in Scotland Her Majesty's Advocate, from pro- 
 ceeding by indictment against the said party ; provided also, that 
 no pra^on shall be proceeded against by indictment if a conviction 
 shall have been previously obtained for the same offence under the 
 provisions of this Act. 
 
 zj. Registry of Trade Union 
 
 With respect to the registry, under this Act, of a trade union, 
 and of the rules thereof, the following provisions shall have effect : 
 
 (i) An application to register the trade union and printed copies 
 of the rules, together with a list of the titles and names 
 of the officers, shall be sent to the registrar urider this 
 Act: 
 
 (2) The registrar upon being satisfied that the trade union has 
 
 complied with the regulations respecting registry in force 
 under this Act, shall register such trade union and such 
 rules: 
 
 (3) No trade union shall be registered under a name identical 
 
 with that by which any other existing trade union has 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 93 
 
 been registered, or so nearly resembling such name as 
 to be likely to deceive the members or the public : 
 
 (4) Where a trade union applying to be registered has been in 
 
 operation for more than a year before the date of such 
 application, there shall be delivered to the registrar before 
 the registry thereof a general statement of the receipts, 
 funds, effects, and expenditure of such trade union in the 
 same form, and showing the same particulars as if it were 
 the annual general statement required as herein-after men- 
 tioned to be transmitted annually to the registrar : 
 
 (5) The registrar upon registering such trade union shall issue 
 
 a certificate of registry, which certificate, unless proved 
 to have been withdrawn or cancelled, shall be conclusive 
 evidence that the regulations of this Act with respect to 
 registry have been complied with : 
 
 (6) .One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State may 
 
 from time to time make regulations respecting registry 
 under this Act, and respecting the seal (if any) to be used 
 for the purpose of such registry, and the forms to be used 
 for such registry, and the inspection of documents kept 
 by the registrar under this Act, and respecting the fees, if 
 any, to be paid on registry, not exceeding the fees speci- 
 fied in the second schedule to this Act, and generally for 
 carrying this Act into effect. 
 
 14.. Rules of Registered Trade Unions 
 
 With respect to the rules of a trade union registered under this 
 Act, the following provisions shall have effect : 
 
 (i) The rules of every such trade union shall contain provisions 
 
 in respect of the several matters mentioned in the first 
 
 schedule to this Act : 
 (2) A copy of the rules shall be delivered by the trade union 
 
 to every person on demand on payment of a sum not 
 
 exceeding one shilling. 
 
94 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 i^. Registered Office of Trade Unions 
 Every trade union registered under this Act shall have a regis- 
 tered office to which all communications and notices may be 
 addressed ; if any trade union under this Act is in operation for 
 seven days without having such an office, such trade union and 
 every officer thereof shall each incur a penalty not exceeding five 
 pounds for every day during which it is so in operation. 
 
 Notice of the situation of such registered office, and of any 
 change therein, shall be given to the registrar and recorded by 
 him : until such notice is given the trade union shall not be 
 deemed to have complied with the provisions of this Act. 
 
 l6. Annual Returns 
 
 A general statement of the receipts, funds, effects, and expendi- 
 ture of every trade union registered under this Att shall be trans- 
 mitted to the registrar before the first day of June in every year, 
 and shall show fully the assets and liabilities at the date, and the 
 receipts and expenditure during the year preceding the date to 
 which it is made out, of the trade union ; and shall show separately 
 the expenditure in respect of the several objects of the trade union, 
 and shall be prepared and made out up to such date, in such form, 
 and shall comprise such particulars, as the registrar may from time 
 to time require ; and every member of, and depositor in, any such 
 trade union shall be entitled to receive, on application to the 
 treasurer or secretary of that trade union, a copy of such general 
 statement, without making any payment for the same. 
 
 Together with such general statement there shall be sent to the 
 registrar a copy of all alterations of rules and new rules and changes 
 of officers made by the trade union during the year preceding the 
 date up to which the general statement is made out, and a copy of 
 the rules of the trade union as they exist at that date. 
 
 Every trade union which fails to comply with or acts in contra- 
 vention of this section, and also every officer of the trade union, 
 so failing, shall each be liable to a penalty not exceeding five 
 pounds for each offence. 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 95 
 
 Every person who wilfully makes or orders to be made any false 
 entry in or any omission from any such general statement, or in or 
 from the return of such copies of rules or alterations of rules, shall 
 be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds for each offence. 
 
 I'/. Registrars 
 
 The registrars of the friendly societies in England, Scotland, and 
 Ireland shall be the registrars under this Act. 
 ' The registrars shall lay before Parliament annual reports with 
 respect to the matters transacted by such registrars in pursuance 
 of this Act. 
 
 18. Fraud 
 
 If any person with intent to mislead or defraud gives to any 
 member of a trade union registered under this Act, or to any person 
 intending or applying to become a member of such trade union, a 
 copy of any rules or of any alterations or amendments of the same 
 other than those respectively which exist for the time being, on the 
 pretence that the same are the existing rules of such trade union, 
 or that there are no other rules of such trade union, or if any 
 person with the intent aforesaid gives a copy of any rules to any 
 person on the pretence that such rules are the rules of a trade 
 union registered under this Act which is not so registered, every 
 person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. . . . 
 
 Extract t£ 
 
 TRADE UNION ACT, 1876 
 
 (jp &= 40 Vict., ch.22, in part) 
 
 I. Title 
 
 This Act and the Trade Union Act, 1871, herein-after termed 
 
 the principal Act, shall be construed as one Act, and may be cited 
 
 together as the "Trade Union Acts, 187 1 and 1876," and this 
 
 Act may be cited separately as the " Trade Union Act Amendment 
 
 Act, 1876." . . . 
 
96 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 p. Membership of Minors 
 
 A person under the age of twenty-one, but above the age of six- 
 teen, may be a member of a trade union, unless provision be made 
 in the rules thereof to the contrary, and may, subject to the rules 
 of the trade union, enjoy all the rights of a member except as 
 herein provided, and execute all instruments and give all acquit- 
 tances necessary to be executed or given under the rules, but shall 
 not be a member of the committee of management, trustee, or 
 treasurer of the trade union. 
 
 10. Nomination 
 
 A member of a trade union not being under the age of sixteen 
 years may, by writing under his hand, delivered at, or sent to, the 
 registered office of the trade union, nominate any person not be- 
 ing an officer or servant of the trade union (unless such officer or 
 servant is the husband, wife, father, mother, child, brother, sister, 
 nephew, or niece of the nominator), to whom any moneys payable 
 on the death of such member not exceeding fifty pounds shall be 
 paid at his decease, and may from time to time revoke or vary such 
 nomination by a writing under his hand similarly delivered or sent ; 
 and on receiving satisfactory proof of the death of a nominator, 
 the trade union shall pay to the nominee the amount due to the 
 deceased member not exceeding the sum aforesaid. 
 
 II. Change of Name 
 
 A trade union may, with the approval in writing of the chief 
 registrar of Friendly Societies, or in the case of trade unions regis- 
 tered and doing business exclusively in Scotland or Ireland, of the 
 assistant registrar for Scotland or Ireland respectively, change its 
 name by the consent of not less than two thirds of the total 
 number of members. 
 
 No change of name shall affect any right or obligation of the 
 trade union or of any member thereof, and any pending legal 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 97 
 
 proceedings may be continued by or against the trustees of the 
 trade union or any other officer who may sue or be sued on behalf 
 of such trade union notwithstanding its new name. 
 
 12. Amalgamation 
 
 Any two or more trade unions may, by the consent of not less 
 than two thirds of the members of each or every such trade union, 
 become amalgamated together as one trade union, with or without 
 any dissolution or division of the funds of such trade unions, or 
 either or any of them ; but no amalgamation shall prejudice any 
 right of a creditor of either or any union party thereto. . . . 
 
 14. Dissolution 
 
 The rules of every trade union shall provide for the manner of 
 dissolving the same, and notice of every dissolution of a trade union 
 under the hand of the secretary and seven members of the same, 
 shall be sent within fourteen days thereafter to the central office 
 herein-before mentioned, or, in the case of trade unions registered 
 and doing business exclusively in Scotland or Ireland, to the assist- 
 ant registrar for Scotland or Ireland respectively, and shall be 
 registered by them : Provided, that the rules of any trade union 
 registered before the passing of this Act shall not be invalidated 
 by the absence of a provision for dissolution. . . . 
 
 16. Definition of ^^ Trade Union" 
 
 The term " trade union " means any combination, whether tem- 
 porary or permanent, for regulating the relations between work- 
 men and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between 
 masters and masters, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the 
 conduct of any trade or business, whether such combination would 
 or would not, if the principal Act had not been passed, have been 
 deemed to have been an unlawful combination by reason of some 
 one or more of its purposes being in restraint of trade. 
 
98 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract i6 
 
 CONSPIRACY AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY ACT, 1875 
 {38 Sr'SQ Vici., ch. 86, in part) 
 
 3. Conspiracy, and Protection of Property 
 
 An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or 
 procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a 
 trade dispute between employers and workmen shall not be indict- 
 able as a conspiracy if such act committed by one person would 
 not be punishable as a crime. 
 
 Nothing in this section shaU exempt from punishment any per- 
 sons guilty of a conspiracy for which a punishment is awarded by 
 any Act of Parliament. 
 
 Nothing in this section shall affect the law relating to riot, un- 
 lawful assembly, breach of the peace, or sedition, or any offence 
 against the State or the Sovereign. 
 
 A crime for the purposes of this section means an offence pun- 
 ishable on indictment, or an offence which is punishable on sum- 
 mary conviction, and for the commission of which the offender is 
 liable under the statute making the offence punishable to be im- 
 prisoned either absolutely or at the discretion of the court as an 
 alternative for some other punishment. 
 
 Where a person is convicted of any such agreement or combi- 
 nation as aforesaid to do or procure to be done an act which is 
 punishable only on summary conviction, and is sentenced to im- 
 prisonment, the imprisonment shall not exceed three months, or 
 such longer time, if any, as may have been prescribed by the 
 statute for the punishment of the said act when committed by 
 one person. 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 99 
 
 4. Breach of Contract by Persons employed in Supply of Gas 
 or Water 
 
 Where a person employed by a municipal authority or by any 
 company or contractor upon whom is imposed by Act of Parlia- 
 ment the duty, or who have otherwise assumed the duty of supply- 
 ing any city, borough, town, or place, or any part thereof, with 
 gas or water, wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service 
 with that authority or company or contractor, knowing or having 
 reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of 
 his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be 
 to deprive the inhabitants of that city, borough, town, place, or 
 part, wholly or to a great extent of their supply of gas or water, 
 he shall on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdic- 
 tion, or on indictment as herein-after mentioned, be liable either 
 to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds or to be impris- 
 oned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without 
 hard labour. 
 
 Every such municipal authority, company, or contractor as is 
 mentioned in this section shall cause to be posted up, at the gas- 
 works or waterworks, as the case may be, belonging to. such au- 
 thority or company or contractor, a printed copy of this section in 
 some conspicuous place where the same may be conveniently read 
 by the persons employed, and as often as such copy becomes de- 
 faced, obliterated, or destroyed, shall cause it to be renewed with 
 all reasonable despatch. 
 
 If any municipal authority or company or contractor make de- 
 fault in complying with the provisions of this section in relation to 
 such notice as aforesaid, they or he shall incur on summary con- 
 viction a penalty not exceeding five pounds for every day during 
 which such default continues, and every person who unlawfully in- 
 jures, defaces, or covers up any notice so posted up as aforesaid 
 in pursuance of this Act, shall be liable on summary conviction to 
 a penalty not exceeding forty shillings. 
 
lOO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 £. Breach of Contract involving Injury to Persons or Property 
 
 Where any person wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of 
 service or of hiring, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe 
 that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in 
 combination with others, will be to endanger human life, or cause 
 serious bodily injury, or to expose valuable property whether real 
 or personal to destruction or serious injury, he shall on conviction 
 thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment as 
 herein-after mentioned; be liable either to pay a penalty not exceed- 
 ing twenty, pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 
 three fnonths, with or without hard labour. 
 
 6. Penalty for Neglect by Master 
 
 Where a master, being legally liable to provide for his servant 
 or apprentice necessary food, clothing, medical aid, or lodging, wil- 
 fully and without lawful excuse refuses or neglects to provide the 
 same, whereby the health of the servant or apprentice is or is 
 likely to be seriously or permanently injured, he shall on summary 
 conviction be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty 
 pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six months, 
 with or without hard labour. 
 
 7. Penalty for Intimidation or Annoyance 
 
 Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to 
 abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has 
 a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without 
 legal authority — 
 
 1 . Uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife 
 
 or children, or injures his property ; or, 
 
 2. Persistently follows such other person about from place to 
 
 place ; or. 
 
TRADE UNIONISM lOI 
 
 3. Hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by 
 
 such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in 
 the use thereof ; or, 
 
 4. Watches or besets the house or other place where such other 
 
 person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens 
 to be, or the approach to such house or place ; or, 
 
 5. Follows such other person with two or more other persons 
 
 in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road, 
 shall, on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, 
 or on indictment as herein-after mentioned, be liable either to 
 pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be impris- 
 oned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without 
 hard labour. 
 
 Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, 
 or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach 
 to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate 
 information, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within 
 the meaning of this section. 
 
 8. Reduction of Penalties 
 
 Where in any Act relating to employers or workmen a pecuniary 
 penalty is imposed in respect of any offence under such Act, ancl, 
 no power is given to reduce such penalty, the justices or court 
 having jurisdiction in respect of such offence may, if they think 
 it just so to do, impose by way of penalty in respect of such 
 offence any sum not less than one fourth of the penalty imposed 
 by such Act. . . . 
 
 7(5. Saving Clause 
 
 Nothing in this Act shall apply to seamen or to apprentices to 
 the sea service. . . . 
 
I02 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract ly 
 
 LABOUR AND THE PAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF 
 PARLIAMENT 
 
 {Mr. Arthur Lee and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Commons, 
 August JO, igii) 
 
 Motion moved by Mr. David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, 
 
 That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made for the 
 payment of a salary at the rate of four hundred pounds a year to every 
 Member of this House, excluding any Member who is for the time being 
 in receipt of a salary as an officer of the House, or as a Minister, or as an 
 officer of His Majesty's Household. 
 
 Mr. Lee^: ... I claim, and that is my argument, that the 
 representatives of the people are entirely in a different category 
 from servants of the State ; they are not servants even of their 
 constituencies. They are free representatives of their constitu- 
 encies ; at any rate, they have been in the past and I hope they 
 will so remain. It is further not essential they should give their 
 whole time to the business of Parliament. It is well known many 
 ■•of the most useful and influential Members of this House have 
 not given their whole time. If a change of this kind is desired 
 I maintain the people ought to be consulted with regard to it, be- 
 cause at least it is they who have to pay. I feel strongly it is not 
 fair, at any rate it is highly undesirable, to hold out this bait to 
 men who have in their hands the power to confer this pecuniary 
 benefit upon themselves. It is. a temptation which may warp their 
 judgment. It is a temptation, not to poor men only, but even 
 to well-to-do and to rich men as well, because, whatever a man's 
 income may be, whether it is ;^ioo or ;^i 0,000 a year, his com- 
 mitments and responsibilities are probably in proportion. And I 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 29, col. 1366 sqq. 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 103 
 
 venture to say there is no man, even well-to-do or rich, to whom 
 an additional ;^4oo would not be a real convenience. It certainly 
 would be in my case. I say it is asking too much of human nature 
 to bring a motion of this kind before the House and to expect 
 a majority of Members will seriously resist the proposal when it 
 means an injury to their financial interests. It is so very much 
 easier to welcome an inflow of money than its outflow. Therefore 
 I recognise this proposal is bound to have a fatal popularity within 
 the walls of Parliament, but I also venture to think it will be justly 
 and greatly unpopular outside. 
 
 Above all, I object to it because I believe it will sound the death- 
 knell of that system of voluntary service which has been the chief 
 and unique glory of British public life. I have spoken strongly be- 
 cause I feel more strongly on this particular subject than on almost 
 any other in the whole range of politics. In every election address 
 I have issued, and in the numberless speeches I have made to my 
 constituents, I have expressed my repugnance to the proposal that 
 Members of Parliament should be paid for their work as repre- 
 sentatives of the constituencies, and the objections I felt to it when 
 the proposal was only in an academic form have been deepened 
 and confirmed by the effect which the near realisation in a concrete 
 form of this proposal has already had upon the House of Commons. 
 I have, in the eleven years I have been in this House, seen many 
 regrettable incidents, but I cannot recall any more repellent or 
 humiliating spectacle than the House of Commons, the very day 
 after it has taken into its own hands by force supreme and exclu- 
 sive control over the nation's finances,^ hungrily seizing without 
 even a decent interval upon the first opportunity after the Bill 
 is passed to help themselves out of the pockets of the taxpayers. 
 The Government in this matter appears to be insatiable. Not con- 
 tent in this week with dragging the Crown through the mire of 
 party politics, not content with destroying the legislative authority 
 of the other House of Parliament, they are now proposing to 
 
 1 Cf . infra, ch. ix. 
 
I04 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 destroy the moral authority of the House of Commons as well. It 
 is because I love the House of Commons and am proud of it that 
 I wish the votes of my hon. Friends on .this side to save it, if 
 possible, from this wanton and unnecessary humiliation. . . . 
 
 Mr. Ramsay Macdonald : ... It is a profound mistake for 
 the hon. Gentleman to assume that you have not got payment of 
 Members now. You have payment of Members now ; you have 
 payment by the classes to whom the Members belong. I wish to 
 refer to a significant expression which the hon. Gentleman used. 
 He said : 
 
 If this is done, it cannot be undone. The reason why it cannot be done 
 is this : When we who sit on this side of the House come into office, we 
 will not be able to move that this Resolution be no longer operative, be- 
 cause they will tell us we are driving our opponents out of the House. 
 
 But if the undoing of this Resolution would be driving their oppo- 
 nents out of the House, is not the failure to pass it keeping your 
 .opponents out of the House ? 
 
 Mr. Lee : I said we should be accused of driving some hon. 
 Members out of the House. I say that I think this principle will 
 bring in a certain new style of Member. ' 
 
 Mr. Ramsay Macdonald : But it surely cannot bring a worse 
 type of Member than my hon. Friends. Let me say quite frankly 
 that I doubt if there are two Members who would be here if they 
 were not paid to be here, and therefore my remark is a perfectly 
 proper one. Consequently, I repeat my argument that the persons 
 who are going to come in are not going to be persons of low moral 
 character, they are not going to be undesirable persons, but they 
 are going to be the type of men who cannot get in here now, be- 
 cause when you are in here you have to live on your wits by being 
 a company promoter, a lawyer, a half-pay officer, the son of a rich 
 father, or that rich father himself. Consequently the people who 
 are going to be driven out are not people who are undesirable, but 
 people who are representative, and that is the point. Until the 
 door is sufficiently opened by my right hon. Friend's Resolution, 
 
TRADE UNIONISM 105 
 
 these people cannot come here unless they are Members of the 
 Irish party, or Members of our own party. There is one point that 
 I will deal with in a second. I must deal with it, because probably 
 nobody else can deal with it in the same way. The hon. Member 
 said something about the Osborne Judgment. There was no attempt 
 at bargaining over that. He said at the beginning that the principle 
 involved in the payment of Members must be justified or con- 
 demned. That ground is a totally different one from that upon 
 which the Osborne decision has got to be justified or condemned. 
 I accept every word my hon. Friend said in that respect. The 
 trade unionists were driven by the sheer necessity of the circum- 
 stances to lay their heads and their funds together for the purpose 
 of paying certain out-of-pocket expenses for the men. Theoret- 
 ically, I have never justified that. I am not going to do it now. 
 All I say is that if this House neglected to do its duty, then things 
 had to be strained in order that the representative character of this 
 House should be maintained. I welcomed certain things that hap- 
 pened which compelled this House to face its own responsibilities, 
 to turn its eyes away from trade unions for the fulfilling of the 
 responsibilities which this House ought to do itself. 
 
 We have said all along that we desire the reversal of the Osborne 
 Judgment, not that trade unions may pay Members, but that they 
 may be. able to do certain other things. We desire the pa3nTient 
 of Members, because we maintain that this House, with its changed 
 functions, widened field of operations, increased nearness to the 
 lives of the common people must be representative of the common 
 people, and that their representatives ought not to be asked to 
 come here as the private and secret pensioners of political parties, 
 having their election expenses paid by the party opposite, or the 
 party on this side, and when they are sent out into the country to 
 take part at bye-elections receiving fees in order to enable them to 
 remain here — kept here on secret party funds, the subscribers 
 to which cannot be published in the light of open day. I say that 
 is the sort of thing that is going to degrade workingmen. That 
 
I06 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 is the sort of thing that is going to degrade not only the working- 
 man, but the professional man, or the labourer. The man who 
 comes in under these circumstances, belonging to either party, is 
 the man who is going to degrade public life and lower the charac- 
 ter of the House. If we are going to come here, we are going to 
 be paid by the State for services done for the State in the open 
 light of day, our constituencies knowing precisely what we get, 
 how we get it, and examining our operations here in justification 
 of the way we get it. It is because I believe that will raise the 
 dignity of the House, rather than lower it, it is because I believe 
 that when we are paid we shall feel as proud as we do now of be- 
 ing Members of this House, sharing in its discussions, and taking 
 part in its work, that I will give my heartiest support to the Reso- 
 lution moved by my right hon. Friend. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 CHILD WELFARE 
 
 [Mr. Asquith, addressing the Commons on April i8, 1907, said : 
 " There is nothing that calls so loudly or so imperiously as the 
 possibilities of social reform. . . . First of all there is the child 
 for whom heredity and parental care have perhaps done nothing 
 or worse than nothing. And yet it is the raw material, upon the 
 fashioning of which depends whether it shall add to the common 
 stock of wealth and intelligence and goodness, or whether it shall 
 be cast aside as a waste product in the social rubbish heap. . . . ' 
 
 When Queen Victoria ascended the throne, hardly one act 
 of Parliament really represented the protective interest which 
 Mr. Asquith meant that the State should take in the welfare of the 
 young, and members of Parliament had long showed themselves 
 very chary about interfering with what many honest people thought 
 to be exclusive rights and liberties of parents. Aside from partial 
 factory and mines regulation, there was little State action, even in 
 education, until the seventies. In the year 1869-1870, the total 
 cost of education to the public in the form of Parliamentary grants 
 — for of course there was then no rate-aid — was ;^72i,ooo. But 
 various subsequent educational acts widened the sphere of State 
 control until by 1906-1907 the almount spent on education from 
 Parliamentary grants and local rates reached ;^2 5, 144,000. 
 
 While the Unionists were still in office, an important Inter- 
 departmental Commission on Physical Deterioration was appointed. 
 
 1 Mr. Asquith was urging social legislation in favour of the aged as well as of the 
 child, Cf. infra, p. 136. 
 
 IQ7 
 
I08 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 The report of this Commission,^ published on July 28, 1904, con- 
 tained some fifty-three recommendations, a large proportion of 
 which were concerned with child life. Children in all schools and 
 factories should periodically be weighed and measured ; the results, 
 together with the weekly reports of medical officers to Boards of 
 Guardians, should be forwarded to a new advisory council, which 
 would thus collect valuable data; overcrowding should be dealt 
 with in the worst districts by fixing a standard (of two persons 
 per room for tenements of one, two or three rooms) not to be ex- 
 ceeded after a certain date ; persons displaced might be transferred 
 to labour colonies, and their children sent to public nurseries or 
 boarded out ; factory and workshop inspection should be stricter 
 and include medical inspection ; building by-laws and the provision 
 of open spaces should receive further attention ; special attention 
 should be paid to milk supply, and standards fixed to check the 
 adulteration of all foods; provision should be made by the local 
 authorities for dealing with underfed children — possibly by the 
 school preparing food given by private benevolence, but no special 
 system was specified ; hygiene and the effects of alcoholism should 
 be well taught in schools, and cookery continuation classes were 
 urged ; cleanliness should be pressed upon the children, notably as 
 to teeth, eyes, and ears ; in country districts the school curriculum 
 should be made suitable for country children, who should not go 
 to school too young ; attention should be paid to children's games 
 and boys' and girls' clubs, and juvenile smoking should be re- 
 pressed. Generally the Report contemplated greatly increased 
 State and municipal action in conjunction with private benevolence, 
 and for the benefit in the main of the rising generation. 
 
 Towards the fulfilment of this programme, the Liberal Govern- 
 ment from their victory in 1906, together with their Labour allies, 
 worked steadily, and in carrying out most of the important measures 
 the Conservatives cooperated. On February 22, 1906, a bill was in- 
 troduced in the House of Commons by Mr. W. T. Wilson, a Labour 
 
 J Annual Register, 1904, p. 195. 
 
CHILD WELFARE 109 
 
 member, dealing with the provision of meals for necessitous chil- 
 dren in elementary schools. Mr. Wilson moved second reading of 
 the bill on March 2 (Extract iS). It was opposed by Mr. Harold 
 Cox, Liberal member for Preston ^ {Extract ig), and by others, as 
 lessening parental responsibility and tending to lower wages, but 
 Mr. Augustine Birrell, President of the Board of Education, in a 
 happy speech {Extract 26) approved of the measure in behalf of 
 the Government. The bill was subsequently passed in an amended 
 form in both Houses and received the royal assent on December 21. 
 This statute, known as the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 
 igo6, is given below as Extract 21. 
 
 This was only a beginning of the legislation affecting children. 
 In 1907 the Education Act contained special provisions for play 
 centres and for free medical inspection of children. To decrease 
 the alarming infant mortality and secure proper medical care for 
 young children, Lord Robert Cecil, a distinguished Conservative 
 member of the House of Commons, introduced a bill on April 23 
 {Extract 22) , which was eventually enacted as the Notification of 
 Births Act. In the same year the Probation of Offenders Act dealt 
 with juvenile offenders along reformatory rather than punitive lines. 
 
 The Children Act, which Mr. Herbert Samuel, Under-Secretary 
 of State for the Home Department, introduced on February 10, 
 1908, and which passed third reading in the Commons on October 
 19 and in the Lords on November 30, and received the royal as- 
 sent on December 21, dealt with practically every phase of infant 
 and child life, protection of infants and little children, treatment of 
 children in reformatories and industrial schools, the question of 
 juvenile crime, children's courts and probation officers. A slight 
 idea of the nature and scope of this Act may be gathered from 
 Mr. Samuel's remarks on First Reading {Extract 2j) . 
 
 The health and general welfare of children, as well as of adults, 
 were in the minds of the framers and advocates of the Housing 
 and Town Planning Act of 1909.^] 
 
 1 Mr. Cox frequently voted with the Unionist minority. 2 cf, infra, ch. vii. 
 
no BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract i8 
 
 PROVISION OF MEALS FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN 
 
 {Mr. W. T. Wilson, Commons, March 2, igo6) 
 
 Mr. Wilson ^ said he did not think anyone in the House would 
 doubt that a very large number of children went to school without 
 food, or underfed, and the object of the Bill was to provide that 
 meals should be given to such children. Of course, differences of 
 opinion might arise in the House as to who should be responsible 
 for the feeding of the children. Some hon. Members might say 
 that it was the duty of the parents to see that their children were, 
 fed, but when they considered the amount of wages that some par- 
 ents earned, they must be satisfied that it was an absolute impossi- 
 bility for them properly to feed and clothe their families. There 
 were hundreds of thousands of families in ,this country whose 
 weekly income did not exceed i8s., and he thought the House 
 would agree that if the children in these families averaged more 
 than three, it was almost impossible for them to be fed as they 
 ought to be. Taking i8s. as the average rate of wages of a very 
 large number of unskilled workers in this country — and he was 
 sorry to say that during the last three years many skUled workers 
 had not earned more than i8s. a week^ — and taking the average 
 family as consisting of three children, taking the rent at 4s. 6d. a 
 week, and allowing three meals per head per day at i Jd. per head 
 per meal, it would be seen that the whole of the wages were gone, 
 and nothing was left for clothing, fire, and the hundred and one 
 things required in a household. Therefore, children whose parents 
 were in that position should at least be fed. It was not the fault 
 of the children that they were there, and if the parents through 
 force of circumstances were unable to feed them properly, the State 
 should see that they were fed. 
 
 1 Parliamentaiy Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 152, col, 1390 sqq. 
 
- CHILD WELFARE III 
 
 The State recognised that it was to its best interests that the 
 children should be educated, and it was only right that the children 
 should be in a fit condition to receive instruction. Better results 
 would then accrue from education. The education authority was 
 the proper authority to deal with the question. He went further 
 and said that even in cases where the parents of children were 
 earning sufficient to provide them with food, if the education au- 
 thority thought it would be to the best interests of the State that 
 those children should be fed, they should have the power to feed 
 them and to make a charge upon the parents afterwards. In many 
 of the industrial centres both fathers and mothers were working 
 during the day, and if the children had the opportunity of having 
 meals supplied by the authority, they would be quite willing to pay 
 for such meals. Even if the parents were unable to pay, they should 
 not be pauperised by accepting such assistance. He asked the 
 House to look at the matter from a strictly business standpoint. 
 Everyone must have noticed the very large number of what he 
 might term human weeds among the children who attended the 
 schools of the State. The present system which permitted children 
 to attend school in an underfed condition was the means of, he was 
 almost going to say, manufacturing undesirables ; but undoubtedly 
 it was to a great extent responsible for physical deterioration. If 
 that deterioration could be arrested by.providing children with food, 
 they would have done something which would be beneficial to the 
 nation in the future. No one would deny that if a child went to 
 school with a fuU stomach, it was in a better condition to receive 
 instruction, and would be more fitted to take its place in life. 
 
 The fact that children attended school underfed was also respon- 
 sible for mental deterioration. He was convinced that the presence 
 of a large number of inmates of lunatic asylums and epileptic 
 homes could be traced to the fact that in their early days they were 
 underfed. No one would deny, too, that underfeeding had a tend- 
 ency to create disease. He was sure that their being underfed was 
 a direct incentive to crime on the part of children. 
 
112 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 In the opinion of sonie who were opposed to the State feeding 
 of children reliance ought to be placed upon charity. They had re- 
 lied upon charity too long as it was. . . . Charity was not a reliable 
 source from which to provide meals for children, and therefore he 
 asked the Government to accept the Bill to provide underfed school 
 children with at least one good meal a day. If this was done he 
 felt sure the nation would appreciate it. From a business point of 
 view the money would be well invested, because not only would the 
 children be better equipped for fighting the battle of life, but it 
 would be found in the near future that the expenditure on prisons, 
 workhouses, and asylums was considerably reduced, and therefore 
 the money invested would be returned with interest. He moved 
 the Second Reading of the Bill, because he believed it would be to 
 the best interests and the welfare of the nation, and he asked the 
 House in the name of humanity and Christianity to adopt the Bill. 
 
 Extract ig 
 
 OPPOSITION TO PROVISION OF MEALS 
 
 {Mr. Harold Cox, Commons, March 2, igo6) 
 
 Mr. Cox ^ said he should like to move the following Amendment 
 to the Provision of Meals Bill : 
 
 That it is undesirable to proceed further with a measure which would 
 diminish the responsibility of the parents for the maintenance of their 
 children, and would tend to lower the wages of the poorer classes. 
 
 His reason for objecting to this Bill was that it dealt only with a 
 symptom instead of with the disease itself. People saw that a cer- 
 tain number of children going to school were badly fed. They were 
 horrified at the fact, and they proceeded at once to expostulate, 
 but the remedy they suggested was merely to feed these particular 
 children. But, surely, when a child was sent to a school improperly 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 152, col. 14 13 sqq. 
 
CHILD WELFARE 113 
 
 fed it meant that there must be something wrong in the home of 
 the child. Obviously, then, the first thing to do was to ascertain 
 what was wrong with the homes — in other words, before they 
 dealt with the problem of the school children they must make in- 
 quiry at the homes as to what was the cause of the underfeeding 
 of the children. 
 
 This Bill provided no machinery for such an inquiry. Yet ex- 
 perience proved conclusively that where inquiry did take place, then 
 those symptoms which appeared to be so serious at first sight turned 
 out to be comparatively unimportant in relation to other and graver 
 diseases. He would take the case of Johanna Street School. The 
 hon. Member for North Camberwell and other investigators about 
 twelve months ago visited that school, and complained that a num- 
 ber of children were underfed. That complaint was dealt with by 
 the Board of Guardians, who instructed their superintending reliev- 
 ing officer to inquire into the actual homes of the children and as- 
 certain the causes of the underfeeding. What did he find ? In the 
 first place, the parents in all the houses whence underfed children 
 came were instructed to apply to the relieving officer if they wanted 
 food. Only in one case was any application made. That alone 
 seemed to dispose of the fact that it was impossible for the parents 
 to feed their children. That was not all. They found in many cases 
 that the incomes of the families ranged from 20s. up to as much 
 as 72 s. a week. 
 
 An Hon. Member : These facts were subsequently challenged. 
 
 Mr. Cox said at any rate they had them on the authority of the 
 Lambeth Boaird of Guardians. But what was more important still 
 was that in many houses where parents were asked why children 
 were sent to school without a proper meal, the answer was some- 
 thing to this effect, " Oh, we heard that other children were getting 
 meals for nothing and we thought ours might do the same." 
 
 They would have to begin not with the child, but with the 
 family. They had to ask what was wrong in the family. Two 
 things might be wrong in the family. Either the family might 
 
114 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 . be honest but poor through adverse circumstances, or it might 
 be drunken and dishonest. In the .first event it was their duty 
 to relieve the family as a whole, and not to pick out one child. 
 In the second event, it might, in extreme cases of drunkenness 
 or other serious vice, be necessary to remove the children from 
 the family altogether. In the majority of cases, however, it would 
 be sufficient to screw up the parents to a realisation of the duty 
 that they owed to their children. The simplest way of accom- 
 plishing that object, and certainly the least expensive, would be 
 to placard the doors of the houses of parents who wilfully sent 
 their children to school underfed with the simple announcement, 
 " These people send their children to school without feeding them." 
 
 An Hon. Member : What a statesmanlike suggestion that is ! 
 
 Mr. Cox said he could quite understand hon. Gentlemen on the 
 other side objecting to his proposal, for he gathered from some 
 of their speeches this afternoon that their object was to relieve 
 parents of all their responsibilities. 
 
 . . . The effect of this Bill would be to create a body of 
 workingmen who, instead of helping their fellows and standing 
 alone, would be sponging upon their fellow workers. What would 
 be the effect on the child ? [An Hon. Member : It would be 
 better fed.] If they took the child away from the home, they 
 would in the first place lower the standard of the home. [" No, 
 no."] That might seem a striking statement to make, but it was 
 borne out by the experience of people who spent their lives in 
 working among the poorer classes. The duty of providing for a 
 child was one of the greatest bonds in keeping up the standard of 
 a home. A woman was ashamed to be drunk in the presence of 
 her child. Take away the child and that motive for self-restraint 
 was gone. He had been told of the case of a poor woman with 
 an illegitimate child, who was working honourably to maintain it 
 Some charitable people thought it was very hard upon her to have 
 to keep a child out of her scanty wages, and so they relieved her 
 of her burden and took the child away. What was the result? 
 
CHILD WELFARE IIS 
 
 That poor woman, with no longer any stimulus to exertion or 
 motive for maintaining a higher standard, dropped gradually down 
 to the lowest depths of degradation. 
 
 Mr. J. Ward on a point of order said there was no suggestion 
 of taking the children away from the parents. 
 
 Mr. Speaker : I think the hon. Member's observations were in 
 order. I see no reason to interfere. 
 
 Mr. Cox said he was sorry he was not making his argument 
 clear to his hon. Friend, but he was pointing out that if they were 
 to give meals, they must also give boots and clothing. Then they 
 must begin to ask under what conditions the child lived, and what 
 kind of rooms it slept in, was it washed before it was put to bed, 
 and did it sleep in a decent cot at night. [" Hear, hear," from the 
 Labour Benches, and cries of " Why not ? "] 
 
 Mr. Crooks : We should do it ; we should not ask. 
 
 Mr. Cox : Then the hon. Member's colleague had been a little 
 slow in taking his point. When they had asked themselves these 
 questions they were driven to say, "We must take this child 
 away. We must house it somewhere else, where it can get better 
 air, etc." They would house it in a beautiful building, with sani- 
 tary walls, and provide neat little beds arranged in rows all exactly 
 alike. They would feed it well at long tables with others and 
 clothe it well, but there would be no holidays for that child. It 
 would always live in this great barrack. [" Why ? "] If the home 
 was unfit for it in school-time, it was unfit for it in holiday time, 
 and it would be a crime to send it back to the home from which 
 they had rescued it. It would always live in this barrack with 
 never a holiday and never a sight of the ordinary human relation- 
 ships that mankind enjoyed. 
 
 An Hon. Member : Is that in the Bill ? 
 
 Mr. Cox : It is a consequence of the Bill. They had got, he 
 said, to think in all these social problems of where they were 
 drifting. His hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil [Mr. 
 Keir Hardie] was far-sighted enough to see where he was going. 
 
Il6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 but there were a great many Members on both sides of the 
 House who did not see where they were going [" Oh, oh "], and 
 where this Bill would lead to. When they had got these children 
 fed and clothed, did they imagine they had made the children 
 happy ? Was there not something else which every child wanted 
 — something that could not be provided by any Act of Parlia- 
 ment? Was there not love of home and parents? It was that 
 love they were going to destroy, and when they had destroyed it, 
 they would put nothing in its place. They could not. Did they 
 think they would have solved the problem of poverty ? They 
 would have only made more people willing to accept dependence 
 upon others. It was not by such methods as these that they 
 would raise the mass of the people to a better condition. In the 
 long run they could only raise people by teaching them to raise 
 themselves, but the effect of this Bill would be to encourage people 
 to degrade themselves. 
 
 Extract 20 
 
 GOVERNMENT ADVOCACY OF PROVISION OF MEALS 
 
 {Mr. Augustine Sirrell, President of the Board of Education, 
 Commons, March 2, igo6) 
 
 Mr. Birrell ^ said they had had an interesting and profitable 
 discussion, and many speeches had been made by new Members, 
 who had shown an almost alarming capacity for taking an active 
 part in the debates. It was a subject which touched all of them, 
 this of hungry children in schools. Most Members of the House, 
 he suspected, were fathers, all of them had been children, and 
 some of them had been teachers, and in all these capacities they 
 knew that to attempt to teach a hungry child, faint and weat, 
 the elements of learning, either divine or human, was an act of 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 152, col. 1440 sqq. 
 
CHILD WELFARE I17 
 
 cruelty. They also knew that to attempt anything of the kind at 
 the expense of either the taxpayer or the ratepayer was a waste 
 of public money. 
 
 This was, therefore, in the first place an educational question. 
 He protested in the name of the teachers against so odious a 
 duty being imposed upon them as the attempt to teach hungry 
 children. He knew quite well how generously teachers had ap- 
 proached the task, how kindly they had attempted to discharge 
 it, and what a heavy tax it too often was upon their slender 
 resources to try and mitigate the evils and the hardships that 
 came under their attention. There was the hungry child ; they 
 must either feed it or turn it away ; and as the Minister for Edu- 
 cation he could not be responsible for the latter alternative. * As 
 everybody was agreed that the child could not be taught before 
 it was fed, then fed it had to be. 
 
 The next question was. By what agency was the feeding to be 
 done ? It appeared to him that the proper agency, in the first 
 instance, to see that this primary step was taken was the edu- 
 cation authority itself. As to whether or not local education 
 authorities should have the power, if so disposed, to try the 
 experiment of providing food for a considerable number of the 
 children who might avail themselves of it, endeavouring to be 
 repaid the cost of the meals, he reminded the House that that 
 course had been adopted for many years in Paris, in connection 
 with the cantines scolaires, and had worked exceedingly well. 
 
 There was one advantage of teaching poor children what a 
 good dinner was, that it raised their own standard very much, 
 and created in their youthful stomachs a divine dissatisfaction 
 with their lot. He could conceive no greater service to posterity 
 than to raise_ the standard of living in the children of the present 
 day. Therefore he should be sorry to forbid by law a local 
 authority trying the experiment of feeding children upon a larger 
 scale than would be necessary if it were to be confined to neces- 
 sitous children. In Paris 10,500,000 meals were given in 1904; 
 
Il8 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 of those it was difficult to ascertain what proportion were given 
 gratuitously, but it was certain that a very large proportion were 
 given in exchange for payment. He thought that what Paris 
 could do London ought to be able to do, especially after the 
 visit of the County Councillors to the French capital. There it 
 was found possible to combine a good system of feeding the 
 children, which should be gratuitous to those whose parents stood 
 in need of it without in any way interfering with payment by 
 those who could afford to pay. That was the only reason why 
 he should be rather sorry were the local authority to be prohibited 
 from attempting to do something of the same sort as was done 
 in Paris. 
 
 That being so, the question became one rather of detail. What 
 means were to be employed to see that they were not imposed 
 upon ? Of course, parental responsibility was a great ideal, but 
 how it could really be destroyed either by free meals being given 
 to very poor children or by meals being given to children for which 
 they paid, he was at a loss to conceive. He was not one of those 
 who loved the phrase " the children of the State." It was a 
 phrase which grated upon his ear. The State could not have any 
 children. The mace on the table might as well beguile its ample 
 leisure by the hope of a child. Man was born of a woman, and 
 not of the Local Government Board, and anything which in any 
 way interfered with the family as the unit of our civilisation was 
 greatly to be deplored. 
 
 On what rate was the burden to fall ? Was it more convenient 
 it should fall on the education rate or on the poor rate ? Whether 
 the education rate or the Ppor Law rate was the better fund to 
 bear the burden when they failed to recover the cost was a 
 question which might fairly be considered by the Committee to 
 which he hoped the Bill would be referred. He hoped the Com- 
 mittee would take into consideration the whole question as to how 
 local authorities might work the powers conferred by this Bill. 
 Charity was not to be sneezed at, but it required to be steady 
 
CHILD Welfare 119 
 
 and well-organised, otherwise it was apt to be sporadic, fanciful, 
 and fitful. He hoped, too, that local education authorities would 
 fully consider whether they could not properly utilise voluntary 
 agencies and organise and receive contributions from them in 
 aid of the rate or any other relief they might think necessary to 
 establish. He did not suppose for a moment that any popularly- 
 elected body, with ratepayers behind it, would be anxious to in- 
 crease the burden of the rates, or that they would desire to 
 discourage the assistance of charitable persons in the community. 
 He thought it was not much use saying that this question was 
 part of a far greater question — everything was part of a greater 
 question. Everything was part and parcel of education. From 
 the teacher's point of view, boots were not so important as that 
 the child should be fed. This was a practical problem which pre- 
 sented itself every day in almost every school in the great towns, 
 and we had to deal with the problem. He was quite content to 
 leave posterity to deal with a great many other problems which 
 might arise. 
 
 Extract 21 
 
 EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) ACT, 1906 
 
 {6 Edw. 7, ch.^T) 
 
 An Act to make provision for Meals for Children attending 
 Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales. 
 
 (21st December 1906) 
 
 Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 
 and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the 
 authority of the same, as follows : 
 
120 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 I. Special Power of Local Education Authority 
 
 A local education authority under Part III of the Education 
 Act, 1902, may take such steps as they think fit for the provision 
 of meals for children in attendance at any public elementary school 
 in their area, and for that purpose — 
 
 {a) may associate with themselves any committee on which the 
 authority are represented, who will undertake to provide 
 food for those children (in this Act called a " school can- 
 teen committee ") ; and 
 ih) may aid that committee by furnishing such land, buildings, 
 furniture, and apparatus, and such officers and servants 
 as may be necessary for the organisation, preparation, 
 and service of such meals ; 
 but, save as herein-after provided, the authority shall not incur 
 any expense in respect of the purchase of food to be supplied 
 at such meals. 
 
 2. Recovery of the Cost of Meals 
 
 (i) There shall be charged to the parent of every child in 
 respect of every meal furnished to that child under this Act such 
 an amount as may be determined by the local education authority, 
 and, in the event of payment not being made by the parent, it 
 shall be the duty of the authority, unless they are satisfied that the 
 parent is unable by reason of circumstances other than his own 
 default to pay the amount, to require the payment of that amount 
 from that parent, and any such amount may be recovered summa- 
 rily as a civil debt. 
 
 (2) The local education authority shall pay over to the school 
 canteen committee so nriuch of any money paid to them by, or re- 
 covered from, any parent as may be determined by the authority 
 to represent the cost of the food furnished by the committee to 
 the child of that parent, less' a reasonable deduction in respect of 
 the expenses of recovering the same. 
 
CHILD WELFARE 121 
 
 J. Power of Local Education Authority to defray the Cost 
 
 Where the local education authority resolve that any of the chil- 
 dren attending an elementary school within their area are unable 
 by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education 
 provided for them, and have ascertained that funds other than 
 public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to de- 
 fray the cost of food furnished in meals under this Act, they may 
 apply to the Board of Education, and that Board may authorise 
 them to spend out of the rates such sum as will meet the cost of 
 the provision of such food, provided that the total amount expended 
 by a local education authority for the purposes of this section in 
 any local financial year shall not exceed the amount which would 
 be produced by a rate of one halfpenny in the pound over the area 
 of the authority, or, where the authority is a county council (other 
 than the London County Council), over the area of the parish or 
 parishes which in the opinion of the council are served by the 
 school. 
 
 4-. Provisions as to Disfranchisement . 
 
 The provision of any meal under this Act to a child and the fail- 
 ure on the part of the parent to pay any amount demanded under 
 this Act in respect of a meal sh^ll not deprive the parent of any 
 franchise, right, or privilege, or subject him to any disability. 
 
 J". Application of Education Acts 
 
 (i) The powers of a local education authority under this Act 
 shall be deemed to be powers of that authority under the Educa- 
 tion Acts, 1870 to 1903, and the provisions of those Acts as to the 
 manner in which the expenses of a local education authority are to 
 be charged and defrayed, and as to borrowing, and as to the man- 
 ner in which the amount which would be produced by any rate in 
 the pound is to be estimated, shall apply to expenses incurred and 
 
122 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 money borrowed under this Act, and to the estimate of the produce 
 of any rate in the pound for the purposes of this Act. 
 
 (2) Any expression to which a special meaning is attached in 
 the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, shall have the same meaning 
 in this Act, except that for the purposes of this Act the expression 
 "child" shall, notwithstanding anything in section forty-eight of 
 the Elementary Education Act, 1876,^ include any child in attend- 
 ance at a public elementary school. 
 
 6. Provision as to Teachers 
 
 No teacher seeking employment or employed in a public elemen- 
 tary school shall be required as part of his duties to supervise or 
 assist, or to abstain from supervising or assisting, in the provision 
 of meals, or in the collection of the cost thereof. 
 
 7. Application to Scotland 
 This Act shall not apply to Scotland. 
 
 8. Title 
 
 This Act may be cited as the Education (Provision of Meals) 
 Act, 1906. 
 
 Extract 22 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF NOTIFICATIONS OF BIRTH BILL, 1907 
 
 (Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, April zj, igoy) 
 
 Lqrd R. Cecil " in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to pro- 
 vide for the early notification of births, said that he had taken the 
 unusual course of asking leave under the ten minutes rule, because 
 of the very great gravity of the evil with which the Bill, however 
 
 1 39 & 40 Vict., ch. 7g. 
 
 2 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 172, col. 1582 sqq. 
 
CHILD WELFARE 1 23 
 
 imperfectly and however modestly, attempted to deal. At the pres- 
 ent moment 120,000 infants under one year of age died in this 
 country every year, and it was no exaggeration to say that of these 
 60,000 might be saved if proper measures were taken. Such a 
 state of things required the very earnest consideration of the House, 
 for it amounted to this, that out of every 1000 children born in 
 this country 1 45 died without reaching the age of one year ; and 
 there were particular localities in which as many as 250, 300, or 
 even 400 out of every 1000 bom died at that early age. It was no 
 exaggeration to say that half of them might be saved ; for the rate 
 in some of our Colonies was no higher than seventy per 1000, and 
 in some of our own counties it was not higher than eighty-four. 
 
 The seriousness of the question was not diminished by the fact 
 that while the general death-rate in this country had been much 
 diminished as the result of sanitary measures, the infantile death 
 rate remained practically stationary. That he attributed mainly to 
 two causes — neglect by mothers of their own health before the 
 birth of their children, and neglect of the children's health immedi- 
 ately after they were born. He did not suggest for a moment that 
 the neglect was due to wickedness or even to carelessness exactly, 
 but it was in most cases due to ignorance, which was a far more 
 potent cause of infantile mortality than the more commonly assigned 
 causes of parental poverty and intemperance. 
 
 Something could be done to remedy this state of affairs by the 
 provision of skilled assistance to mothers in the early days of 
 motherhood, and many health societies throughout the country 
 had charged themselves with this duty. Remarkable results had 
 been achieved in Huddersfield from the creditable efforts of the 
 ex-mayor. But under the existing registration law six weeks might 
 elapse before registration, and one-third of the children dying in 
 the first year of life died in the first six weeks ; so that these chil- 
 dren were dead before the societies to which he referred could 
 know that they had been born. It was solely with a view to rem- 
 edy this defect that he had been asked to introduce this Bill. It 
 
124 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 provided that within forty-eight hours- of the birth of every child a 
 notification was to be made in the simplest way, it being specially 
 provided that it might be made by post card, and the duty of noti- 
 fying a birth was thrown, in the first place, on the father of the 
 child and, failing him, on any one who had been in attendance on 
 the mother. The Bill further required that notification of children 
 stillborn should be made as well as of those born alive. 
 
 He urged the House to consider the seriousness of the evil which 
 the Bill was designed, he would not say to cure, but in some de- 
 gree to mitigate. This was a non-Party question, and he ventured 
 to hope that the Bill would be regarded as absolutely non-conten- 
 tious. It was supported by hon. Members in all quarters of the 
 House, and he hoped its promoters would have the sympathetic 
 support of the Government and that the measure might be passed 
 into law before the close of the present session. 
 
 Extract 2j 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF CHILDREN BILL, 1908 
 
 {Mr. Herbert Samuel, Under-Secretary of State for the Home 
 Department, Commons, February lo, igoS) 
 
 Mr. Samuel ^ in asking leave to bring in a BiU " to consolidate 
 and amend the law relating to the protection of children and young 
 persons, reformatory and industrial schools, and juvenile offenders, 
 and otherwise to amend the law with respect to children and young 
 persons," said : This is the first reading of a Bill to which we can 
 give no narrower title than that of " Children Bill." The present 
 law for the protection of children and the treatment of juvenile 
 offenders is in some confusion. It is spread over a large number 
 of statutes, and it urgently needs consolidation. Experience has 
 shown the need of a considerable number of amendments and 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 183, col. 1432 sqq. 
 
CHILD WELFARE 125 
 
 extensions of the law. The Government have decided not to intro- 
 duce a series of small Bills in successive years, but to ask Parliament 
 to enact, in one large and comprehensive measure, a thorough codi- 
 fication and amendment of the law relating to children. A Bill of 
 this scope could not, in a crowded session like this, expect to pass 
 into law unless it commanded, more or less, the favour of all sec- 
 tions in the House, and we have, therefore, excluded from it all 
 the subjects which might properly be described as controversial. 
 Even the question of children in public-houses, with regard to which 
 there is a general measure of assent, we have thought it wiser to 
 defer to be dealt with in the Licensing Bill. The question of the 
 employment of children, whether in factories or elsewhere, raises 
 important industrial questions on which, unhappily, there is not 
 complete agreement. The question of education naturally be- 
 longs to the Education Acts, and there are other subjects which 
 we might have liked to include but which we have been obliged to 
 omit. But, even with these omissions, the Bill is a somewhat vo- 
 luminous one. It contains 119 clauses, covers seventy pages, and 
 consolidates twenty-two statutes and parts of many others, together 
 with a number of new provisions. . . . 
 
 The Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. Through 
 all its parts uniform definitions run. A child is a person under the 
 age of fourteen years ; a young person is a person above the age 
 of fourteen and under the age of sixteen. The first part of the 
 Bill embodies the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, which was 
 passed to stop the evils of baby farming, and for the protection of 
 the lives of infants put out to nurse. That Act has been found in 
 practice ineffective in many respects. There are many holes through 
 which evil-disposed persons may escape its control, but, by a series 
 of detailed amendments we stop these holes and strengthen the 
 control of the Act. ... 
 
 The second part of the Bill re-enacts the Prevention of Cruelty 
 to Children Act, 1894, with a large number of amendments mainly 
 designed to strengthen the law and to facilitate the action of those 
 
126 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 societies which are doing such admirable work in the three king- 
 doms for the prevention of cruelty to children. I will mention only 
 two of the chief provisions proposed in this part of the Bill. Every 
 year some 1600 infants meet their deaths from overlying, a waste 
 of infant life which should easily be preventible and which ought 
 not to be allowed to continue. We propose, in such cases, since 
 the offence is not one of wilful cruelty, but of negligence, to make 
 the penalty a light one, except where drunkenness can be proved. 
 An equal number of children are killed year by year from bums 
 and scalds, owing to their being left in rooms with unguarded fires. 
 We impose in such cases also a similar penalty, except where it 
 can be shown that reasonable precautions were taken. 
 
 The proposals of the third part of the Bill deal with an evil, 
 growing in extent, most deleterious to child life, and for which 
 public opinion almost universally demands a remedy. I refer to 
 the evil of juvenile smoking. The Committee on Physical Deterio- 
 ration recommended a legislative remedy, and a Committee of 
 the House of Lords, appointed in 1906 specially to examine this 
 question, after hearing much medical and other evidence, made a 
 unanimous and a very emphatic recommendation in the same sense. 
 Many countries throughout the world have already legislated on 
 this subject. We propose to prohibit the sale of cigarettes and 
 cigarette paper to children under the age of sixteen, to prohibit 
 persons under the age of sixteen from smoking in streets and public 
 places, and to make them liable for the first offence to no more 
 than a reprimand, but for subsequent offences to a light fine. We 
 also allow, and this will probably prove a more effective provision, 
 the police and other authorised persons to confiscate the tobacco 
 which is being used by those little boys who are found smoking 
 in streets and public places. We have a provision also for dealing 
 with such automatic machines for the sale of cigarettes as are found 
 to be extensively used by juveniles. 
 
 The fourth part of the Bill consolidates the nineteen statutes 
 which now contain the law relating to reformatory and industrial 
 
CHItD WELFARE 12/ 
 
 schools. The changes we propose are too many and too minute 
 to deal with now, but I would like to mention that it has been sug- 
 gested that the age for committal to a reformatory should be raised 
 above the present figure of sixteen, and to explain that we are 
 adopting that suggestion only because we consider that it is inad- 
 visable to mix older offenders with smaller boys and girls, and be- 
 cause my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to introduce 
 a Bill establishing a new class of reformatories for these older 
 offenders. 
 
 There are in the Bill a number of miscellaneous clauses, of which 
 I will only mention two. From time to time cases of cruelty and 
 neglect are discovered in so-called homes for children which are 
 fraudulent institutions, conducted by persons who live on the char- 
 itable contributions which are intended for the destitute children 
 whom they have collected. There is no right of entry under the 
 present law to such institutions, and the Bill provides that, where 
 a home is kept for destitute children and is supported by charitable 
 contributions, there shall be a right of entry for persons authorised 
 by the Secretary of State. Regard will be had in the selection of 
 such persons to the religious denomination by which such homes 
 are being maintained. The other clause is one designed to solve 
 the difficult and long-standing problem of the vagrant child. There 
 are some hundreds of children who are now continually taken about 
 the country, deprived of any opportunity of schooling, educated 
 only in vagabondage, and denied many of the most elementary 
 benefits of civilised life. We propose a clause which, we hope, will 
 stop that once and for all. We adapt the machinery of the Com- 
 pulsory Education Acts, which are at present found to be inap- 
 plicable to these cases, to meet the requirements of the vagrant 
 child. 
 
 The last part of the Bill, which has to do with juvenile offenders, 
 is based upon three main principles. The first is that the child 
 offender ought to be kept separate from the adult criminal, and 
 should receive at the hands of the law a treatment differentiated 
 
128 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 to suit his special needs — that the courts should be agencies for 
 the rescue as well as the punishment of children. We require the 
 establishment throughout the country of juvenile courts — that is 
 to say, children's cases shall be heard in a court held in a sepa- 
 rate room or at a separate time from the courts which are held 
 for adult cases, and that the public who are not concerned in the 
 cases shall be excluded from admission. In London we propose to 
 appoint by administrative action a special children's magistrate to 
 visit in turn a circuit of courts. Further, we require police authori- 
 ties throughout the whole of the country to establish places of 
 detention to which children shall be committed on arrest, if they 
 are not bailed, and on remand or commitment for trial, instead of 
 being committed to prison. A great many towns have already pro- 
 vided places of detention, and we require that this practice should 
 be made universal. We anticipate that a Treasury grant will be 
 made for the maintenance of children, in places of detention, on 
 remand. 
 
 The second principle on which this Bill is based is that the 
 parent of the child offender must be made to feel more responsible 
 for the wrong-doing of his child. He cannot be allowed to neglect 
 the up-bringing of his children, and having committed the grave 
 offence of throwing on society a child criminal, wash his hands of 
 the consequences and escape scot free. We require the attendance 
 in court of the parent in all cases where the child is charged, where 
 there is no valid reason to the contrary, and we considerably en- 
 large the powers, already conferred upon the magistrates by the 
 Youthful Offenders Act of 1901, to require the parent, where it is 
 just to do so, to pay the fines inflicted for the offence which his 
 child has committed. 
 
 The third principle which we had in view in framing this part 
 of the Bill is that the commitment of children in the common gaols, 
 no matter what the offence may be that is committed, is an unsuit- 
 able penalty to impose. The child is made to feel for the rest of 
 his life that he is regarded as a criminal and belongs to the criminal 
 
CHILD WELFARE 1 29 
 
 classes, and at the same time that vague dread of the unknown 
 penalties of imprisonment, which is one of the most powerful de- 
 terrents of crime, becomes useless and nugatory. After consulta- 
 tion with .many of the chief judicial and legal authorities of the 
 country, the Government have come to the conclusion that the time 
 has now arrived when Parliament can be asked to abolish the im- 
 prisonment of children altogether, and we extend this proposal to 
 the age of sixteen, with a few carefully defined and necessary ex- 
 ceptions. Many methods will still be left in the hands of the courts 
 for dealing with delinquent children, but where none of the ordinary 
 methods are suitable, our Bill will permit the committal of the child 
 for a short period, under Home Office rules and a proper system 
 of classification, to the places of detention which have to be pro- 
 vided for remand cases. Such committals we anticipate will be 
 exceedingly few, and a similar Treasury grant will be in respect 
 of them. . . . 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 OLD AGE PENSIONS 
 
 [Together with the problem of child welfare, that of the aged 
 and infirm pressed for solution. Since 1834 the Government had 
 dealt with the problem along three different lines. Up to 187 1 
 there was an indiscriminate use of general workhouses for all 
 classes of the indigent aged, modified to a slight extent by supply- 
 ing doles as outdoor relief. An even harsher method of dealing 
 with these people was instituted in 187 1 : namely, that of applying 
 a workhouse test, the assumption being that the deserving could 
 maintain themselves out of their own savings, or be maintained 
 by their relatives, aided by charitable gifjts, and that only the unde- 
 serving would apply for admission to the workhouses. As a result 
 of the investigations and reports of the Royal Commissioners of 
 1893-1895, a new policy was adopted, at least in theory, — 
 either outdoor relief fully adequate to all the deserving aged, or 
 good comfortable quarters in some institution. The actual opera- 
 tion of each of these policies had been far from satisfactory ; and 
 the labour interests began to urge partial solutions along more 
 radical lines. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Chamberlain succeeded in pledging the Unionist 
 party to support the principle of old age pensions, but failed to 
 control a majority sufficient to pass such a measure through Par- 
 liament ; and the only contribution to the subject by the Balfour 
 Government was the constitution of a Poor Law Commission to 
 study and report upon the whole problem of the aged and infirm. 
 
 Very soon after the assembling of the Parliament in 1906, a 
 resolution was introduced by Labour members asking for the 
 
 130 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS I3I 
 
 provision of old age pensions from public funds. The Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer expressed the complete sympathy of the Liberal 
 Government with the proposed reform, but intimated that he could 
 not then provide the necessary funds. In the course of the debate 
 Mr. John Burns said that in his judgment perhaps the best, sim- 
 plest, and fairest scheme would be one under which every person 
 would receive 5 s. a week at sixty-five years of age ; the Poor Law 
 Commission would report before long, and then the Government 
 would be in possession of sufficient information to justify their 
 making a beginning, and it was their intention to take the matter 
 up as soon as that should be possible. The resolution was carried 
 unanimously. 
 
 Agitation in favour of old age pensions continued throughout 
 1907. On May 10 of that year a bill was introduced by Mr. 
 W. H. Lever, providing for a pension of 5s. a week payable, 
 upon personal application, to persons sixty-five years of age and 
 upwards, from funds supplied nine-tenths by the Exchequer and 
 one-tenth by local taxation. A graduated system of income tax, 
 beginning with a charge of 2d. in the pound on every man 
 earning 20s. weekly and not necessarily stopping at is. in the 
 pound in the case of the rich man, would furnish sufficient 
 funds. An amendment to reject Mr. Lever's Bill was negatived 
 232 to 19, but the proposal never got by second reading in 
 the Commons. 
 
 On April 18, 1907, Mr. Asquith, in making the customary Budget 
 statement as Chancellor of the Exchequer, pledged the Ministry to 
 deal with old age pensions during the next session of Parliament 
 (Extract 24). A year later Mr. Asquith succeeded Sir Henry 
 Campbell-Bannerman as Prime Minister and First Lord of the 
 Treasury, and Mr. David Lloyd George was transferred from the 
 Presidency of the Board of Trade to the office of Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer. Mr. Asquith, however, made the Budget statement 
 on May 7, 1908, in the course of which he took occasion to revert 
 to the social problem, especially to old age pensions {Extract 25). 
 
132 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 The Government measure was presented to the Commons on 
 May 28, 1908. Its second reading was moved by Mr. Lloyd George 
 on June 1 5 {Extract 26), and opposed by Mr. Harold Cox (Extract 
 2'f) and Lord Robert Cecil (Extract 28), who endeavoured unsuc- 
 cessfully to pass an amendment condemning expenditure of " tax- 
 payers' money in giving subsidies to persons selected by arbitrary 
 standards of age, income, and character.'' 
 
 When the Committee stage of the Bill was begun in the House 
 of Commons on June 23, many of the Conservatives took up an 
 attitude of grave suspicion if not downright hostility, and several 
 of them proposed amendments, which, had they been adopted, 
 would have defeated the objects of the measure. Amendments 
 moved by Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Bowles, altering the wording 
 of the first clause so as to stamp the measure as experimental, were 
 rejected respectively by 293 to 55 and 341 to 103, there being some 
 cross-voting. Another amendment, moved by Mr. Bowles, suspend- 
 ing the pension in the absence of the pensioner from the United 
 Kingdom, was ultimately rejected by 376 to 10 1, it being explained 
 by Mr. Lloyd George that short absences would not disqualify, 
 though permanent removal would involve forfeiture. An amend- 
 ment moved by Viscount Castlereagh, embodying the principle of 
 a sliding scale according to means, was opposed by the Labour 
 members as insufficient, though they would accept a scale ranging 
 from IDS. to 15s. per week. Lord Robert Cecil proposed another 
 amendment, providing that the scheme should be contributory 
 under regulations to be made by the Treasury. This was rejected 
 by 346 to 86 after a speech by Mr. Buxton, Postmaster-General, 
 repeating the Ministerial objections to the contributory principle 
 (Extract 26). 
 
 Then the Unionists resorted to moving amendments to the Bill 
 which would largely increase its cost. Thus, an amendment moved 
 by Mr. Mildmay directed the pension authority to disregard sums 
 under ;^4o annually, received in consideration of previous pay- 
 ment, from a friendly society or trade union; and Mr. Chaplin 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 1 33 
 
 met an objection against distinguishing between various forms of 
 thrift by moving to extend the amendment so as to cover all 
 other approved provision against old age, sickness, or infirmity. 
 This was supported by several Opposition and Labour members, 
 whereupon the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Oppo- 
 sition thought they were putting the Government into a hole. 
 Their policy had been to move wild, illogical, irrational amend- 
 ments, regardless of the cost, in order to say to every class in turn, 
 " We voted for you and those wicked radicals voted against you." 
 Later, he said that Mr. Mildmay's amendment would add 100,000 
 pensioners and ;^i ,300,000 annually to the cost; Mr. Chaplin's 
 ;£'2, 600,000. The amendment, in the form given it by Mr. Chaplin, 
 was rejected by 243 to 113. 
 
 The thinly-veiled hostility of the Unionists to the Government 
 Bill was displayed in the Commons on the occasion of the third 
 reading on July 9 when Mr. Arthur J. Balfour offered his sceptical 
 apology {Extract 2g), to which the Labourites replied eloquently 
 through Mr. William Crooks {Extract jo). On the final division, 
 only 12 Unionists voted for the Bill, 11 voted against it, and 
 140 abstained. 
 
 What the Lords would do with the Old Age Pensions Bill 
 was for some time problematical. Introduced in their House on 
 July 10, it came up for second reading ten days later. The Earl 
 of Wemyss in a remarkable speech {Extract ji) at once moved an 
 amendment declaring such legislation unwise pending the issue of 
 the Report of the Poor Law Commission. All manner of financial 
 and moral reasons were assigned against the Government measure 
 by various speakers, among whom were the Earl of Cromer, 
 Viscount St. Aldwyn, Lord Avebury, and the Earl of Halsbury. 
 Lord Rosebery, while profoundly disquieted as to the effect of the 
 Bill, urged the Lords {Extract J2) not to incur the risk of a dis- 
 pute with the House of Commons by rejecting a measure that was 
 largely fiscal. Two prominent Churchmen, the archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, and the bishop of Ripon, defended the Bill {Extract jj). 
 
134 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Lord Lansdowne, the Tory leader, expressed grave opposition to 
 the measure, but counselled its adoption as good party tactics. It 
 must be borne in mind that it was in 1908 that the Lords rejected 
 the important Licensing Bill which had passed the lower House 
 with large majorities. 
 
 The Old Age Pensions Bill passed third reading in the House of 
 Lords on July 30, and after the House of Commons had rejected 
 various Lords' amendments, the measure received the royal assent 
 on August 1, 1908. It is given below as Extract 34. 
 
 An important amendment was enacted in 19 11, clarifying and 
 extending several provisions of the major Act. It is inserted as 
 Extract jj".] 
 
 Extract 2<:f. 
 
 PROMISE OF OLD AGE PENSIONS 
 
 {Mr. H. H. Asguith, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Commons, 
 April 18, igof) 
 
 Mr. Asquith ^ : . . . It is, I think, a mistake to treat the annual 
 Budget as if it were a thing by itself, and not, as it is, or as it cer- 
 tainly ought to be, an integral part and a necessary link in a con- 
 nected and coherent chain of policy. In my opinion, and I think it 
 is an opinion that will be shared by a great number of hon. Gende- 
 men opposite, the couptry has reached a stage in which, whether 
 we look merely at its fiscal or at its social exigencies, we cannot 
 afford to drift along the stream and treat each year's finance as if 
 it were self-contained. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in other 
 words, ought to budget, not for one year, but for several years. It 
 is in that spirit that the proposals which I am going presently to 
 submit to the Committee have been conceived, and it is from that 
 point of view that I ask they shall be judged. 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 172, col. 1175 sqq. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 1 35 
 
 What, then, are the lines for financial progress which this Gov- 
 ernment, and a majority in this House, are bound by their pledges 
 and by their convictions to pursue ? First and foremost, we are 
 under an immediate obligation, often insisted upon when we sat 
 upon the other side in the last Parliament, and reiterated certainly 
 by me over and over again at the general election after which I 
 had assumed the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer — 
 an immediate obligation of reinstating and improving the national 
 credit. ... A substantial and exceptional effort to effect a further 
 reduction in the Debt is, for the moment, one of the paramount 
 duties of the Government. 
 
 But behind and beyond this there lies the whole still unconquered 
 territory of social reform. Social reform may be regarded, accord- 
 ing to the point of view from which you look at it, as a luxury or 
 as a necessity, but in any case it is expensive. It has to be paid for. 
 Someone must be prepared to meet the bill. Well, now, this is a 
 House of Commons which was elected more clearly and definitely 
 than any other House in our history in the hope and belief on the 
 part of the electors that it would find the road and provide the 
 means for social reform. No doubt social reform is a phrase vague 
 in itself, which carries different meanings to different minds. But 
 there are some things which it certainly means to all of us who sit 
 upon this side of the House, and I fancy to a good many who sit 
 opposite. I myself, for instance — if I may refer to myself — am 
 not what is called a Socialist. I believe in the right of every man 
 face to face with the State to make the best of himself, and, sub- 
 ject to the limitation that he does not become a nuisance or a dan- 
 ger to the community, to make less than the best of himself. This 
 world is much too full of wrong-doing, and of injustice, and of un- 
 merited suffering ; but, in my judgment, the way of escape is not 
 to be found in any solution, or so-called solution, which, by slowly 
 but surely drying up the reservoir which gives vitality to human 
 personality and human purpose, will in the long run leave the uni- 
 verse a more sterile place. I say this in no polemical spirit, not at 
 
136 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 all, but simply by way of emphasising the fact that to all of us — 
 people like myself, who may be regarded by. some of my hon. friends 
 below the gangway as a lukewarm Moderate — there is nothing 
 that calls so loudly or so imperiously as the possibilities of social 
 reform. Just let me, in order to make plain what I am going to 
 say, invite the House to look at two sets of figures in our modem 
 community, whose appeal is irresistible. 
 
 First of all there is the child ^ for whom heredity and parental 
 care have perhaps done nothing or worse than nothing. And yet it 
 is the raw material, upon the fashioning of which depends whether 
 it shall add to the common stock of wealth and intelligence and 
 goodness, or whether it shall be cast aside as a waste product in 
 the social rubbish heap. The State has long recognised that it can- 
 not pass by that appeal with folded arms. It has put the child to 
 school, it keeps the child at school, and (much as it shocks some 
 excellent people) after the legislation of last year, if the poor body 
 of the child is benumbed with cold or pinched with hunger so that 
 it can get no benefit from its lessons, it will even go so far as to 
 help to provide it with bread. Does the House realise what the 
 recognition of that means on the part of the State, what every one 
 of us now agrees is a duty, though it was neglected and passed by 
 generation after generation by humane and far-sighted statesmen ? 
 Does anyone realise what the performance of that duty has cost 
 this community ? Let me give two or three figures which I think 
 very striking. In the year 1869-70, the last year of what I may 
 call the old system, the total cost of education to the public in the 
 form of Parliamentary grants — for of course there was no rate-aid 
 at that time — was ;£'72i,ooo. What was it in the year 1906-7 ? 
 Your Parliamentary grants, if you add the Exchequer contributions, 
 as you ought to, were ;^i3,3S9,ooo ; sums raised by local rates 
 were ;^ii,785,ooo ; a total of ;^2S, 144,000. That is what it has 
 cost the State to recognise its duty to the children of the commu- 
 nity. I do not say that every penny or every pound of that money 
 
 1 Cf. supra, p. 107, 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 1 37 
 
 is well or wisely spent. I rejoice to think that we have at the head 
 of the Board of Education my right hon. Friend the President, a 
 severe economist, who subjects the whole of this expenditure to a 
 most searching review. But this I do say, that there is not a man 
 who sits on either side of the House who is prepared substantially 
 to recede from the performance of this enormous duty. Well, that 
 is one thing. 
 
 There is another thing, nearer the other end of the journey of 
 life, which makes an equally strong, though hitherto an unavailing, 
 appeal both to the interest and to the conscience of society — I 
 mean the figure of the man or woman who, perhaps, spent out 
 with a life of unrequited labour, finds himself confronted in old 
 age, withoiit fault or demerit of his own, with the prospect of 
 physical want and the sacrifice of self-respect. Sir, I never gave, 
 nor, so far as I know, did any of my colleagues on this Bench give, 
 any pledge at the elections on the subject of what is called old age 
 pensions. We knew something of the magnitude of the problem, 
 and we thought it wrong to raise expectations without the knowl- 
 edge that they could be met. Nor do I now commit myself or any 
 of my colleagues to any specific scheme, although both my right hon. 
 Friend the Prime Minister and myself have laid down certain con- 
 ditions to which, in our judgment, any practical proposal must 
 conform. Whatever is done in this matter, as I have said before 
 in this House, must be done by steps and stages, and cannot be 
 achieved at a single blow. But this I do say, and I wish to say it 
 with all the emphasis of which I am capable, speaking for the whole 
 of my colleagues who sit upon this Bench, that in the sphere of 
 finance we regard this as the most serious and the most urgent of 
 all the demands for social reform ; and that it is our hope — I will 
 go further and say it is our intention, before the close of this Par- 
 liament, yes, before the close of the next session of this Parlia- 
 ment, if we are allowed to have our way (it is a large " if ") — to 
 lay the firm foundations of this reform. . . . 
 
138 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 25 
 
 RENEWED PROMISE OF OLD AGE PENSIONS 
 
 (Mr. H. H. Asguith, Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, 
 Commons, May 7, igoS) 
 
 Mr. Asquith '■:... Last year, in introducing the Budget, I 
 said that this Parliament and this Government had come here 
 pledged to social reform, and I pointed to two figures in our mod- 
 ern society that make an especially strong and, indeed, an irre- 
 sistible appeal, not only to our sympathy, but to something more 
 practical, a S3niipathy translated into a concrete and constructive 
 policy of social and financial effort. One is the figure of a child. 
 I reminded the House that in less than forty years — -since 1870 
 — you have added to your annual provision for the education of 
 the children of this country out of taxes and rates an annual sum 
 of over ;^2 4,000,000 sterling. There is not one of us who would 
 go back upon that. 
 
 The other figure is the figure of old age, still unprovided for 
 except for casual and unorganised effort, or, by what is worse, 
 invidious dependence upon Poor Law relief. I said then that we 
 hoped and intended this year to lay firm the foundations of a wiser 
 and a humaner policy. With that view, as the Committee may re- 
 member, I set aside ;£'i, 500, 000, which was temporarily applied to 
 the reduction of debt, and I anticipated that that other ^750,000 
 which, through the activity of the Inland Revenue, has been swept 
 into the old Sinking Fund of last year, would also be available. 
 I propose now to show how we intend to redeem the promises 
 which I then made. 
 
 I need not remind the Committee that this question in one shape 
 or another has been before the country now for the best part of 
 thirty years. The first schemes that were put forward proceeded 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol, 1S8, col. 445 sqq. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 1 39 
 
 on the footing either of compulsory or voluntary insurance, accom- 
 panied and fortified by State aid. The Royal Commission on the 
 Aged Poor in 1895 reported adversely to all the proposals which 
 had up to that time been made. There followed a series of in- 
 quiries into schemes for granting immediate pensions to the aged 
 and deserving poor. There was Lord Rothschild's Committee, 
 there was a Select Committee of this House presided over by the 
 right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon in 1899, and 
 there was Sir Edward Hamilton's Departmental Committee of 
 1900, and again a Select Committee of this House in 1903. Much 
 valuable information was accumulated and classified in the course 
 of these inquiries, with the result, I think, that all the material facts 
 may now be said to have been ascertained. But up to this moment 
 nothing has been done, nothing at all. 
 
 In the meantime other countries have been making experiments. 
 The German system, which is one of compulsory State-aided assur- 
 ance, has been in existence since 1889. Under it pensions averag- 
 ing a little over ;£"i6 13s. a year are paid to insured persons of the 
 age of seventy and upwards. The State contribution amounts to 
 less than 40 per cent of the whole, and it would seem that in 1907 
 not more than 126,000 persons out of a population of over 52 
 millions were in receipt of old age pensions. 
 
 More instruction, I think; for our purposes is to be derived from 
 the legislation initiated in Denmark in 1 891, in New Zealand in 
 1898, and subsequently in New South Wales and Victoria. These 
 systems, though differing widely in their details, have several im- 
 portant features in common. In the first place, they do not depend 
 for their application upon either voluntary or compulsoiy contribu- 
 tion on the part of the pensioner. In the next place, they are 
 limited in all cases to persons whose income or property is below a 
 prescribed figure ; and, thirdly, in all cases they impose some test 
 or other, varying in stringency and in complexity, of character and 
 desert in regard to such matters, for instance, as past criminality 
 or pauperism. Although both in Denmark and in New Zealand 
 
I40. BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the expenditure upon the pensions has, in the course of time, 
 exhibited a tendency to increase beyond the original estimate, yet 
 the cost of administration has turned out to be relatively small, 
 amounting in New Zealand in 1907 to not more than 1.67 per 
 cent; and I think I may say that in none of these communities 
 is there any dissatisfaction either with the principles or with the 
 working of the law, and certainly no disposition to go back to the 
 state of things which prevailed before old age pensions were set up. 
 His Majesty's present Government came into power and went 
 through the last general election entirely unpledged in regard to 
 this matter, not that they were insensible to its importance or to 
 its urgency, but they felt it right to enter into no binding engage- 
 ment until they had had full time to survey the problem in all its 
 aspects, and — what is still more important — to lay a solid finan- 
 cial foundation for any future structure it might be possible to 
 raise. It was accordingly not until we had seen our way to make 
 some substantial provision for the reduction of the national liabili- 
 ties that I found myself able to announce in the Budget of last 
 year that this year it was our intention to make a beginning — and 
 more than a beginning I never promised — in the creation of a 
 sound and workable scheme. . . . 
 
 Extract 26 
 
 SECOND READING OF OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL 
 
 {Mr. David Lloyd George^ Chancellor of the Exchequer, Commons, 
 June ij, igoS) 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George ' : . . . The scheme is necessarily an in- 
 complete one. We have never professed that it was complete and 
 dealt with the whole problem ; we wished it to be treated as an in- 
 complete one, and to be considered as such. It is purely the first 
 step, and I may even say that it is necessarily an experiment. 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 190, col. 564 sqq. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 14I 
 
 The second observation I should like to make is this, that those 
 who have criticised most severely the disqualifications which we 
 have introduced into the Bill are those who are opposed to the 
 principle of the payment of old age pensions at the expense of 
 the State at all. Therefore I should invite hon. Members to con- 
 sider very cautiously those criticisms when they recollect the quarter 
 from which in the main they have come. 
 
 The first general criticism is that this is a non-contributory 
 scheme. I am not sure that that is not the effect of the Amend- 
 ments of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone [Lord 
 Robert Cecil] and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston [Mr. 
 Harold Cox] — these two anarchist leaders.^ I demur altogether 
 to the division of the schemes into contributory and non-contribu- 
 tory. So long as you have taxes imposed upon commodities which 
 are consumed practically by every family in the country there is no 
 such thing as a non-contributory scheme. You tax t?a and coffee, 
 sugar, beer, and tobacco, and you get a contribution from practically 
 every family in the land one way or another. So, therefore, when 
 a scheme is financed out of public funds it is as much a contribu- 
 tory scheme as a scheme which is financed directly by means of 
 contributions arranged on the German or any other basis. A work- 
 man who has contributed health and strength, vigour and skill, to 
 the creation of the wealth by which taxation is borne has made his 
 contribution already to the fund which is to give him a pension 
 when he is no longer fit to create that wealth. Therefore I object 
 altogether to the general division of these schemes into contributory 
 and non-contributory schemes. 
 
 There is, however, a class of scheme which is known as a con- 
 tributory one. There is the German scheme, in which the workmen 
 pay into a fund. It is rather a remarkable fact that most social 
 reformers who have taken up this question have at first favoured 
 contributory schemes, but a closer examination has almost invaria- 
 bly led them to abandon them on the ground that they are unequal 
 
 1 Cf. infra. Extracts ^^ and zS. 
 
142 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 in their treatment of the working class, cumbersome, and very ex- 
 pensive, and in a country liice ours hopelessly impracticable. . . , 
 Let me give you now two or three considerations why, in my judg- 
 ment, a contributory scheme is impossible in this country. In the 
 first place, it would practically exclude women from its benefits. 
 Out of the millions of members of friendly societies there is but 
 a small proportion, comparatively, of women. Another considera- 
 tion is that the vast majority are not earning anything and cannot 
 pay their contributions. The second reason is that the majority of 
 the workingmen are unable to deflect from their weekly earnings 
 a sufficient sum of money to make adequate provision for old age 
 in addition to that which they are now making for sickness, in- 
 firmity, and unemployment. I do not know what the average 
 weekly wage in this country is ; we have not had a wage census 
 since 1886. I hope the Board of Trade will soon be able to pub- 
 lish the result of the wages census initiated some months ago, but 
 I do not suppose we shall have the Returns in tim6 for our debates 
 on this Bill. The average weekly wage in 1886 was 24s. gd., and 
 57 per cent of the working classes in this country were earning 
 25 s. or less. It is quite clear, therefore, that out of such wages 
 they cannot make provision for sickness, for all the accidents and 
 expenses of life, and also set aside a sufficient sum to provide a 
 competence for old age as well. Take the agricultural labourer 
 with his 15s. or i6s. a week. How can he set aside 4d. a week 
 for a period of forty years, in addition to what he has to set aside 
 already for the purpose of sickness or infirmity ? . . . 
 
 The provision which is made for the sick and unemployed is 
 grossly inadequate in this country, and yet the working classes 
 have done their best during fifty years to make provision without 
 the aid of the State. But it is insufficient. The old man has to 
 bear his own burden, while in the case of a young man who is 
 broken down and who has a wife and family to maintain, the suf- 
 fering is increased and multiplied to that extent. These problems 
 of the sick, of the infirm, of the men who cannot find means of 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS I43 
 
 earning a livelihood, though they seek it as if they were seeking 
 for alms, who are out of work through no fault of their own, and 
 who cannot even guess the reason why, are problems with which 
 it is the business of the State to deal ; they are problems which 
 the State has neglected too long. In asking the House to give a 
 second reading to this Bill, we ask them to sanction not merely 
 its principle, but also its finance, having regard to the fact that we 
 are anxious to utilise the resources of the State to make provision 
 for undeserved poverty and destitution in all its branches. 
 
 Extract .?/ 
 
 OPPOSITION TO OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL 
 {Mr. Harold Cox, Commons, June ij, igo8) 
 
 Mr. Cox ^ moved an Amendment declaring : 
 
 While it is desirable that the State should organise aid for the unfor- 
 tunate by establishing and assisting a general system of insurance against 
 the principal risks of life, it is unjust to spend the taxpayers' money in 
 giving subsidies to persons selected by arbitrary standards of age, income, 
 and character. 
 
 He said he was not opposed on general grounds to the organisa- 
 tion of a system of old age pensions, but he was strongly opposed 
 to the particular scheme which the Government had put forward, 
 because he held that the scheme was unjust in principle, and as 
 a consequence was necessarily unjust in almost every one of its 
 details. That arose from the fact that if they started with a false 
 principle, they were bound to set up arbitrary distinctions which 
 must act harshly upon particular individuals and give a favour to 
 one man while they refused the same favour to another man who 
 had an equal title to it. Why should they start by saying that 
 people over the age of seventy were entitled to a pension any 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 190, col. 596 sqq. 
 
144 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 more than by saying, for instance, that all people afflicted with 
 blindness should receive a pension? He would take a more 
 striking case -^ that of a woman who was left a widow with a 
 young family. What did the Government do for her? All the 
 Government did for her was to tax the food of her. children in 
 order that they might have money to give pensions to old people 
 who were possibly much better off than she was. That was the 
 essence of the scheme. Taxes would be kept on the necessaries 
 of life in order to provide pensions for old people. 
 
 The whole idea of giving pensions instead of leaving people 
 to draw relief from the Poor Law was that the Poor Law was 
 humiliating. They had heard that stated in all the speeches in 
 favour of the Bill. What were they going to do for the man over 
 sixty and under seventy ? Was he to go on suffering humiliation, 
 or was he to starve ? There was as much humiliation in receiving 
 Poor Law relief at sixty as at seventy years of age. The Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer in the somewhat extraordinary speech 
 which he had delivered that afternoon seemed to be apologising 
 in almost every sentence for his scheme. In fixing the age limit 
 at seventy, the Government were flying in the face of experience. 
 What had the trade unions done ? The Amalgamated Society of 
 Engineers provided pensions which were drawable at the age of 
 fifty-five in cases where on account of infirmity or old age a mem- 
 ber was unable to obtain the ordinary wages of his trade. . . . 
 The Prime Minister, speaking a night or two ago at the National 
 Liberal Club in regard to the payment of 5 s. to people over 
 seventy, said, " It will, without any offence to their self-respect 
 or to their proper pride, without any feeling of humiliation, put 
 at least half a million of old folk, the veterans of our industrial 
 army, entirely beyond the reach of pecuniary anxiety and care." 
 What kind of a world did the Prime Minister live in ? He won- 
 dered whether his right hon. Friend had ever tried to live in 
 London on 5 s. a week, and if he had found himself entirely 
 beyond the reach of pecuniary anxiety and care. Why I he would 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 145 
 
 not get a single room for less than 3s., and then he would have 
 2S. left for food or clothing. There were a great many people 
 who, even if they had the money, could not take care of them- 
 selves. ... In particular there was evidence of the effect of drink 
 on the old age pension question. So serious was that evil in 
 Australia that it was recommended by the Royal Commission 
 that it should be made a penal offence to give or serve drink to 
 old age pensioners. 
 
 An Hon. Member : For giving one glass of beer to an old man ? 
 
 Mr. Cox said there was exactly the same difficulty in our own 
 country. He had a letter from the master of a workhouse near 
 London, where they had a good many Army pensioners. . . . He 
 might mention that he had frequently called the attention of the 
 Secretary for War to this scandal, but as yet nothing had been 
 done. If old age pensions were paid as a right, the man might 
 claim to be treated as other individuals in regard to the right to 
 buy a glass of beer. . . . 
 
 The question he asked hon. Members opposite was, " Do you 
 propose to give honourable pensions to men who dishonour our 
 common humanity, and provide these pensions by taxing men 
 who honestly earn their living ? " He challenged them to go on 
 a platform and say that that was what they meant. That was a 
 dilemma from which there was no possibility of escape as long 
 as they had a non-contributory system. They must either give 
 honourable pensions to any number of blackguards, or have' an 
 investigation of character which would be painful to all the honest 
 people. The only escape from that dilemma was by contributory 
 pensions. The money then belonged of right to the pensioner, 
 and there was no need for an inquiry into character. . . . 
 
 A phrase constantly used in this matter was that old age pen- 
 sions were to be given as a right, and not as a charity, as a 
 recompense for previous services to the State. Did hon. Members 
 below the gangway agree with that ? [" Hear, hear."] They did ; 
 then they would be willing to accept some test to prove that there 
 
146 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 had been previous service to the State. Otherwise they v*rould be 
 throwing dust in the eyes of the public. He hoped he might say 
 without offence that they had already been misleading the public 
 by confusing the difference between the pension given to Lord 
 Cromer and old age pensions which they demanded for everybody. 
 
 An Hon. Member : Why ? 
 
 Mr. Cox said he was sorry his hon. Friend could not see the 
 difference between giving a pension to a man like Lord Cromer, 
 who had done great service to the State, and to a man with 
 regard to whom they would not take the trouble to ascertain 
 whether he had done anything at all. 
 
 An Hon. Member : Lord Cromer had a big salary. 
 
 Mr. Cox said that as regarded that it sometimes happened that 
 when a trade union secretary, who had drawn what was for him a 
 substantial salary and had served his society well, at the end of 
 his time retired, he received a handsome present from his society. 
 That was exactiy what the State had done to Lord Cromer. . . . 
 [Mr. Cox then sketched the German contributory scheme and 
 queried as to whence money was coming for a non-contributory 
 scheme.] 
 
 Personally he lived by what he earned, and he would be ashamed 
 if he did not make a fair contribution to the cost of the govern- 
 ment of the country. He was quite sure that was the opinion 
 of most Englishmen. He observed with great pleasure that hon. 
 Members below the gangway had consistently supported the pro- 
 posal that the income tax should be extended downwards so that 
 every man, however poor, might make some contribution in pro- 
 portion to his means. But while they held that sound view they 
 unfortunately also held a view that was very alluring, but which 
 he thought was ultimately deceptive — the view that they could 
 through the Budget redress the inequalities of fortune. It was 
 very alluring. When one saw the hideous inequalities which existed 
 at present, the horrible contrast between great riches and abject 
 poverty, one was greatly tempted to say, " We will redress this 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS I47 
 
 injustice by means of taxation." If they could do it he would be 
 in favour of doing it, but he did not think it could be done, for 
 the proposal involved subsidising the industries of the country 
 which were not paying a sufficient wage at present, and giving 
 money to people not in return for the work they did but because 
 they were poor. That meant that they were going to treat poverty 
 as a permanent institution, and the necessary consequence was 
 that they would create a vast number of dependants. The man 
 who earned his living was independent. He could face his master 
 as a man because he gave his work in return for his wages. But 
 if they were going to give a man something in return for nothing, 
 they made him a dependant. He ceased to be an independent 
 citizen and became a dependant on the will of some official or of 
 some committee of elected persons consisting either of superior 
 persons with charitable inclinations or of inferior persons with 
 axes to grind. But whichever it was, he was a dependant, and 
 no longer a free man as he was before. Therefore he held that 
 the true ideal to set before them was- to raise wages. That was 
 the problem of all problems, because on that depended everything. 
 On that depended housing, the feeding of children, and old age. 
 
 What he objected to in all these schemes of State charity was 
 that instead of aiming at the abolition of poverty they tended to 
 perpetuate poverty by treating it as a permanent institution. In 
 the same way jf they were going to argue that because wages 
 were low in certain industries, those wages must be supplemented 
 at the expense of the taxpayer, it meant they were going to say 
 certain industries were parasitic and must be subsidised by the 
 taxpayer. What would be the result ? People would begin to say, 
 " If you are going to have parasitic industries paid for by the 
 taxpayer, why should we not pay for them in the simplest way, 
 by putting a duty on foreign goods ? " The free-trade objection 
 to a protectionist tariff was that it created parasitic industries, and 
 the good industries of the country were taxed for the benefit of 
 the bad industries. Thus by admitting the principle of a subsidy to 
 
148 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 badly-paid industries they were giving away the free-trade case. 
 That was a danger which he thought had not been sufficiently faced. 
 Some weeks ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer, apropos of 
 nothing in particular, had described him as a champion of lost 
 causes. He was not quite sure that he knew what that meant. 
 For the past eight or nine years he had devoted the greater part 
 of his life to fighting for free trade. Was that a lost cause ? When 
 he listened to the speeches of his right hon. Friend he was some- 
 times tempted to fear that he thought so. Personally he did not 
 share that opinion. He had too much confidence in the ultimate 
 common-sense of his countrymen to believe that there could be 
 anything more than an ephemeral success for the strange move- 
 ment which had captured the imagination and temporarily im- 
 prisoned the intelligence of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Even were 
 it otherwise, even if he thought free trade were indeed a lost 
 cause, he for one would not cease fighting for it. For he was 
 not ashamed to confess that the principles of free trade were to 
 him a living faith. In saying that he was not referring only to the 
 application of those principles to the business of international buy- 
 ing and selling, though that alone was no little matter. It was no 
 little matter that the teeming population of these islands was free 
 to draw its sustenance from every quarter of the globe. It was 
 no little matter that our manufacturers and captains of industry 
 were free to assemble here every type of raw material that the 
 world produced and every kind of machine and mechanical device 
 that other brains had invented or other hands had fashioned, and 
 thus aided were to build up, here in these little islands, vast and 
 flourishing industries. That alone was no little matter. But there 
 was something even more than that. So far as the relations of 
 -the citizens of a country to one another and to their Government 
 were concerned, the essential principle of free trade, stated in its 
 simplest terms, was fair play all around — the principle which 
 required the State to give equal consideration to all its subjects 
 and which forbade the State to give gratuitous favours either to . 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 149 
 
 particular industries or to particular individuals. That principle 
 he held to be of priceless value. In all the complexities, in all 
 the temptations, of political life, it would enable them to steer a 
 straight course and maintain unblurred upon their banner the device 
 " Equal justice between man and man." He begged to move. 
 
 Extract 28 
 
 A CONSERVATIVE OPPONENT TO THE GOVERNMENT BILL 
 
 [Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, June /j, igoS) 
 
 Lord Robert Cecil,^ in seconding the amendment, said the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to him as an anarch- 
 ist. He preferred to describe his form of political belief as a 
 reasonable trust in personal freedom and personal liberty. But 
 he imagined that it was not only in this country that the bureau- 
 crat had always thought that he who differed from him was an 
 anarchist. He presumed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was 
 really, if one might attribute such a defect to so eminent a person, 
 making a confusion between anarchism and individualism. They 
 did not appear to be in every respect identical. In the main ques- 
 tion of principle that they had to discuss, it was fair to say that 
 those who differed from the Government differed because they 
 were of a more individualistic tendency than was shown in the 
 immediate proposals of the Government. He did not wish to at- 
 tempt to define socialism and individualism, but there were two 
 very distinct principles on which they might proceed in approaching 
 this question of old age pensions. There was the principle that it 
 was primarily the duty of everybody to provide for his own old age, 
 and provide for himself generally. That was the principle that he 
 himself held, and he quite admitted that they were entitled to add 
 to that, that where for some reason or another the individual was 
 unable to provide for himself, it was reasonable for the State 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 190,00!. 613 sqq. 
 
150 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 to come in and give assistance to that individual. That was the 
 principle on which the contributory system rested. . . . 
 
 They were now in a position to state shortly what the real pro- 
 posal of the Government was. It was to make an enormous gift of 
 money, originally stated to be between ;^6,ooo,ooo and ;£'7, 000,000, 
 to a very large section of the working classes who were possessed 
 of very large electoral power. In the last Parliament they constantly 
 heard it said, he thought very unwisely, by hon. Members opposite 
 that the Party to which he had the honour to belong was in the habit 
 of giving doles to various classes. Why was not that said of this Bill ? 
 
 Mr. John Ward : It is following your precedent. 
 
 Lord R. Cecil said that the hon. Member would not find any 
 precedent for a gift of ;£'6,ooo,ooo or ;^7,ooo,ooo to any particular 
 class of the community. He did not say that it was necessarily 
 wrong ; all he wished to do was to call the attention of the House 
 to the fact that this was a definite gift of 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 
 golden sovereigns out of the money of the general taxpayers to a 
 particular class who possessed very large electoral power. The only 
 reason why this was not described as a dole by hon. Members oppo- 
 site was that this particular class happened to have a very large 
 voting power in the country. Let the House remember that this 
 was only the beginning. He was using the ordinary thin end of the 
 wedge argument, but he would remind hon. Members what had 
 been said by Ministers in recommending this scheme. The Prime 
 Minister had stated that it was avowedly and professedly a tem- 
 porary measure and that there was no finality about it. The scheme 
 began at ;^6,ooo,ooo and it had now risen to ;^7,5oo,ooo, and the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown that it might automatically 
 rise, unless something further was done, to ;^i 1,000,000. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself to the 
 proposition that it was not right for the State to require any con- 
 tribution from those whom it was intended to assist. It did not 
 need any violent stretch of the imagination to guess what would 
 happen the next time the Government got in some little difficulty 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 151 
 
 in regard to one of its measures — it might be the Licensing Bill 
 or the Education Bill. They knew what had happened at recent 
 bye-elections and they could easily imagine what would happen in 
 the future. The Government would be able to say that 5 s. a week 
 for people over seventy was ridiculous and it ought to be extended 
 to people over sixty-five years of age, and the pensions ought to be 
 I OS. a week. Having stated that, perhaps the bye-elections would 
 go a little bit better for the Government. He thought the right 
 hon. Gentlemen might be trusted in this matter, but any ordinary 
 Government which had this great opportunity for wholesale per- 
 suasion of the electors at the expense of the taxpayer must go on 
 extending gifts as long as the finances of the country permitted it. 
 . . . He did not wish to be an alarmist, but he felt that with the 
 vast responsibilities of this country they had in the last resort only 
 the national character to depend on. They had no right to assume 
 that during the next twenty-five years they would have so peaceful 
 a course to steer. No one who looked even from outside at the 
 present international situation could fail to see certain elements of 
 difficulty and danger in the future. And if they had to enter upon 
 a great life and death struggle, as might well happen, and they had 
 weakened the fibre of their people by a system and by a policy of 
 which this was only the beginning, then the statesmen in the House 
 of Commons who had sanctioned that miserable backsliding from 
 the true statesmanship of Empire would have much to answer for. 
 He begged to second. 
 
 Extract 2g 
 
 SCEPTICISM ON OLD AGE PENSIONS 
 
 (Mr. Arthur J. Balfour, Commons, July g, IQ08) 
 
 Mr. Balfour -^ : . . . I think that neither the actual provisions 
 of this Bill nor the mode in which the Government have allowed it 
 to be discussed gives us the smallest security that one of the greatest 
 
 ,1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 192, col. 175 sqq. 
 
1 52 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 and most costly experiments in social legislation is going to be tried 
 under circumstances that will give any hope of permanent success. 
 There are three main questions raised by the scheme. The first is, 
 Will this Bill work according to its avowed objects ? Is the machinery 
 of the Bill, in other words, going to give pensions on the plan that 
 the Government say is desirable ? The second is, How is it going 
 to affect the broader and wider problems of social reform ? And 
 the third is, How is it going to affect the national finances ? These 
 are the three problems that every man in this House, no matter in 
 which quarter he may sit, should really consider if he wants to 
 estimate the value of the legislative experiment the Government 
 are now trying. 
 
 The first point is whether the Bill is really going to work out 
 according to the theory of its framers ; and, if it does, what will be 
 its results ? The theory of its framers is a very simple one. They 
 say that, pending the acquisition of further national resources, they 
 must limit their Bill to pensions for persons seventy years of age, 
 and, to put it broadly, of good cljiaracter. How is this Bill going 
 to attain these two objects ? How is the machinery going to limit 
 the Bill to persons of seventy and to persons of good character ? 
 And will the machinery work smoothly, justly, and to public advan- 
 tage ? I cannot really believe that the Government have, thoroughly 
 thought out the method in which their own machinery is going to 
 work. Take the first of the two conditions, that of age. That is 
 one of the subjects we have discussed. We have not had an oppor- 
 tunity of discussing the age as between seventy and sixty-five, be- 
 cause that was shut out by the closure, but we have discussed on 
 more than one occasion the machinery by which the age of seventy 
 is to be arrived at. I do not think that by any statement the Gov- 
 ernment have shown a clear idea of the difficulties by which that 
 investigation is surrounded or the means by which those difficulties 
 are to be surmounted. In the first place, who are the investigators ? 
 They are officers of the Inland Revenue, a single committee for 
 each county and large borough, and ultimately the President of the 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 1 53 
 
 Local Government Board. For the life of me I cannot see that an 
 investigation can be carried out by any of these three bodies. I 
 made some remarks in Committee with regard to the Inland Rev- 
 enue officers which I believe have given pain to those most esti- 
 mable public officers. If I have said anything that gave them pain 
 I most heartily withdraw it. They are a most valuable body of men 
 and carry out duties of great responsibility with perfect uprightness 
 and great efficiency. But I ask whether the most admirable per- 
 formance of the duties of the Inland Revenue either gives a man 
 the training or provides him with the machinery by which this kind 
 of investigation is to be carried out. Take the case of an unskilled 
 labourer in London. He reaches an age that he himself thinks is 
 either seventy or very nearly so. He bplieves that he has worked 
 hard all his life, and that if anybody deserves a pension he does. 
 He applies to the Inland Revenue officer and says, " My name 
 is O'Grady." 
 
 Mr. John Wilson : Make it Smith, and then you are safe. 
 
 Mr. Balfour. I chose an Irish name for a particular reason 
 which will appear directly. He says, " My age is seventy, and I 
 desire to be supplied with a pension. I come from Cork." The 
 Inland Revenue officer says, " What proof have you that you are 
 seventy ? " He has no proof. Why should he have a proof ? I do 
 not believe I should know my own age if it were not that tactless 
 friends are constantly reminding me of it. Most assuredly a dock 
 labourer who left Cork thirty years ago may very well be excused 
 if he has not proof of his age, since he was born in a country where 
 there was no registration of births at the time when he was pre- 
 sumably born. How is this unfortunate official going to investigate 
 in the City of Cork whether Mr. O'Grady working at the docks is 
 or is not seventy years of age .' The thing appears to be wholly im- 
 possible, and there is no machinery for doing it. The county com- 
 mittee to which he refers are no better off than himself, and if they 
 refer to the head of the Local Government Board he is no better 
 off. The machinery cannot be found and will not be supplied. . . . 
 
154 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 If the difficulties with regard to age are overwhelming, what are 
 we to say with regard to the investigation as to character ? None 
 of us are without some misgivings as to the enormous power given 
 to an Imperial officer and to a local committee to form a judgment 
 on the way in which the poorer classes of the community have 
 carried out their life's duty. It is not a pleasant thing to have to 
 do, and if it is done honestly and conscientiously it will be a very 
 painful duty thrown on those who may have to do it. Here, again, 
 we really have very little means of obtaining assistance. Do not let 
 us consider the country village where everyone's character is known. 
 There may be an opportunity for favouritism or vindictive attacks on 
 unpopular persons, but the facts will be known and may be fairly and 
 properly judged upon. But how can the facts be known with regard 
 to the great floating population of the huge industrial centres ? . . . 
 
 Will its operation be confined to persons over seventy, and of 
 virtuous character ? I do not believe for one moment that it will. 
 We are very good-natured people, particularly so when we are 
 dealing with other people's money ; and the duty of excluding 
 anybody from the benefits of the Act will be a painful and also an 
 expensive one. Every committee which declares a person in its 
 district or county or borough to be ineligible for a pension has to 
 do that which is very painful from the point of view of humanity, 
 and very disagreeable from the point of view of the local purse. 
 When humanity and economy are on one side, I think they are 
 too strong for any legislative dykes which the Government may 
 raise against them, and I do not believe that the dykes that the 
 Government have raised will keep out the waters of expenditure 
 for one moment. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway greatly re- 
 gretted that they could not discuss their Amendment for reducing 
 the age from seventy to sixty-five. I do not think it will make very 
 much difference. I believe that under this Bill everybody who 
 desires a pension and can show a decent appearance of being 
 seventy will probably be found eligible by a kindly Imperial officer 
 and a charitable county committee, 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 155 
 
 That raises one or two points of very great importance. The 
 first point touches on what I have described as the second great 
 question raised by this Bill — namely, its future effect on social 
 reform. If you are going to use, as I am sure you are going to 
 use, this Bill as a mere method of giving pensions at the taxpayers' 
 expense to persons in declining years, and who have not got a very 
 black mark against their character, how will you prevent its becoming 
 a mere part of the outdoor relief system of the country ? You can- 
 not do it. It is quite true that you have got a different machinery 
 for allocating the money, but to suppose that the ordinary citizen 
 is going nicely to distinguish between what he gets through the 
 Imperial officer and the committee and what he gets through the 
 relieving officer and the board of guardians, and to regard one as 
 discreditable and the other as creditable, is really trespassing upon 
 our credulity. . . . The truth is, the Government must be perfectly 
 well aware that they ought to have taken this question of old age 
 pensions as part of the general problem of poverty. You cannot 
 divorce the two. If only for the purpose of distinguishing pension 
 from Poor Law relief you must consider the two together. . . . 
 
 This really brings me to the last of the three points I wished to 
 touch upon — namely, the relation of this measure to our national 
 finances. I confess that I look on this whole question with con- 
 siderable alarm. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-L3rme 
 • [Mr. Wedgwood] explained that after all no great burden would 
 be cast on our national finances, because the money was now paid 
 by the charitable and through the Poor Law, and there was not 
 much difference whether the burden was thrown on the Exchequer 
 by this Bill or whether it was left to be paid sporadically and uncer- 
 tainly, partly by Poor Law machinery and partly by the private 
 machinery of charity. I think that the hon. Member is profoundly 
 mistaken. It makes the whole difference where the money comes 
 from. The mere fact that there is money to be got somewhere 
 does not make it easy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get 
 it. , , , The Government here shows what the public are to get, 
 
IS6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 but they have not yet been shown how they are to pay for it. 
 But there is a divergence of opinion even among the members of 
 the Government. The Prime Minister assured us more than once 
 that the Government had considered the point, and that they clearly 
 saw their way to provide the necessary funds by means of free- 
 trade finance. This method of carrying it out is a secret which 
 the Prime Minister has kept not only from the Opposition, but 
 from his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that 
 is carrying secrecy too far. I think that in the comity of the Cabinet 
 the late Chancellor of the Exchequer should have told the present 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer how, within the limits of free-trade 
 finance, ;^6,5oo,ooo are to be found next year and ;£'7, 500,000 
 the year after. It is not going to be ;£'7, 500,000 either. If my in- 
 terpretation of the situation is correct, you will get to ;^i 1,500,000 
 almost immediately, and how within the limits of free-trade finance 
 are you to get ;^i 1,500,000 ? There is no great information 
 either to be got from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, ac- 
 cording to what he has already told the City, and if he has kept 
 the secret from the high financial authorities of the City, it is not 
 likely that he will tell his critics in the House. I do not ask him, 
 therefore, to tell us, if he does not know. But again I ask, Where, 
 within the limits of free-trade finance, are ;^6,5oo,ooo, ;£'7, 500,000, 
 or ;^i 1,500,000 to be obtained? . . . 
 
 I regret the hasty course which the Government haye taken, 
 but the responsibility must lie with them. The Government alone 
 have the opportunity of estimating the resources at their disposal 
 for Carrying it out. They, and they alone, have the machinery for 
 making some comparative survey of all the needs of the State. On 
 them lies the responsibility. The Bill does not satisfy the demands 
 of those who claim the right to old age pensions, and on the other 
 hand it so burdens and cripples the national resources that we may 
 find it impossible to meet other obligations not less pressing, not 
 less connected with the safety of the State and the well-being of 
 the poorer members of the State. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 157 
 
 Extract jo 
 
 LABOUR DEFENCE OF OLD AGE PENSIONS 
 {Mr. William Crooks, Commons, July g, igoS) 
 
 Mr. Crooks ' ■ I apologise to the House for intervening in the 
 debate at this late hour. What astonished me in the course of 
 the discussion is the different grounds hon. Gentlemen above the 
 gangway have taken. First they wanted a proper universal scheme ; 
 then they wanted certain qualifications put in ; then the mover of 
 the Amendment to-day deplored that there were so many quali- 
 fications in order that a poor man might get a certificate of char- 
 acter before he could secure a pension. Now they regret the failure 
 of their efforts to put in still more qualifications. 
 
 I have read somewhere that life is a comedy to a thinking man 
 and a tragedy to a feeling man. That is all the difference in the 
 world. We have had an exhibition of thinking without feeling. 
 I have felt pretty keenly about the whole business — listening to 
 the flippancy which one expects at some kind of Tory meeting. 
 In a pamphlet which I wrote ten years ago I anticipated that 
 whenever a scheme of old age pensions was considered in the 
 House of Commons it would be called " a glorified outdoor relief." 
 So is every kind of pension that is paid out of the taxpayers' 
 pockets. We have been told by opponents of the Bill about inquisi- 
 torial examinations of claimants for a pension. It is very good of 
 these hon. Gentlemen, I admit it. Is it not the case that hon. and 
 right hon. Gentlemen who receive pensions from His Majesty's 
 Government are obliged to declare in writing their impecuniosity ? 
 How dreadfully lowering and degrading it must be to a man whose 
 private income would be wealth beyond the dreams of avarice to 
 an ordinary poor man in this country! Yet, he has the nerve to 
 write to somebody and to declare his impecuniosity before he gets 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 192, col. 193 sqq. 
 
158 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 his ;^i2oo a year! No man reads him a little homily on thrift. 
 No man says a word about it. There is nothing degrading about 
 pensions at all, except when they get down to 5s. a week; they 
 are not awfully degrading, but the reward for services to the State 
 — that is, if they are anything between ;^i2oo and ^4000 a year. 
 They then add to the dignity and importance of His Majesty's 
 subjects. . . . 
 
 There is a Poor Law Commission sitting now, and that would 
 be a reason for doing nothing, because when the late Govern- 
 ment wished to do nothing, they appointed a Royal Commission. 
 I have illustrated the fact, I think, before. It is the case of the 
 man who once saw a lot of coloured cooked eggs on a barrow, 
 and he said, " What are those eggs, guv'nor ? " " Oh, they are 
 partridge eggs." "Do you think a hen would bring them off?" 
 " Yes, I should think so." " Then how much for a sitting ? " "" is. 
 6d. and a share of your luck." About four weeks after he turned 
 up again and gazed wistfully at the stall, and the man recognised 
 him and said : " Well, what luck ? " " Oh, you never saw an)rt:hing 
 like it in your life. The hen, she sat and sat, and I am blowed if 
 she did not cook them." There has never been an Old Age Pen- 
 sion Commission or a Poor Law Commission which did not well 
 cook their reports before bringing them to this House. The regu- 
 lations of the Board have amended Poor Law relief out of all 
 knowledge. They told us to give outdoor relief generously, and 
 in giving it to old and deserving people, we should not rake up the 
 past. I was a guardian and I wished to do it generously. Some 
 said, " They do not want old age pensions ; you want to make the 
 workhouse more comfortable." Well, we did that, and what was 
 the result ? I was put on trial and very nearly got time. . . . 
 
 I once said, and I repeat, that no man should sit in this House 
 without having served first for ten years as a Poor Law guardian. 
 He would then know something about human nature. It is not 
 perfect. There are a good many sides to it, but most people 
 who apply for relief are very human, and I do not think they very 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 
 
 159 
 
 much object to these inquisitorial examinations as to their character. 
 We were challenged by the hon. Member for Preston [Mr. Harold 
 Cox], who said, " Would you go on any public platform and declare 
 that you are in favour of giving a pension of 5 s. per week to a 
 drunken, thriftless, worthless man or woman ? " My reply is very 
 prompt to that. A man of seventy with nothing in the world to 
 help him is going to cut a pretty shine on 5s. per week, whether 
 his character be good or bad. What could he do with it ? It is not 
 enough to keep him in decency, and he would be well punished 
 for not taking care when he had the opportunity if he had to live 
 on 5s. per week. Who are you, to be continually finding fault? 
 Who amongst you has such a clear record as to be able to point 
 to the iniquity and wickedness of an old man of seventy ? I said 
 before, and I repeat, if a man is foolish enough to get old, and if 
 he has not been artful enough to get rich, you have no right to 
 punish him for it. It is no business of yours. It is sufficient for 
 you to know he has grown old. 
 
 After all, who are these old men and women ? Let me appeal to 
 the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone [Lord Robert Cecil]. 
 They are the veterans of industry, people of almost endless toil, 
 who have fought for and won the industrial and commercial 
 supremacy of Great Britain. Is their lot and end to be the Bas- 
 tille of the everlasting slur of pauperism ? We claim these pensions 
 as a right. Ruskin, I think, read you a little homily on the sub- 
 ject — " Even a labourer serves his country with his spade and 
 shovel as the statesman does with his pen, or the soldier with 
 his sword." He has a right to some consideration from the State. 
 Here in a country rich beyond description there are people poverty- 
 stricken beyond description. There can be no earthly excuse for 
 the condition of things which exists in this country to-day. If it be 
 necessary to have a strong Army and Navy to protect the wealth 
 of the nation, do not let us forget that it is the veterans of industry 
 who have created that wealth ; and let us accept this as an instal- 
 ment to bring decency and comfort to gur aged men and women, 
 
l6o BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract ji 
 
 OPPOSITION TO THE BILL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 [Earl of Wemyss, Lords, July 20, igoS) 
 
 The Earl of Wemyss/ who had given notice of an Amendment — 
 
 That pending the Report of the Royal Commission now inquiring into 
 the principles and working of the existing Poor Law it would be unwise to 
 enter upon the consideration of a Bill establishing the far-reaching prin- 
 ciple of State Old Age Pensions — 
 
 said : . . . Last Thursday the Times, in a leading article, recom- 
 mended your Lordships to pass the second and even the third 
 reading of the Bill, not on account of any merit it has, but for 
 your own sake, and for the good of your Lordships' House. In 
 the same article, however, there was a sentence which blew all this 
 to smithereens, and I commend it to the notice of your I>ordships' 
 House. The sentence ran — " But the real objection to the Bill is 
 that it is fundamentally on wrong lines, and is, in fact, not a pen- 
 sion but a Bill giving indefinite extension of outdoor relief." 
 
 It is on that ground that I venture to ask your Lordships 
 whether it is wise to go on with the Bill. I want your Lordships 
 to consider, supposing this to be right, what indefinite extension 
 of outdoor relief means. 
 
 I should like to take your Lordships back seventy years. In 
 1834 the Poor Law, which had existed from the time of Elizabeth, 
 had, by mismanagement and lax administration, produced such a 
 state of things that it was given in evidence before the Poor Law 
 Commission of that date that labourers said, " Damn work ! Blast 
 work ! Why should I work when I can get i os. from the rates 
 for doing nothing." 
 
 The Commission, on which the Bishop of London and the Bishop 
 of Carlisle sat, reported that all this was due to lax administration. 
 
 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 192, col. 1335 sqq. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS l6l 
 
 and that stringency in administering the law was necessary. There 
 may be people who say that the law has been too stringent and too 
 harsh, but those two Bishops evidently did not think so. What has 
 happened since then ? From that time better administration has 
 prevailed, outdoor relief has been restricted, and the independence 
 of the people has been restored. If, from sentimental motives. 
 Parliament passes this Bill, I hold that you will establish a system 
 of demoralisation amongst the working classes, that you will do 
 away with thrift, that families will cease to regard it as an obliga- 
 tion to maintain those of their members whose working days are 
 passed, and that self-reliance will be diminished. 
 
 I see in his place my noble friend Lord Rosebery. He, as 
 Chancellor of the University of Glasgow, delivered the other day 
 a most admirable speech, in the course of which he spoke strongly 
 of the need of self-reliance. What he said is so much to the poirit 
 that I will, with your Lordships' permission, read it. The noble 
 Earl said : " The State invites us every day to lean upon it. I seem 
 to hear the wheedling and alluring whisper, '-Sound you may be, 
 we bid you be a cripple. Do you see ? Be blind. Do you hear ? 
 Be deaf. Do you walk ? Be not so venturesome. Here is a crutch 
 for one arm ; when you get accustomed to it, you will soon want 
 another — the sooner the better.' The strongest man if encouraged 
 may soon accustom himself to the methods of an invalid ; he may 
 train himself to totter, or to be fed with a spoon. . . . Every 
 day the area for initiative is being narrowed, every day the stand- 
 ing ground for self-reliance is being undermined; every day the 
 public infringes — with the best intentions, no doubt — on the indi- 
 vidual ; the nation is being taken into custody by the State." And 
 at the end the noble Earl said, " It was s.elf-reliance that built the 
 Empire ; it is by self-reliance, and all that that implies, that it must 
 be welded and continued." Those are wise words, which I humbly 
 recommend to the attention of your Lordships. . . . 
 
 I could, if I wished to detain yoiar Lordships, give you unlimited 
 quotations against this Bill. All those who have given their lives 
 
l62 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 to the care of the poor and are interested in thrift and other socie- 
 ties are all hostile to the Bill, as it at present stands. I will not 
 quote those authorities, but will be satisfied by reading to your 
 Lordships an extract from a circular issued by the Charity Organ- 
 isation Society, of which many of your Lordships are members, 
 and which has done excellent work during the last thirty years. 
 That society has issued a circular against the Bill in which they 
 assert that — " Neither the Bill, nor anything like the Bill, has ever 
 been demanded by, or received the sanction of, the electors. To 
 delay the passing of the Bill can do no serious injury to the coun- 
 try and will enable the nation to consider calmly the policy of a 
 measure which, for good or bad, produces a social revolution." 
 That is an accurate description of the Bill, and I think it would be 
 wise if your Lordships were to postpone consideration of it until 
 all possible information is obtained. For what are you doing ? You 
 will be tying a millstone round the neck of the country and involving 
 it in an expenditure in the end of nearly ;^3o,ooo,ooo a year. 
 
 On the very day last week when this Bill passed through the 
 other House there was in France a Commission of the Senate sit- 
 ting considering a Pension Bill, and that Commission, in spite of 
 the wish of the French Government that the Bill should proceed 
 and that they should report upon it, declined to do so until all the 
 information that could possibly be obtained was before them. My 
 Lords, we are told, Fas est ab hoste doceri, but I venture to suggest 
 that your Lordships might also learn from a friend. I should like 
 to see the entente cordiale of Shepherd's Bush carried to your Lord- 
 ships' House ; and that you should act as wisely, as moderately, 
 and as reasonably as the French Commission are doing. Let me 
 further remind your Lordships of that splendid French maxim 
 Fais ce que doit advienne que pourra, and urge your Lordships to 
 act upon it. I have nothing more to add. I intend to stick to my 
 guns and to divide your Lordships if I can get a teller, and I have 
 secured one. What success we shall have in the division lobbies I 
 do not know, but, at any rate, whatever the result may be, one 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 163 
 
 thing is certain — that all the common-sense and the sense of what 
 is right and reasonable in dealing with such a question as this 
 will be found with the minority. I beg to move the Amendment 
 standing in my name.^ 
 
 Extract ^2 
 
 DANGER OF DISPUTE WITH THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 
 
 (Earl of Rosebery, Lords, July 20, igo8) 
 
 The Earl of Rosebery ^ • . . . I believe this is the most 
 important Bill by a long way that has ever been submitted to 
 the House of Lords during the forty years that I have sat in it. 
 I view its consequences as so great, so mystic, so incalculable, so 
 largely affecting the whole scope and fabric of our Empire itself, 
 that I rank it as a measure far more vitally important than even 
 the great Reform Bills which have come before this House. I con- 
 fess, to come at once to the Amendment of my noble friend, whom 
 we heard with so much pleasure in such vigour at an age so greatly 
 surpassing the ordinary span of man, that, if you take that Amend- 
 ment in pure logic, it is extremely difficult to say anything against 
 it. My noble friend says that you should wait for the Report of 
 the Poor Law Commission before coming to a decision upon this 
 Bill. His Majesty's Government have been a little unfortunate, 
 owing to their enthusiasm for legislation, in more than once being 
 unable to await pending inquiries before they proceeded to carry 
 legislation into effect ; and I do not know that on any occasion 
 they have been so unfortunate as they have been with regard to 
 this Bill. . . . But when I come to the practical bearings of my 
 noble friend's Amendment I feel much greater doubts, and I must 
 tell him at once that I shall not be able to accompany him and his 
 teller into the lobby which they have projected for themselves. I 
 
 1 The Amendment of Earl Wemyss was eventually rejected by a vote of 123 to 16. 
 
 2 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 192, col. 1379 sqq. 
 
1 64 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 cannot do so for very clear and obvious reasons. The first is that 
 the Bill is an almost purely financial measure, coming up from the 
 House of Commons with the almost unanimous support of that 
 House after a division which, I think, only mustered ten against it 
 in its final stage, and which had no division against it at all on its 
 second reading. [Viscount St. Aldwyn here whispered to the noble 
 Earl.] I am wrong, but at any rate an almost equally insignificant 
 division on the second reading. 
 
 A financial Bill coming up with this practical unanimity from the 
 House of Commons it may be within your legal prerogative to 
 reject, but I am quite sure it is equally impolitic for you to do so. 
 More than this, it comes with the assent of both political parties.. 
 No one can forget — we have been more than once reminded of 
 it to-night — that the question was started by Mr. Chamberlain 
 somewhere about 1894 or 1895, and therefore if you sit on the 
 cross benches and you are not pledged to either party in this 
 matter, you must feel, quite impartially, that this proposal comes 
 as a principle equal to both parties. . . . 
 
 The first responsibility of every country and every nation is 
 national defence. I confess this prospect fills me with despair. I 
 understand that the Government already acknowledge some lia- 
 bility in respect of an increase in the Navy for next year ; and I 
 strongly suspect that, in spite of the somewhat ambiguous pro- 
 ceedings of which we have read, they do not expect any material 
 reduction in the Army. Surely the moment is ill-chosen for under- 
 taking this vague experiment, so prodigal of expenditure, and I 
 would ask the Government — I say it in no spirit of hostility, but in 
 a spirit of earnest and deep anxiety — to meet some of the points 
 raised in this debate, and to assure us that, in furthering and not 
 opposing this boon which they offer to the old of the. United 
 Kingdom, we are not dealing a blow at the Empire which may be 
 almost mortal, and that we are not embarrassing and encumbering 
 our finances to a degree of which no man now living, however 
 young he may be, will see the limit or the end. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS l6S 
 
 Extract jj 
 
 AN ANGLICAN BISHOP ON OLD AGE PENSIONS 
 (Bishop of Ripon, Lords, July 20, iqoS) 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Ripon ■'•... My Lords, there is some- 
 thing in nations which is of more importance to them than mere 
 financial prosperity. The accumulation of the power of wealth 
 which enables nations to raise a considerable revenue through 
 taxation, gives the stamp, as it were, of prosperity, but the best 
 asset of a nation is a manly, vigorous, and numerous race, and the 
 best asset of the race is that the character of its men and women 
 shall never be impaired. A Frenchman once wrote a book con- 
 cerning what he called the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race, 
 and in the course of that book he pointed out what he believed to 
 be the one essential factor which contributed to that superiority. 
 He said that in all the history of English life one spirit had pre- 
 vailed, and that was the spirit of self-reliance. He turned to his 
 countrymen and said, " The danger which we are in to-day is that 
 we are not rearing our population to self-reliant habits." He drew 
 the picture of the little farmer in Normandy who would stint him- 
 self and live in an unclean and even unwholesome dwelling in order 
 that he might leave a sufficient sum to his children. He pointed 
 then to the Enghsh farmer who, he said, so far from crippling 
 himself in order that his sons may be well, started in the world, 
 takes the strong and independent line and says, " I made my way 
 in the world and I expect my sons to do the same." " In other 
 words," said the French writer, " the race across the Channel has 
 educated its children in the habits of self-reliance, and to this habit 
 is largely due the superiority and the strength of that race.'' 
 
 Now I cannot help asking myself, and I feel sure that is the 
 thought which has been passing through many minds to-night, 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 192, col. 1389 sqq. 
 
l66 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 whether we are not in danger, not now, not to-day, but in the 
 future, of dealing with this question of financial support in such 
 a way that we undermine that spirit of self-reliance out of which 
 the strength and the power of the British race has largely grown. 
 That seems to me to be by far the most important question in- 
 volved.. It is character which makes, as it were, for the generous 
 strength of a race, and it is character alone which can give them 
 the security for true and abiding riches. Therefore it is that I 
 cannot help asking myself whether there may not be a danger of 
 its being weakened in the future. 
 
 I speak not of those of seventy years of age who are to receive 
 the benefit of this measure. Their characters are formed, their 
 conditions are settled. We are going forward to-night and sa3dng : 
 " Let us help them, let us give to them something which will ease 
 their later years, and if a few have not deserved, well, we will at 
 any rate with large-heartedness forget those who were weak and 
 deal largely and generously with this matter before us, for all 
 these men or women of seventy naturally appeal to the pity and 
 sympathy of our hearts." But when I look beyond and ask whether 
 it is conceivable that we may begin so to hold out the thought that 
 men may be able to receive from' the State that which in olden days 
 they won by their own strong labours, self-denial, and thrift, then 
 I am apprehensive lest we should, in attempting to do a good, do 
 a great and grievous wrong, robbing ourselves and our children of 
 that which is the best inheritance, the inheritance of a sturdy, strong, 
 self-reliant manhood,- that will take upon itself the responsibilities 
 of life and be equal, therefore, to the responsibilities of Empire. I 
 think none of us can shut our eyes to the fact that there are among 
 us people who are very ready to shirk responsibility, and I, for one, 
 would feel that the whole system and condition of English life had 
 lost its meaning and value if once we should act in such a fashion 
 as to remove responsibility, and the sense of responsibility, from 
 the people of this country. We are in this world for responsibility ; 
 through responsibility we grow and rise to the height of character 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 167 
 
 which Divine Providence intended us to reach. Let us not, by any 
 action of ours, weaken that which is the best thing we can preserve, 
 the character of the population, for out of that, and out of that 
 alone, will spring the strength and the stability of the nation. 
 
 Extract J4 
 
 OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT, 1908 
 
 {8 Edw. 7, ch. 4.0) 
 
 An Act to provide for Old Age Pensions. (ist August 1908) 
 
 Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 
 and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the 
 authority of the same, as follows : 
 
 I. Right to receive Old Age Pension 
 
 (i) Every person in whose case the conditions laid down by this 
 Act for the receipt of an old age pension (in this Act referred to 
 as statutory conditions) are fulfilled, shall be entitled to receive such 
 a pension under this Act so long as those conditions continue to 
 be fulfilled, and so long as he is not disqualified under this Act for 
 the receipt of the pension. 
 
 (2) An old age pension under this Act shall be at the rate set 
 forth in the schedule to this Act. 
 
 (3) The sums required for the payment of old age pensions 
 under this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. 
 
 (4) The receipt of an old age pension under this Act shall not 
 deprive the pensioner of any franchise, right, or privilege, or sub- 
 ject him to any disability. 
 
l68 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 2. Statutory Conditions for Receipt of Old Age Pension 
 
 The statutory conditions for the receipt of an old age pension 
 by any person are — 
 
 (i) The person must have attained the age of seventy : 
 
 (2) The person must satisfy the pension authorities that for at 
 
 least twenty years up to the date of the receipt of any 
 sum on account of a pension he has been a British sub- 
 ject, [and has had his residence, as defined by regulations 
 under this Act, in the United Kingdom] ^ : 
 
 (3) The person must satisfy the pension authorities that his 
 
 yearly means as calculated under this Act do not exceed 
 thirty-one pounds ten shillings. 
 
 J. Disqualification for Old Age Pension ''■ 
 
 (i) A person shall be disqualified for receiving or continuing 
 to receive an old age pension under this Act, notwithstanding the 
 fulfilment of the statutory conditions — 
 
 {a) While he is in receipt of any poor relief (other than relief 
 excepted under this provision), and, until the thirty-first 
 day of December nineteen hundred and ten unless Parlia- 
 ment otherwise determines, if he has at any time since 
 the first day of January nineteen hundred and eight re- 
 ceived, or hereafter receives, any such relief: Provided 
 that for the purposes of this provision — 
 
 (i) any medical or surgical assistance (including food or 
 comforts) supplied by or on the recommendation 
 of a medical officer ; or 
 (ii) any relief given to any person by means of the 
 maintenance of any dependant of that person 
 in any lunatic asylum, infirmary, or hospital, or 
 the payment of any expenses of the burial of a 
 dependant ; or 
 
 1 Repealed by the Old Age Pensions Act, igii. Cf. infra, p. 178. 
 
 2 Cf. amendments in the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911. Cf. infra, p. 179. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 169 
 
 (iii) any relief (other than medical or surgical assist- 
 ance, or relief herein-before specifically ex- 
 empted) which by law is expressly declared 
 not to be a disqualification for registration as 
 a parliamentary elector, or a reason for depriv- 
 ing any person of any franchise, right, or 
 privilege ; 
 shall not be considered as poor relief : 
 
 (b) If, before he becomes entitled to a pension, he has habitually 
 
 failed to work according to his ability, opportunity, and 
 need, for the maintenance or benefit of himself and those 
 legally dependent upon him : 
 
 Provided that a person shall not be disqualified under 
 this paragraph if he has continuously for ten years up to 
 attaining the age of sixty, by means of payments to 
 friendly, provident, or other societies, or trade unions, 
 or other approved steps, made such provision against old 
 age, sickness, infirmity, or want or loss of employment 
 as may be recognised as proper provision for the purpose 
 by regulations under this Act, and any such provision, 
 when made by the husband in the case of a married 
 couple living together, shall as respects any right of the 
 wife to a pension, be treated as provision made by the 
 wife as well as by the husband : 
 
 (c) While he is detained in any asylum within the meaning of 
 
 the Lunacy Act, 1890, or while he is being maintained in 
 any place as a pauper or criminal lunatic : 
 (ft) During the continuance of any period of disqualification 
 arising or imposed in pursuance of this section in conse- 
 quence of conviction for an offence. 
 (2) Where a person has been before the passing of this Act, 
 or is after the passing of this Act, convicted of any offence, and 
 ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine or to suffer 
 any greater punishment, he shall be disqualified for receiving or 
 
I/O BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 continuing to receive an old age pension under this Act while he 
 is detained in prison in consequence of the order, and for a further 
 period of ten^ years after the date on which he is released from 
 prison. 
 
 (3) Where a person of sixty years of age or upwards having 
 been convicted before any court is liable to have a detention order 
 made against him under the Inebriates Act, 1898, and is not nec- 
 essarily, by virtue of the provisions of this Act, disqualified for re- 
 ceiving or continuing to receive an old age pension under this Act, 
 the court may, if they think fit, order that the person convicted be 
 so disqualified for such period, not exceeding ten years, as the 
 court direct. 
 
 4.. Calculation of Means '' 
 
 (3) If it appears that any person has directly or indirectly de- 
 prived himself of any income or property in order to qualify him- 
 self for the receipt of an old age pension, or for the receipt of an 
 old age pension at a higher rate than that to which he would other- 
 wise be entitled under this Act, that income or the yearly value of 
 that property shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to be 
 part of the means of that person. 
 
 5. Mode of paying Pensions 
 
 (i) An old age pension under this Act, subject to any directions 
 of the Treasury in special cases, shall be paid weekly in advance 
 in such manner and subject to such conditions as to identification 
 or otherwise as the Treasury direct. 
 
 (2) A pension shall commence to accrue on the first Friday after 
 the claim for the pension has been allowed, or, in the case of a 
 claim provisionally allowed, on the first Friday after the day on 
 which the claimant becomes entitled to receive the pension. 
 
 1 Amended in 191 1 to read "two." 
 
 2 Subsections (i) and (2) of section 4 were repealed by the Act of 1911. For the 
 substitutions, cf. infra, p. 177. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 171 
 
 6. Old Age Pension to be Inalienable 
 
 Every assignment of or charge on and every agreement to assign 
 or charge an old age pension under this Act shall be void, and, on 
 the bankruptcy of a person entitled to an old age pension, the pen- 
 sion shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf 
 of the creditors. 
 
 7. Determination of Claims and Questions 
 
 (i) All claims for old age pensions under this Act and all ques- 
 tions whether the statutory conditions are fulfilled in the case of 
 any person claiming such a pension, or whether those conditions 
 continue to be fulfilled in the case of a person in receipt of such 
 a pension, or whether a person is disqualified for receiving or con- 
 tinuing to receive a pension, shall be considered and determined ^ 
 as follows : 
 
 (a) Any such claim or question shall stand referred to the local 
 pension committee, and the committee shall (except in the 
 case of a question which has been originated by the pen- 
 sion officer and on which the committee have already re- 
 ceived his report), before considering the claim ojr question, 
 refer it for report and inquiry to the pension officer : 
 (j)) The pension officer shall inquire into and report upon any 
 claim or question so referred to him, and the local pen- 
 sion committee shall, on the receipt of the report of the 
 pension officer and after obtaining from him or from any 
 other source if necessary any further information as to 
 the claim or question, consider the case and give their 
 decision upon the claim or question : 
 (J) The pension officer, and any person aggrieved, may appeal 
 to the central pension authority against a decision of the 
 local pension committee allowing or refusing a claim for 
 
 1 The character of such questions is defined in the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, 
 section 6. Cf. infra, p. 180. 
 
1/2 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 pension or determining any question referred to them 
 within the time and in the manner prescribed by regula- 
 tions under this Act, and any claim or question in respect 
 of which an appeal is so brought shall stand referred to 
 the central pension authority, and shall be considered and 
 determined by them : 
 (d) If any person ^ is aggrieved by the refusal or neglect of a 
 local pension committee to consider a claim for a pension, 
 or to determine any question referred to them, that person 
 may apply in the prescribed manner to the central pension 
 authority, and that authority may, if they consider that 
 the local pension committee have refused or neglected 
 to consider and determine the claim or question within a 
 reasonable time, themselves consider and determine the 
 claim or question in the same manner as on an appeal 
 from the decision of the local pension committee : 
 (2) The decision of the local pension committee on any claim 
 or question which is not referred to the central pension authority, 
 and the decision of the central pension authority on any claim or 
 question which is so referred to them, shall be final and conclusive. 
 
 8. Administrative Machinery 
 
 (i) The local pension committee shall be a committee appointed 
 for every borough and urban district, having a population according 
 to the last pubhshed census for the time being of twenty thousand 
 or over, and for every county (excluding the area of any such bor- 
 ough or district) by the council of the borough, district, or county. 
 
 The persons appointed to be members of a local pension com- 
 mittee need not be members of the council by which they are 
 appointed. 
 
 (2) A local pension committee may appoint such and so many 
 sub-committees, consisting either wholly or partly of the members 
 of the committee as the committee think fit, and a local pension 
 1 Cf. Act of 191 1, section 6, subsection (6), infra, p. 182. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 1 73 
 
 committee may delegate, either absolutely or under such conditions 
 as they think fit, to any such sub-committee any powers and duties 
 of the local committee under this Act. 
 
 (3) The central pension authority shall be the Local Govern- 
 ment Board, and the Board may act through such 'committee, per- 
 sons, or person appointed by them as they think fit. 
 
 (4) Pension officers shall be appointed by the Treasury, and 
 the Treasury may appoint such number of those officers as they 
 think fit to act for such areas as they direct. 
 
 (5) Any reference in this Act to pension authorities shall be 
 construed as a reference to the pension officer, the local pension 
 committee, and the central pension authority, or to any one of 
 them, as the case requires. 
 
 p. Penalty for False Statements ^ 
 
 (1) If for the purpose of obtaining or continuing an old age 
 pension under this Act, either for himself or for any other person, 
 or for the purpose of obtaining or continuing an old age pension 
 under this Act for himself or for any other person at a higher rate 
 than that appropriate to the case, any person knowingly makes 
 any false statement or false representation, he shall be liable on 
 summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six 
 months, with hard labour. 
 
 (2) If it is found at any time that a person has been in receipt 
 of an old age pension under this Act while the statutory conditions 
 were not fulfilled in his case or while he was disqualified for receiv- 
 ing the pension, he or, in the case of his death, his personal repre- 
 sentative, shall be liable to repay to the Treasury any sums paid to 
 him in respect of the pension while the statutory conditions were 
 not fulfilled or while he was disqualified for receiving the pension, 
 and the amount of those sums may be recovered as a debt due to 
 the Crown. 
 
 1 Important amendments of this section in the Old Age Pensions Act, 191 1, 
 sections 6 and 7. Cf. infra, pp. 180-183. 
 
174 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 10. Regulations and Expenses 
 
 (i) The Treasury in conjunction with the Local Government 
 Board and with the Postmaster-General (so far as relates to the 
 Post Office) may make regulations for carrying this Act into 
 effect, and in particular — 
 
 {a) for prescribing the evidence to be required as to the fulfil- 
 ment of statutory conditions [and for defining the mean- 
 ing of residence for the purposes of this Act] -^ ; and 
 (Ij) for prescribing the manner in which claims to pensions may 
 be made, and the procedure to be followed on the consid- 
 eration and determination of claims and questions to be 
 considered and determined by pension officers and local 
 pension committees or by the central pension authority, 
 and the mode in which any question may be raised as to 
 the continuance, in the case of a pensioner, of the fulfil- 
 ment of the statutory conditions, and as to the disqualifi- 
 cation of a pensioner ; and 
 (c) as to the number, quorum, term of office, and proceed- 
 ings generally of the local pension committee and the 
 use by the committee, with or without pa)rment, of 
 any offices of a local authority, and the provision to be 
 made for the immediate payment of any expenses of 
 the committee which are ultimately to be paid by the 
 Treasury. 
 (2) The regulations shall provide for enabling claimants for 
 pensions to make their claims and obtain information as respects 
 old age pensions under this Act through the Post Office, and for 
 provisionally allowing claims to pensions before the date on which 
 the claimant will become actually entitled to the pension, and for 
 notice being given by registrars of births and deaths to the pen- 
 sion officers or local pension committees of every death of a person 
 over seventy registered by them, in such manner and subject to 
 
 I Repealed by the Act of 1911. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS I7S 
 
 such conditions as may be laid down by the regulations, and for 
 making the procedure for considering and determining on any 
 claim for a pension or question with respect to an old age pension 
 under this Act as simple as possible. 
 
 (3) Every regulation under this Act shall be laid before each 
 House of Parliament forthwith, and, if an address is presented to 
 His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subse- 
 quent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any 
 such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may 
 be annulled. His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and 
 it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity 
 of anything previously done thereunder. 
 
 (4) Any expenses incurred by the Treasury in carrying this Act 
 into effect, and the expenses of the Local Government Board and 
 the local pension committees under this Act up to an amount ap- 
 proved by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided 
 by Parliament. 
 
 I J. Application to Scotland, Ireland, and the Scilly Isles 
 
 (i) In the application of this Act to Scotland, the expression 
 " Local Government Board " means the Local Government Board 
 for Scotland; the expression "borough" means royal or parlia- 
 mentary burgh ; the expression " urban district " means police 
 burgh ; the population limit fpr boroughs and urban districts shall 
 not apply; and the expression "Lunacy Act, 1890," means the 
 Lunacy (Scotland) Acts, 1857 to 1900. 
 
 (2) In the application of this Act to Ireland, the expression 
 " Local Government Board " means the Local Government Board 
 for Ireland ; ten thousand shall be substituted for twenty thousand 
 as the population limit for boroughs and urban districts ; and the 
 expression " asylum within the meaning of the Lunacy Act, 1890," 
 means a lunatic asylum within the meaning of the Local Govern- 
 ment (Ireland) Act, 1898. 
 
176 
 
 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (3) In the application of this Act to the Isles of Scilly, those 
 isles shall be deemed to be a county and the council of those isles 
 the council of a county. 
 
 12. Commencement and Title 
 
 (i) A person shall not be entitled to the receipt of an old age pen- 
 sion under this Act until the first day of January nineteen hundred 
 and nine and no such pension shall begin to accrue until that day. 
 
 (2) This Act may be cited as the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908. 
 
 Schedule 
 
 Means of Pensioner 
 
 Rate of Pension 
 PER Week 
 
 Where the yearly means of the pensioner as calcu- 
 lated under this Act — 
 
 Do not exceed £21 . ...... 
 
 Exceed .£21, but do not exceed .£23 12s. 6d. . . . 
 
 Exceed ^23 12s. 6d., but do not exceed £26 5s. . . 
 Exceed £26 5s., but do not exceed £28 17s. 6d. 
 Exceed £,2% 17s. 6d., but do not exceed ^£31 los. . 
 Exceed j£3i los . 
 
 d. 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 No pension 
 
 Extract j^ 
 
 OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT, 1911 
 
 (i &" 2 Geo. J-, ck. 16) 
 
 An Act to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, igo8. 
 
 (iSth August 191 1) 
 
 Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 
 and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the 
 authority of the same, as follows : 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 177 
 
 I. Calculation of Date of attaining Specified Age 
 
 For the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 (in this 
 Act referred to as " the principal Act"), a person shall be deemed, 
 according to the law in Scotland as well as according to the law in 
 England and Ireland, to have attained the age of seventy or sixty 
 on the commencement of the day previous to the seventieth or six- 
 tieth anniversary, as the case may be, of the day of his birth. 
 
 2. Calculation of Means 
 
 (i) In calculating, for the purpose of the principal Act, the 
 means of a person, account shall be taken of — 
 
 {a) the yearly value of any property belonging to that person 
 (not being property personally used or enjoyed by him) 
 which is invested, or is otherwise put to profitable use by 
 him, or which, though capable of investment or profitable 
 use, is not so invested or put to profitable use by him, 
 the yearly value of that property being taken to be one- 
 twentieth part of the capital value thereof ; 
 
 (h) the income which that person may reasonably expect to re- 
 ceive during the succeeding year in cash, excluding any 
 sums receivable on account of an old age pension under 
 this Act, and excluding any sums arising from the invest- 
 ment or profitable use of property (not being property 
 personally used or enjoyed by him), that income, in the 
 absence of other means for ascertaining the income, being 
 taken to be the income actually received during the pre- 
 ceding year ; 
 
 (c) the yearly value of any advantage accruing to that person 
 from the use or enjoyment of any property belonging to 
 him which is personally used or enjoyed by him, except 
 furniture and personal effects in a case where the total 
 value of the furniture and effects does not exceed fifty 
 pounds ; and 
 
178 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (d) the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that 
 person : 
 
 Provided that, where under paragraph (a) of the foregoing pro- 
 visions the yearly value of any property is taken to be one-twentieth 
 part of the capital value thereof, no account shall be taken under 
 any other of those provisions' of any appropriation of that property 
 for the purpose of current expenditure. 
 
 (2) In calculating the means of a person being one of a married 
 couple living together in the same house, the means shall be taken 
 to be half the total means of the couple. 
 
 (3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall be substituted 
 for subsections (i) and (2) of section four of the principal Act. 
 
 3. Provisions as to Nationality and Residence 
 
 Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act — 
 
 (i) the condition as to nationality imposed by paragraph (2) 
 of section two of the principal Act shall not be required 
 to be fulfilled in the case of a woman who satisfies the 
 pension authorities that she would, but for her marriage 
 with an alien, have fulfilled the condition, and that, at 
 the date of the receipt of any sum on account of a pen- 
 sion, the alien is dead, or the marriage with the alien 
 has been dissolved or annulled, or she has, for a period 
 of not less, than two years up to the said date, been 
 legally separated from, or deserted by, the alien : 
 (2) it shall be a statutory condition for the receipt of an old 
 age pension by any person, that the person must satisfy 
 the pension authorities that for at least twelve years in 
 the aggregate out of the twenty years up to the date of 
 the receipt of any sum on account of a pension he has 
 had his residence in the United Kingdom : 
 
 Provided that for the purposes of computing the 
 twelve years' residence in the United Kingdom under 
 this provision — 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 1 79 
 
 (a) any periods spent abroad in any service under 
 the Crown, the remuneration for which is paid 
 out of moneys provided by Parliament, or as 
 the wife or servant of a person in any such 
 service so remunerated ; and 
 {b) any periods spent in the Channel Islands or the 
 Isle of Man by a person born in the United 
 Kingdom; and 
 (c) any periods spent abroad by any person during 
 which that person has maintained or assisted 
 in maintaining any dependant in the United 
 Kingdom ; and 
 (d) any periods of absence spent in service on board 
 a vessel registered in the United Kingdom by 
 a person who before his absence on that serv- 
 ice was living in the United Kingdom ; and 
 (e) any periods of temporary absence not exceeding 
 three months in duration at any one time ; 
 shall be counted as periods of residence in the United 
 Kingdom. 
 
 4.. Amendments of Section j of Principal Act 
 
 (i) Any rule of law and any enactment, the effect of which is 
 to cause relief given to or in respect of a wife or relative to be 
 treated as relief given to the person liable to maintain the wife or 
 relative, shall not-have effect for the purposes of section three of the 
 principal Act (which relates to disqualification). 
 
 (2) Two years shall be substituted for ten years as the further 
 period of disqualification under subsection (2) of section three of 
 the principal Act, both as respects persons convicted before the 
 passing of this Act, and, as respects persons convicted after the 
 passing of this Act, in cases where the term for which a person has 
 been ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine does 
 not exceed six weeks. 
 
l8o BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (3) Any person in receipt of an old age pension who is convicted 
 of any offence which is mentioned in or deemed to be mentioned 
 or included in the First Schedule to the Inebriates Act, 1898, shall, 
 if not subject to disqualification under the principal Act, be disqual- 
 ified for receiving or continuing to receive an old age pension for 
 a period of six months after the date of his conviction, unless the 
 court before whom he is convicted direct to the contrary. 
 
 J. Limitations with Respect to the Payment of Old Age Pensions 
 
 A sum shall not be paid on account of an old age pension — • 
 (a) to any person while absent from the United Kingdom ; or 
 (l>) if payment of the sum is not obtained within three months 
 after the date on which it has become payable. 
 
 6. Amendments with Respect to Questions as to Old Age Pensions 
 
 (i) It is hereby declared that a question may be raised at any 
 time — 
 
 (a) whether at any time or during any period a person has been 
 in receipt of an old age pension when the statutory con- 
 ditions were not fulfilled, or when he was disqualified for 
 receiving the pension ; and 
 ip) whether a person has been at any time or during any period 
 in receipt of a pension at a certain rate when his means 
 exceeded the amount which justified the payment of a 
 pension at that rate, and, if so, at what rate the pension, 
 if any, should have been paid ; and 
 (<r) whether a person who is in receipt of a pension at a certain 
 rate is, having regard to his means, entitied to a pension 
 at a higher or a lower rate, and, if so, at what rate the 
 pension (if any) should be paid ; 
 and that an application may be made at any time to alter or revoke 
 a provisional allowance of a claim for a pension. 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS l8l 
 
 (2) Section seven of the principal Act shall apply to any such 
 question or application as it applies to the questions mentioned in 
 that section. 
 
 (3) Any such question may be raised notwithstanding that the 
 decision of the question involves a decision as to the correctness 
 of a formar decision of the local pension committee or central pen- 
 sion authority as the case may be, but, vt^here by a later decision a 
 former decision is reversed, a person who has received any sums 
 on account of an old age pension in accordance with the former 
 decision shall, notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section 
 nine of the principal Act, in the absence of any fraud on his part, 
 be entitied to retain any sum so received up to the date of the later 
 decision which he would have been entitled to retain but for the 
 reversal of the former decision. 
 
 (4) Where a question is raised as to the disqualification of a 
 person to receive an old age pension and it is alleged that the 
 disqualification has arisen since the person has been in receipt of 
 the pension, and that the disqualification is continuing at the tifne 
 the question is raised, or, if it has ceased, has ceased less than 
 three weeks before that time, the payment of the pension shall be 
 discontinued, and no sum shall be paid to the pensioner on account 
 of the pension after the date on which the question is raised : 
 Provided that, if the question is decided in favour of the pensioner, 
 he shall be entitled to receive all sums which would have been 
 payable to him if the question had not been raised. 
 
 (5) If the decision on any question involves the discontinuance 
 of an old age pension, or the reduction of the rate at which the 
 pension is paid, or if, in a case where the payment of the pension 
 has been discontinued on the raising of the question, the question 
 is not decided in favour of the pensioner, the person in respect of 
 whose pension the decision is given shall not be entitled to receive 
 a pension or to receive a pension at a rate higher than that deter- 
 mined by the committee or authority, as the case may be, notwith- 
 standing any change of circumstances, unless he makes a fresh 
 
1 82 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 claim for the purpose and the claim is allowed, or, in a case where 
 he alleges that he is entitled to receive a pension at a higher rate, 
 raises a question for the purpose and the pension is allowed at a 
 higher rate. 
 
 (6) It is hereby declared that a pension officer, if dissatisfied 
 with any refusal or neglect of a local pension committee to con- 
 sider a claim or determine a question, has, under paragraph (d) of 
 subsection (i) of section seven of the principal Act, a right to 
 apply to the central pension authority as a person aggrieved within 
 the meaning of that provision. 
 
 f. Amendments of Section g of the Principal Act 
 
 (i) Subsection (2) of section nine of the principal Act shall 
 apply, with the necessary modifications, to cases where an old age 
 pension is received at a higher rate than that appropriate to the 
 case as it applies to cases where a person has been in receipt 
 of an old age pension while the statutory conditions were not 
 fulfilled. 
 
 (2) For the purposes of subsection (2) of section nine of the 
 principal Act and this section, any decision of the local pension 
 committee under section seven of the principal Act on any question 
 which is not referred to the central pension authority and the de- 
 cision of the central pension authority on any question which is 
 referred to them under that section shall be conclusive proof of 
 any matters decided by the committee or the authority. 
 
 A copy of any decision of the local pension committee or central 
 pension authority, if authenticated in manner provided by regula- 
 tions to be made for the purpose under section ten of the principal 
 Act, shall be received in evidence. 
 
 (3) Where any person who is in receipt of an old age pension 
 is liable to repay to the Treasury any sums under subsection (2) 
 of section nine of the principal Act in consequence of the finding 
 of a local pension committee, or of the central pension authority 
 
OLD AGE PENSIONS 183 
 
 in the case of a question referred to them, the Treasury shall be 
 entitled, without prejudice to their powers under that subsection, 
 to direct the deduction of those sums from any sums to which 
 that person becomes entitled on account of an old age pension, in 
 manner to be provided by regulations to be made for the purpose 
 under section ten of the principal Act : 
 
 Provided that, in the case of a personal representative, the de- 
 duction shall only be made from any sums to which that person 
 becomes entitled as a personal representative. 
 
 (4) A court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland shall have the 
 same power as a court of summary jurisdiction in England, in the 
 case of a person convicted for an offence under subsection (i) 
 of section nine of the principal Act, to impose a fine not exceeding 
 twenty-five pounds instead of imprisonment, if they think that 
 the justice of the case would be better met by a fine than by 
 imprisonment. 
 
 8. Saving for Existing Pensioners 
 
 The provisions of this Act modifying the statutory conditions 
 for the receipt of an old age pension shall not operate — 
 {a) so as to disentitle any person who is in receipt of such a 
 
 pension at the time of the commencement of this Act 
 
 to continue to receive his pension ; or 
 (U) so as to reduce the rate of pension to which such a person 
 
 is entitled. 
 
 p. Title and Commencement 
 
 (i) The enactments mentioned in the schedule to this Act are 
 hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that 
 schedule. 
 
 (2) Any reference in this Act to the principal Act or any enact- 
 ment therein shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be con- 
 strued as references to that Act or enactment as amended by 
 this Act. 
 
1 84 
 
 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (3) This Act shall be read as one with the principal Act, and 
 may be cited as the Old Age Pensions Act, 191 1 ; and this Act 
 and the principal Act may be cited together as the Old Age Pen- 
 sions Acts, 1908 and 191 1. 
 
 Schedule 
 Enactments Repealed 
 
 Session and Chapter 
 
 Short Title 
 
 Extent of Repeal 
 
 8 Edw. 7, ch. 40 
 
 The Old Age Pen- 
 sions Act, 1908 
 
 In paragraph (2) of section two 
 the words " and has had his 
 residence as defined by regu- 
 lations under this Act in the 
 United Kingdom " ; subsec- 
 tions (i) and (2) of section 
 four ; and the words " and for 
 defining the meaning of resi- 
 dence for the purposes of this 
 Act " in paragraph (a) of sub- 
 section (i) of section ten 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE UNEMPLOYED 
 
 [On February 17, 1909, a formidable series of subjects for 
 social legislation was supplied by the publication of the Report of 
 a Poor Law Commission which had been appointed in December, 
 1905, with Lord George Hamilton as chairman. The Commission 
 contained a number of high authorities on the subjects with which 
 it dealt, including various Poor Law officials, Mr. C. S. Loch of the 
 Charity Organisation Society, Professor Smart of Glasgow, and 
 three well-known women — Miss Octavia Hill, Mrs. Bosanquet, 
 and Mrs. Sidney Webb. It held over 200 meetings, heard 1300 
 witnesses, sent out special investigators, and visited many unions 
 and institutions in the three kingdoms ; and its evidence and other 
 material filled forty volumes. The Report volume was the largest 
 ever issued by a British Royal Commission ; and the mere sum- 
 mary of its contents occupied three pages of the London Times. 
 The very brief synopsis that appeared in the "Annual Register" is 
 given below {Extract j6). 
 
 On May 19, 1909, Mr. Pickersgill, a Liberal Member of Par- 
 liament, called attention to the Minority Report of the Poor Law 
 Commission and moved a resolution declaring the urgency of 
 " steps for the decasualisation of casual labour and for the ab- 
 sorption of the surplus labour thereby thrown out of employment ; 
 also to regularise the demand for labour, to develop trade union 
 insurance against the risks of unemployment, and to establish 
 training colonies and detention colonies." The motion was seconded 
 by Mr. Percy Alden and supported by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, 
 the Labour leader. 
 
 185 
 
1 86 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Then Mr. Winston Churchill, President of the Board of Trade, 
 took the opportunity to set forth a Government scheme of labour 
 exchanges and unemployment insurance {Extract 3 f). The scheme 
 was welcomed as of far-reaching importance by Mr. F. E. Smith 
 on behalf of the Opposition {Extract jS), and by Mr. Arthur 
 Henderson on behalf of the Labour party {Extract 3g). Mr. 
 Pickersgill's motion was withdrawn, and the Labour Exchanges 
 Bill was introduced the next day by Mr. Churchill, the insurance 
 plan being deferred until another session. 
 
 The second reading of the Labour Exchanges Bill on June 16, 
 1909, gave rise to an interesting debate. Sir F. Banbury, Unionist 
 member for London, doubted the utility of the exchanges and 
 argued that the loans to unemployed men to enable them to take 
 work at a distance would lead merely to idle travelling. Mr. Pointer, 
 a new Labour member, referred to the successful working of the 
 system in Berlin, urged that the age of leaving school should be 
 raised and scientific and technical instruction given, and declared 
 that working overtime robbed unemployed men of work. He 
 suggested that employers should contribute towards the travelling 
 expenses of men who found employment through the exchanges. 
 Mr. Chiozza Money, the Liberal, urged that the railways should 
 carry such men at a reduced rate. Mr. Renwick, Unionist member 
 from Newcastle-on-Tyne, condemned the Bill, declaring that it 
 would degrade labour, and the exchanges would be a sort of hiring 
 fair. Mr. Roberts, a Labourite from Norwich, warned the House 
 that while the Bill would assist the organisation of labour, un- 
 employment would continue until collective superseded individual 
 ownership. Mr. Bonar Law, the prominent Unionist, while approv- 
 ing the Bill in principle, thought there was too much centralisation, 
 and the measure was too much of a blank cheque — the Govern- 
 ment were introducing their Bill first and preparing their plan 
 afterwards ; if eloquent speeches alone would cure unemployment, 
 the Government would do it ; otherwise they must wait for some 
 other Government. 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 1 8/ 
 
 Second reading was agreed to on June i6 and third reading on 
 July 29. The progress of the Bill through the House of Lords 
 (July 30-August 5) was uneventful; and the royal assent was 
 registered on September 20. The Labour Exchange Act, 1909, is 
 inserted as Extract 40. 
 
 For the provisions of the Natural Insurance Act of 191 1 affect- 
 ing unemployment, see infra, Chapter X.] 
 
 Extract j6 
 
 REPORT OF POOR LAW COMMISSION, 1909 
 (Resumi from the "Annual Register") 
 
 The Report of the Poor Law Commission,^ published on 
 February 17, 1909, contained a majority and a minority report. 
 The former, signed with some reservations by fourteen of the 
 eighteen Commissioners, was largely statistical and historical, deal- 
 ing with the history of Poor Law administration before and since 
 1835, the causes of and remedies for unemployment, and the 
 reorganisation of charity; and it made 239 recommendations as 
 to reform. 
 
 Briefly, the majority of the Commissioners held that the Local 
 Government Board should have more direction and initiative in 
 assisting local authorities in relief; and that these latter should 
 be entirely reorganised. Boards of Guardians should be abolished 
 and replaced by a " Public Assistance Authority " in each county 
 or county borough, with Public Assistance Committees under it 
 with delegated powers, one Committee (in the first instance) in 
 each existing union area. The poor rate would be a county or 
 county borough rate. The Public Assistance Authority would be 
 a committee of the County or County Borough Council, half being 
 appointed from outside it, and consisting of persons experienced 
 in "public assistance" (the recommendations avoided the terms 
 
 I Annual Register, 1909, pp. 9 sqcj. 
 
1 88 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 " poor" and "charity"), and one-third retiring each year. Women 
 were to be eligible under either head. The Public Assistance 
 Committees were to be appointed by the authority, and to include 
 representatives of the local Urban and Rural District Councils, 
 and of the Local Voluntary Aid Committees of which the Report 
 contemplated the formation. Of these Public Assistance Com- 
 mittees at least one-third should ordinarily be women, and the 
 members should be experienced in " public assistance." One-third 
 should retire annually, but should be re-eligible. For London the 
 general scheme was modified as follows : half of that half of the 
 Public Assistance Authority which was to consist of non-members 
 of the County Council " skilled in public assistance " was to be 
 appointed by the Local Government Board, so as to secure repre- 
 sentation of the medical and legal professions, employers and 
 workmen, hospitals and charities, etc. ; and the Public Assistance 
 Committees would contain some borough councillors. The poor 
 rate, moreover, was to be made uniform throughout London. 
 
 The Public Assistance Committees in each area were to take 
 their powers from the Authority ; they were to inquire into cases 
 for assistance, administer aid in conjunction with the Voluntary 
 Aid Committees, and supervise the public charitable institutions 
 within their areas. These would be of seven kinds, the old work- 
 houses being abolished : institutions for (i) children, (2) the aged 
 and infirm, (3) the sick, (4) able-bodied men, (5) able-bodied women, 
 (6) vagrants, and (7) the feeble-minded and epileptic. In each 
 subordinate area, alongside the Public Assistance and Voluntary 
 Aid Committees, there was to be a Labour Exchange and a State- 
 aided organisation of unemployment insurance. The unemployed 
 would be dealt with by the Public Assistance Authority ; but those 
 who required detention and discipline, would be transferred to 
 Labour Colonies under the Home Department. 
 
 The Commission, while admitting many exceptions, found the 
 work of Boards of Guardians generally unsatisfactory, and con- 
 cluded that general workhouses, the consequence of the existing 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 1 89 
 
 small areas, were often ill-administered and normally demoralising. 
 Out-relief was given in doles, and often inadequately, and some- 
 times " subsidised dirt, disease and immorality." The elective sys- 
 tem failed to get a sufficiency of competent guardians, and little 
 interest was taken in the elections. It was claimed by the Com- 
 mission that their scheme would insure the co-operation of local 
 and private charity with the public authorities ; members of the 
 Public Assistance bodies would sit on the Voluntary Aid Commit- 
 tees and Councils, and vice versa, and the Charity Commission 
 would receive widened powers and be affiliated to the Local Gov- 
 ernment Board. In each county or county borough the Voluntary 
 Aid Committees would be under a council, formed under a scheme 
 approved by the Charity Commission, and containing, besides 
 members of the Public Assistance Authority, trustees of endowed 
 charities, representatives of registered voluntary charities, trade 
 associations, friendly societies and co-opted persons ; this body 
 would advise, and collect funds for, the Voluntary Aid Committees 
 in its area ; and these latter would aid cases unsuitable for public 
 assistance, or referred to them by the Public Assistance Committee 
 of their area. They would investigate, aid, visit, and register cases, 
 and would be eligible for grants from the Public Assistance 
 Authority, but would also raise money by subscription. Disfran- 
 chisement on account of public assistance would be confined to 
 those assisted for more than three months in the qualifying year, 
 and reception of medical relief should not disfranchise. Careful 
 classification of the recipients of relief, now officially to be described 
 as " necessitous," not " destitute," and different treatment of the 
 different classes, were throughout contemplated, and the appoint- 
 ment of a temporary commission under the Local Government 
 Board was recommended to bring the new system into working. 
 
 One of the most impressive portions of the Majority Report 
 dealt with unemployment and the efforts hitherto made to relieve 
 it. It was pointed out that in spite of improvements in economic 
 conditions, machinery and the stress of competition demanded 
 
IQO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 more skill than most workmen possessed, and tended to throw out 
 men at an increasingly early age. Thus there was a mass of casual 
 unskilled labor, swelled by the skilled men thrown out of work by 
 changes in manufacture ; there were no means of getting such 
 men fresh employment, and the total amount of the unskilled 
 labour was unknown. The workhouse and labour-yard tended to 
 produce inefficiency and degrade the efficient ; outdoor relief, un- 
 employed relief funds, and municipal relief works were similarly 
 unsatisfactory and tended to cpncentrate instead of dispersing in- 
 efficient casual labour ; the Unemployed Act of 1905, while useful 
 in that it prepared for a diagnosis of the evil and a classification 
 afld dispersal of the unemployed, had in fact perpetuated the old 
 evils of provision for the casual labourer by relief works and had 
 failed to continue to attract charitable funds. The Commission 
 saw remedies for unemployment: (i) in better education, a higher 
 age for leaving school, and means for diverting boys from unskilled 
 occupations ending with manhood (an evil on which special stress 
 was laid), by technical training, and advice to parents ; (2) in a 
 national system of Labour Exchanges, in the " regularisation of 
 employment " by public bodies (in getting their own work done at 
 slack times) and in Unemplo)fment Assurance, which should be 
 voluntary, and conducted by trade unions and provident organisa- 
 tions subsidised by the State. For the various classes of unem- 
 ployed various treatment was proposed, including detention for 
 the loafers and emigration. 
 
 The Minority Report of 500 pages, signed by four Com- 
 missioners, — the Rev. H. Russell Wakefield, Mr. F. Chandler, 
 Mr. George Lansbury, and Mrs. Sidney Webb, — started from the 
 same basic conceptions as the majority, but went a good deal further 
 and produced a more systematised and uniform scheme. Holding 
 that the regular " destitution authorities " — the Boards of Guard- 
 ians — were having their work overlapped and encroached on by 
 "specialised authorities," i.e., the Education, Health and Asylums 
 Committees of the County and Borough Councils, and the Old 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 191 
 
 Age Pensions Committees, and also by unsystematised charitable 
 work of various descriptions, the minority held that the functions 
 of the Guardians (and the poor law functions of the Scottish 
 Parish Councils) should be transferred to the County or County 
 Borough Council and exercised through its Committees. The pro- 
 vision for the able-bodied and the non-able-bodied requiring relief 
 should be wholly separated, the latter being dealt with by the Com- 
 mittees of the Council ; and under each County or County Borough 
 Council there should be a registrar of Public Assistance with a 
 staff, who should register cases requiring relief, assess and recover 
 the charges made by Parliament for the purpose, and sanction the 
 grants of " Home Aliment " proposed by the committee. The 
 various committees would be under separate Government depart- 
 ments. The duty of organising the national labour market so as 
 to prevent or minimise unemployment should be laid on a special 
 Ministry of Labour, which should arrange a ten years' programme 
 of Government work, to cost ;^4,ooo,ooo a year, but to be under- 
 taken only in " the lean years of the trade cycle," and carried out 
 by ordinary labour paid at ordinary local rates. 
 
 The chances of acceptance of the Minority Report were obvi- 
 ously remote.^ Towards the vast schemes of the Majority Report 
 a beginning was made during the session of 1909 by the Labour 
 Exchanges Bill ; the rest was left for future years. 
 
 Extract jy 
 
 GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS ON UNEMPLOYMENT 
 
 {Mr. Winston Churchill., President of the Board of Trade, Commons, 
 May ig, igog) 
 
 Mr. Churchill ^ : I am indebted to my hon. Friend [Mr. 
 Pickersgill] whose Motion occupies the Paper this evening for the 
 opportunity which his Motion affords of making some statement 
 
 1 Cf. Annual Register, 1909, pp. 9 sqq. 
 
 2 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 5, col. 499 sqtj. 
 
192 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 upon the subject of unemployment and the measures to be taken 
 to cope with that problem on behalf of the Government. 
 
 There are three Departments in the State which are in the main 
 concerned with the Motion which the hon. Member has brought 
 forward. They are the Home Office, the Local Government Board, 
 and the Board of Trade, and each Department is concerned with 
 a different part of that problem. The Home Office is concerned 
 with the regulatory and disciplinary aspect, with the Factory Acts, 
 and so on. The Board of Trade is concerned with the organisa- 
 tion of industry, so far as the Government may properly concern 
 itself with the organisation of industry, and the Local Government 
 Board is the Department which deals with relief, with curative and 
 relieving processes apart from the functions of the other two 
 Departments that I have mentioned. 
 
 And it is with the organisation section of the problem that it 
 will be my duty to deal as President of the Board of Trade, and 
 any suggestions or proposals which I may submit in the course of 
 this Debate are concerned with organisation, and with organisation 
 alone. They do not extend to other aspects of the problem, in 
 some of which my right hon. Friend is deeply and actively con- 
 cerned at the present time, but only with this one aspect of organ- 
 isation ; and the proposals which I shall venture to submit to the 
 House must not, I ask, be judged as if they were an attempt to 
 cover the whole field of these larger questions, but must only be 
 judged in so far as they deal with that particular sphere which 
 falls to the province of the Board of Trade. 
 
 The first proposal which I think emerges from the argument of 
 the hon. Gentleman is the proposal to establish a system of labour 
 exchanges, and I hope to ask the House to-morrow for permission 
 to introduce a Bill for the establishment of a national system of 
 labour exchanges. 
 
 There is high authority for such a measure. The Majority and 
 Minority Reports of the Poor Law Commission, differing in so 
 much, agreeing in so little, are agreed unanimously in advocating 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 193 
 
 a system of labour exchanges as the first step which should be 
 taken in coping with the problem of poverty and unemployment. 
 Conferences were held in London the other day by delegates who 
 represented 1,400,000 trade unionists who passed a resolution in 
 favour of this policy. The Central (Unemployed) Body, who are 
 equally concerned in these matters, have approved of that policy. 
 The delegates of the Labour party who went to Germany a few 
 months ago returned greatly impressed with the exchanges which 
 they saw at work in Germany. Economists as diverse in their opin- 
 ions as Professor Ashley, of Birmingham, and Professor Chapman, 
 of Manchester — leading exponents of Tariff Reform and of Free 
 Trade — have all publicly testified in favour of such proposals ; 
 and several prominent Members of the Front Opposition Bench 
 have in public, either in evidence before the Commission or in 
 speeches in the country, expressed themselves as supporters of 
 such a policy. The argument from authority is reinforced by the 
 argument from example, because as early as 1904 Germany, Austria, 
 Switzerland, France, and Belgium all exhibited the system of public 
 labour exchanges and public labour bureaux in full working order ; 
 and since 1904 Norway has also adopted some application of that 
 system. Mr. Bliss, who was sent over by the Government of the 
 United States to investigate the conditions and methods of dealing 
 with unemployment in European countries last year, has, in the 
 May bulletin for last year of the Washington Bureau of Labour, 
 surveyed the whole field of unemployment organisations in Euro- 
 pean countries and has come to the conclusion that a principal 
 element in the methods by which that difficulty may be success- 
 fully treated lies in the establishment of public labour exchanges ; 
 and he draws great attention to the rapid and successful develop- 
 ment in the last fifteen years of the system in Germany. So we 
 not only have the practical consensus of opinion of all authorities, 
 irrespective of party, irrespective of the point of view in this country 
 in favour of such a system, but we have the evidence of the success- 
 ful practice of the greatest industrial community on the Continent 
 
194 BRITISH SOQIAL POLITICS 
 
 and its continuous extension in different forms and under different 
 circumstances to many other countries of the Continent of Europe. 
 
 With such argument from authority and example it is hardly 
 necessary to submit the case upon its merits, but there are two 
 general defects in the industrial position of this country which are 
 singled out by the Royal Commission, the lack of mobility of labour 
 and the lack of information about all these questions of unemploy- 
 ment. For both of these defects the policy of labour exchanges 
 is calculated to afford a remedy. Modem industry is national. The 
 facilities of transport and communication knit the country together 
 as no country has ever been knitted before. Labour alone has 
 not profited by this improved organisation. The method by which 
 labour obtains its market to-day is the old method, the demoralising 
 method of personal application, hawking labour about from place 
 to place, and treating a "job as if it were a favour — looking at it 
 as if it were a favour, as a thing which places a man under an 
 obligation when he has got it. Labour exchanges will increase the 
 mobility of labour, but to increase the mobility of labour is not to 
 increase the movement of labour. To increase the mobility of 
 labour is only to render the movement of labour when it has 
 become necessarily less painful. The movement of labour when 
 it is necessary should be effected with the least friction, the least 
 suffering, the least loss of time and of status to the individual who 
 is called upon by the force of economic conditions to move. It 
 would be a great injustice to the policy of labour exchanges if it 
 were supposed that it would be the cause of sending workmen gad- 
 ding about from pillar to post throughout the country, whereas the 
 only result of the policy will be, not to make it necessary for any 
 man to move who does not need to move to-day, but to make it 
 easy for him to move the moment the ordinary economic events 
 arise which make the movement necessary. 
 
 There is another thing in connection with labour exchanges. 
 They will not to any large extent create new employment. In so 
 far as facilities for getting labour on particular occasions sometimes 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED I95 
 
 lead to extra men being taken on, they will increase employment. 
 That, however, is only a very small result. They will not directly 
 add to the volume of employment. I never contemplated that they 
 should. It would be to invest the policy with an air of humbug if 
 we were to pretend that labour exchanges are going to make more 
 work. They are not. What they are going to do is to organise 
 the existing labour, to reduce the friction which has attended the 
 working of the existing economic and industrial system ; by reduc- 
 ing the friction of that system we cannot help raising the general 
 standard of economic life. 
 
 As to lack of information, labour exchanges must afford infor- 
 mation of the highest value in the sphere of social subjects on 
 which we are lamentably ill-informed. In proportion as this sys- 
 tem comes to be used, it will afford us accurate contemporary in- 
 formation about the demand for labour, both as to the quantity and 
 the quality of that demand, as between one trade and another, and 
 as between one district and another, and as between one season 
 and another, and one cycle and another. It will enable us to tell 
 workmen in search of work where to go, and it will also enable us, 
 which is not the least important, to tell them where not to go. Over 
 and over again at the present time men are led by the rumours of 
 work. They crowd into a district, to find that there is no gratifica- 
 tion of their hope, and, if there is gratification, it is wholly insuffi- 
 cient for the numbers who have been led to make that desultory 
 pilgrimage. In association with the school employment bureaux 
 which so many educational authorities are now starting in Scotland, 
 and to a lesser extent in England, we hope that the system of 
 labour exchanges will have the effect of enabling us to guide to 
 some extent a new generation into the trades which are not over- 
 stocked and which are not declining, and to prevent the exploi- 
 tation of boy labour, to which the hen. Member for Leicester 
 [Mr. Ramsay Macdonald] has referred. 
 
 So far as local and accidental unemployment is concerned, by 
 which I mean unemployment in one place when there is a demand 
 
196 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 for labour in another, the labour exchanges will undoubtedly diminish 
 that evil. They are, further, the only method of grappling with the 
 evils of casual employment, which are singled out by the Royal 
 Commission as being the original fountain of so many of the 
 greatest evils in our social life. We hope that they will help to 
 the process of dovetailing one seasonal trade into another, so that 
 people who are always slack at a particular season in one trade 
 may acquire in some cases a secondary trade which is only brisk 
 at that season, and which will enable them to obtain a uniform 
 average in the economy of their domestic life. 
 
 Labour exchanges, by dispensing with the need of wandering 
 in search of work, will render it for the first time possible to deal 
 stringently with vagrants. I am quite sure that those who know 
 the sort of humiliation to which the genuine workingman is sub- 
 ject, by being very often indistinguishable from one of the class 
 of mere loafers and vagrants, will recognise as of great importance 
 any steps which can sharply and irretrievably divide the two classes 
 in our society. 
 
 Lastly, labour exchanges are indispensable to any system of 
 unemployment insurance, or, indeed, I think to any other honour- 
 able method of relieving unemployment, since it is not possible to 
 make the distinction between the vagrant and the loafer on the one 
 hand and the bona fide workman on the other, except in conjunc- 
 tion with some elaborate and effective system of testing willingness 
 to work such as is afforded by the system of labour exchanges. 
 
 I shall to-morrow have an opportunity of asking the permission 
 of the House to introduce this Bill, and we present it to the 
 House as a piece of social machinery, nothing more and nothing 
 less, the need of which has long been apparent, and the want of 
 which has been widely and cruelly felt by large numbers of our 
 fellow countrymen. I said a little earlier that we might profit by 
 the example of Germany, but we may do more, we may improve 
 on the example of Germany. The German system of labour ex- 
 changes, although co-ordinated and encouraged by the State and 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 197 
 
 by the Imperial Government, is, nevertheless, mainly municipal in 
 its character. Starting here with a clear field, and with the advan- 
 tage of experience and of experiments in other lands, we may, I 
 think, begin at a higher level and on a larger scale than has been 
 done in any other country up to the present time. The utility of 
 a system of labour exchanges, like the utility of any other market, 
 increases with its range and scope, and we propose, as the first 
 principle of our system of labour exchanges, to adopt a plan which 
 shall be uniform and national in its character, and in that we are 
 supported both by the Minority and Majority Reports of the Royal 
 Commission on the Poor Law. 
 
 During the last few months a Departmental Committee has been 
 sitting at the Board of Trade elaborating details of this scheme, 
 and I am glad to tell the House and the hon. Members who moved 
 and seconded this Motion that those details are now very far ad- 
 vanced. We should propose, if the House assent to the Bill, to 
 divide the whole country into about ten divisions, each with a 
 Divisional Clearing House, and presided over by a divisional chief, 
 and all co-ordinated with a National Clearing House in London. 
 Distributed amongst those ten divisions will be between 30 and 
 40 first-class labour exchanges in towns of 100,000 or upwards, 
 and about 45 second-class labour exchanges in towns between 
 50,000 and 100,000, and 150 minor offices and sub-offices, third- 
 class labour exchanges, with waiting rooms, will be established in 
 the smaller centres. The control of this. system will be exercised 
 by the Board of Trade. In order to secure absolute impartiality 
 as between capital and labour, we propose that a joint Advisory 
 Committee should be established in every principal centre, on 
 which representatives of the workers and representatives of 
 the employers shall meet in equal numbers under an impartial 
 chairman. . . . 
 
 If Parliament should assent to the Bill this Session without undue 
 delay I should hope to bring this system of Labour Exchanges into 
 simultaneous operation all over the country so far as practicable in 
 
ig8 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the early months of next year. Temporary premises will be engaged 
 in the first instance ever3rwhere, but at the same time I think it 
 very important that we should have permanent premises. A build- 
 ing programme is being prepared by which we will erect so many 
 labour exchanges every year until in about ten years, so far as first- 
 class exchanges are concerned, we shall be permanently housed. 
 This has been all worked out in very careful detail. 
 
 The expense of this system will no doubt be considerable. The or- 
 dinary working of the system will not be less than about ;£'i7o,ooo 
 per year, and during the period when the building is going on 
 the expenditure will rise to about ;£'2oo,ooo per year, not ever above 
 ;^2 00,000 during the next ten years. We hope that the labour 
 exchanges will become industrial centres in each town. We hope 
 they will become a labour market, we hope they will become an 
 office where the Trade Board will hold its meetings as a natural 
 course, and that they will be open to trade unions, with whom we 
 desire to co-operate in every way on the closest and frankest terms, 
 while preserving our impartiality between capital and labour. We 
 hope that the trade unions will keep their vacant book in some 
 cases at the exchanges. We hope that the structure of those 
 exchanges will be such as to enable us to have rooms which can 
 be let to trade unions at a rent for benefit and other meetings so 
 as to avoid the necessity under which all but the strongest unions 
 lie at the present time — of conducting their meetings in licensed 
 premises. The exchanges may in some cases afford facilities for 
 washing, clothes mending, and for non-alcoholic refreshments to 
 persons who are attending them. Separate provision will be made 
 for men and for women, and for skilled and unskilled labour. Boy 
 labour will be dealt with in conjunction with the local education 
 authority, because we have no intention of allowing the commercial 
 side to override the educational side in regard to young people. 
 Travelling expenses can be advanced on loan, it is contem- 
 plated, to workmen by whom situations have been procured if the 
 Management Committee think fit. 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 19^ 
 
 1 do not want to go into all the details. They have been studied 
 very carefully, and I shall be prepared when we are at closer quar- 
 ters on the Bill to give the fullest information and to discuss without 
 restraint of any kind all those special aspects and points to which 
 I have referred. 
 
 So much for the policy of labour exchanges. That is a policy 
 complete in itself. It would be considerable if it stood alone, but 
 it does not stand alone. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer has announced in his Budget speech, the Govern- 
 ment propose to associate with the policy of labour exchanges 
 unemployment insurance. The hon. Member who moved this 
 Motion has referred particularly to the Minority Report. He knows 
 that the Minority Report advocates a system of compulsory labour 
 exchanges, that no person shall engage any man for less than a 
 month except through a labour exchange. That is not the pro- 
 posal we are making. We are making a proposal of voluntary 
 labour exchanges. I am quite ready to admit that no system of 
 voluntary labour exchanges by itself deals adequately with the 
 evils and difficulties of casual labour, but there is one reason 
 against compulsory labour exchanges at the present time. My hon. 
 Friend foresaw it. To establish a system of compulsory labour 
 exchanges, to eliminate casual labour, to divide among a certain 
 proportion of workers all available employment would absolutely 
 and totally cast out a surplus of unemployed, before you have made 
 preparation for dealing with that surplus, would be to cause an 
 administrative breakdown, and could not fail to be attended with 
 the gravest possible disaster. Therefore until poor law reform, 
 which falls to the Department of my right hon. Friend Mr. Burns, 
 and with which he and those who are working with him are engaged, 
 has made further progress, to establish a compulsory system of 
 labour exchanges would naturally increase and not diminish the 
 miseries with which we are seeking to cope. We have, therefore, 
 decided that our system of labour exchanges shall be voluntary in 
 its character. For that very reason there is a great danger, to which 
 
200 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 I have never shut my eyes, that the highest ranks of labour, skilled 
 workers, members of strong trade unions, would not think it nec- 
 essary to use the exchanges, but would use the very excellent appa- 
 ratus which they have established themselves, that this expensive 
 system of exchanges which we are calling into being would come 
 to be used only by the poorest of the workers in the labour markets 
 and, consequently, would gradually relapse and fall back into the 
 purely distress machinery, not economic machinery, from which 
 we are labouring to extricate and separate it. It is for that reason, 
 quite apart from the merits of the scheme of unemplo3rment insur- 
 ance, that the Government are very anxious to associate with their 
 scheme of labour exchanges a system of unemployment insurance. 
 If labour exchanges depend for their effective initiation or inau- 
 guration upon unemployment insurance being associated with them, 
 it is equally true to say that no scheme of unemployment insurance 
 can be worked except in conjunction with some apparatus for find- 
 ing work and testing willingness to work, like labour exchanges. 
 The two systems are complementary ; they are man and wife ; they 
 mutually support and sustain each other. 
 
 So I come to unemployment insurance. It is not practicable at 
 the present timg to establish a universal system of unemployment 
 insurance. It would be risking the policy to cast one's net so wide. 
 We, therefore, have to choose at the very outset of this subject 
 between insuring some workmen in all trades and insuring all 
 workmen in some trades. That is the first parting of the ways 
 upon unemployment insurance. In the first case we can have a 
 voluntary and in the second case a compulsory system. If you 
 adopt a voluntary system of unemployment insurance, you are 
 always exposed to this difficulty. The risk of unemployment varies 
 so much between man and man, according to their qualities ; 
 character, circumstances, temperament, demeanour towards their 
 superiors — these are all factors ; and the risk varies so much be- 
 tween man and man that a voluntary system of unemployment 
 insurance which the State subsidises always attracts those workers 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 20I 
 
 who are most likely to be unemployed. That is why all voluntary 
 systems have broken down when they have been tried, because they 
 accumulate a preponderance of bad risks against the insurance 
 office, which is fatal to its financial stability. On the other hand, 
 a compulsory system of insurance, which did not add to the con- 
 tribution of the workers a substantial contribution from outside, has 
 also broken down, because of the refusal of the higher class of 
 worker to assume unsupported a share of the burden of the weaker 
 members of the community. We have decided to avoid these diffi- 
 culties. Our insurance scheme will present four main features. It 
 will involve contributions from the workpeople and from the em- 
 ployers ; those contributions will be aided by a substantial subven- 
 tion from the State ; it will be insurance by trades, following the 
 suggestion of the Royal Commission ; and it will be compulsory 
 within those trades upon all, unionist and non-unionist, skilled and 
 unskilled, workmen and employers alike. The hon. Member for 
 Leicester [Mr. Ramsay Macdonald] with great force showed that 
 to confine a scheme of unemployment insurance merely to trade 
 unionists would be trifling with the subject. It would only be aiding 
 those who have been most able to aid themselves, without at the 
 same time assisting those who hitherto under existing conditions 
 have not been able to make any effective provision. 
 
 To what trades ought we, as a beginning, to apply our system 
 of compulsory contributory unemployment insurance ? There is a 
 group of trades well marked out for this class of treatment. They 
 are trades in which unemployment is not only high, but chronic, 
 for even in the best of times it persists ; where it is not only high, 
 and chronic, but marked by seasonal and cyclical fluctuations, and 
 wherever and howsoever it occurs it takes the form not of short 
 time or of any of those devices for spreading wages and equalising 
 or averaging risks, but of a total, absolute, periodical discharge of a 
 certain proportion of the workers. These are the trades to which, in 
 the first instance, we think the system of unemployment insurance 
 ought to be applied. The group of trades which we contemplate 
 
202 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 to be the subject of our scheme are these: house building and 
 works of construction, engineering, machine and tool making, ship 
 and boat building, vehicles, sawyers, and general labourers working 
 at these trades. 
 
 Mr. Ramsay Macdonald : Is the engineering civil engineering 
 or mechanical ? 
 
 Mr. Churchill . The whole group of mechanical engineering 
 trades. That is a very considerable group of industries. They 
 comprise, according to the last Census Reports, two and a quarter 
 millions of adult workers. Two and a quarter millions of adult 
 workers are, roughly speaking, one-third of the adult population of 
 these three kingdoms engaged in purely industrial work ; that is to 
 say, excluding commercial, professional, agricultural, and domestic 
 occupations. Of the remaining two-thirds of the adult industrial 
 population, nearly one-half are employed in the textile trades, in 
 mining, on the railways, in the merchant marine, and in other trades, 
 which either do not present the same features of unemplo)Tnent 
 which we see in the precarious trades, or which, by the adoption of 
 short time or other arrangements, avoid the total discharge of a pro- 
 portion of workmen from time to time. So that this group of trades 
 to which we propose to apply the system of unemployment insur- 
 ance, roughly speaking, covers very nearly half of the whole field 
 of unemployment. That half, on the whole, is perhaps the worst 
 half. The financial and actuarial basis of the scheme has been very 
 carefully studied by the light of all available information. The re- 
 port of the actuarial authorities whom I have consulted leaves me 
 no doubt that, even after all allowance has been made for the fact 
 that unemployment may be more rife in the less organised and 
 less highly skilled trades than in the trade unions who pay unem- 
 ployment benefits, — that is a fact which is not proved, and which 
 I am not at all convinced of, — there is no doubt whatever that a 
 financially sound scheme can be evolved which, in return for mod- 
 erate contributions, will yield adequate benefits. I am not going 
 to offer figures of contributions or benefits to the House at this 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 203 
 
 stage, though I should liot be unable to do so. I confine myself 
 to stating that we propose to aim at a scale of benefits which is 
 somewhat lower both in amount and in duration than those which 
 the strongest trade unions pay at the present time. Nevertheless, 
 they will be benefits which will afford substantial weekly payments 
 for a period which will cover by far the greater part of the period 
 of unemployment of all unemployed persons in this great group of 
 insured trades. In order to enable such a scale of benefits to be 
 paid it is necessary that we should raise something between 5d. 
 and 6d. — rather nearer 6d. than 5d. — per man per week. That 
 sum, we propose, should be made up by contributions, not neces- 
 sarily equal, between the workman, the employer, and the State. 
 For such a sacrifice — and it is not, I think, an exorbitant one, 
 which, fairly adjusted, will not hamper industry nor burden labour, 
 nor cause an undue strain upon the public finances — we believe 
 it possible to relieve a vast portion of the industrial population of 
 these islands from that haunting dread and constant terror which 
 gnaws out the very heart of their prosperity and content. 
 
 The relation of the insurance scheme towards the unions must 
 be most carefully considered. We hope that there will be no diffi- 
 culty, as the discussion on this subject proceeds, in showing that we 
 safeguard all the institutions which have made voluntary efforts 
 in this direction from anything like the unfair competition of a 
 national insurance fund. More than that, we believe that the pro- 
 posals which we shall make, when they are brought forward in 
 detail, will act as a powerful encouragement to all voluntary agen- 
 cies to adopt and extend the system of unemployment insurance. 
 Yes, but the House may say, What is the connection of all this 
 with labour exchanges ? I must apologise for detaining the House 
 so long — 
 
 Mr. John Ward: This is the most interesting part of your 
 speech. 
 
 Mr. Churchill : But the machinery of the insurance office has 
 been gone into with great detail, and we propose as at present 
 
204 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 advised to follow the German example of insurance cards or books, 
 to which stamps will be affixed every week. For as soon as a man 
 in an insured trade is without employment, if he has kept to the 
 rules of the system, all he will have to do is to take his card to the 
 nearest labour exchange, which will be responsible, in conjunction 
 with the insurance office, either for finding him a job or paying him 
 his benefits. 
 
 I am very glad, indeed, to have availed myself of the oppor- 
 tunity which my right hon. Friend has given me to submit this 
 not inconsiderable proposal in general outline, so that the Bill for 
 labour exchanges which I will introduce to-morrow may not be 
 misjudged as if it stood by itself, and was not part of a con- 
 sidered, co-ordinated, and connected scheme to grasp with this 
 hideous, crushing evil which has oppressed for so long the mind 
 of everyone who cares about social reform. 
 
 We cannot deal with the insurance policy this Session for five 
 reasons. We have not the time now. We have not got the 
 money yet. The finances of this insurance scheme have got to be 
 adjusted and interwoven with the finances of the other schemes 
 which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is 
 engaged upon now for dealing with various forms of invalidity and 
 other insurance. In the next place, labour exchanges are the nec- 
 essary preliminary. We must get the apparatus of the labour ex- 
 changes into working order before this system of insurance can 
 effectually be established or worked. Lastly, no such novel depart- 
 ure as a compulsory, contributory unemployment insurance in a 
 particular trade could possibly be adopted without a very much 
 fuller degree of consultation and negotiation with the parties con- 
 cerned than has been possible to us under the conditions of secrecy 
 under which we have necessarily been working. 
 
 In the autumn the Board of Trade will confer with all the parties 
 affected by the proposals which I have outlined to-night, and we 
 shall endeavour, while not making the production of our proposals 
 contingent upon their agreement, to secure as wide and as large a 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 205 
 
 measure of agreement as possible of all these parties, in order that 
 all our proposals may be received with as much consent as pos- 
 sible when next Session they are presented in their final form. 
 
 One word more. The prospect and pressure of these consider- 
 able duties have involved some rearrangement of the Labour De- 
 partment of the Board of Trade. I propose that that Department 
 should be divided in the future into three distinct sections. The 
 first section wiU deal with wages questions, arbitration, conciliation, 
 and with the Trade Boards, which will be set up under the Trade 
 Boards Bill if it should pass into law. The second section, will 
 deal with statistics, special inquiries, and with the Labour Gazette. 
 The third section will be occupied with labour exchanges and 
 unemployment insurance work in conjunction. One of the func- 
 tions of the last section will be to act as a kind of intelligence 
 bureau, watching the continual changes of the labour market here 
 and abroad, and suggesting any measure which may be practicable, 
 such as co-ordination and distribution of Government contracts and 
 municipal work, so as to act as a counterpoise to the unemploy- 
 ment of the labour market, and it will also, we trust, be able to 
 conduct examinations of schemes of public utility, so that such 
 schemes, if decided upon by the Government and the Treasury, 
 can be set on foot at any time with knowledge and consideration 
 beforehand, instead of the haphazard, hand-to-mouth manner with 
 which we try to deal with these emergencies at the present time. 
 
 That is a part of the policy I have unfolded to-night, which has 
 not reached the same stage of maturity as the other subjects with 
 which I have attempted to deal. I have only attempted to fore- 
 shadow them in the vaguest terms. ... I have not trespassed 
 at all upon the other no less important or scarcely less important 
 branches of this problem, and I am quite certain this Parliament 
 will gladly exert what strength remains to it in attempting to cope 
 with these hideous problems of social disorganisation and chaos 
 which are marring the happiness of our country, and which, unless 
 grappled with, may fatally affect its strength and its honour. 
 
206 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract j8 
 
 CONSERVATIVE POSITION ON UNEMPLOYMENT 
 {Mr. F. E. Smith, Commons, May ig, igogi) 
 
 Mr. Smith '■ : Nobody listening to the speech of the right hon. 
 Gentleman will make any complaint of the length at which he dealt 
 with this extremely important subject. He dealt with it in a man- 
 ner which I think all sections of the House will admit was worthy 
 of the importance of the subject. Perhaps, representing as I do 
 a Liverpool Constituency, in which there is a great deal of casual 
 labour, I may make one or two observations on the subject of the 
 Resolution before the House before I venture to address one or 
 two remarks to the compulsory insurance proposals which the right 
 hon. Gentleman has outlined. 
 
 So far as casual employment is concerned, the Resolution which 
 the House has now under consideration, I think probably all Mem- 
 bers of the House, wherever they sit, will agree that even a mere 
 superficial analysis would suggest the drawing of a distinction be- 
 tween cyclical fluctuations of unemployment which are produced 
 by general depression, and, in the second place, local and sectional 
 fluctuations produced by causes only merely local and, therefore, 
 more susceptible of local treatment. If one gives one's attention 
 for a moment to the case of cyclical fluctuations in trade, he will at 
 once find that he is face to face with the great question as to what 
 is the particular system in any particular country which is best 
 qualified to deal with the general difficulty of the depression in trade. 
 I do not propose to embarrass this debate at this stage with the 
 discussion of that question. I do not seek to introduce the subject 
 of Tariff Reform, or the subject of afforestation, or the subject of 
 labour colonies. Every one of these is extremely controversial, and 
 the value of any of them, if urged as a practical contribution to the 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 5, col. 512 sqq. 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 20/ 
 
 debate, would be hotly canvassed in some particular section of the 
 House. Perhaps, therefore, it will be better to pass by for the 
 purposes of a limited debate the whole general question of cyclical 
 fluctuation of unemployment, the reason of which it is extremely 
 difficult to discover, and, therefore, it is better to deal with the 
 question of local and sectional fluctuation, and see from this how 
 far the proposals indicated by the right hon. Gentleman in the Bill 
 he is about to introduce are likely to present anything in the nature 
 of a cure or at all events a palliation for this local and sectional 
 fluctuation. 
 
 I come from a constituency where casual labour is present. I 
 have given some careful attention to the subject and to the work 
 of the local labour exchanges in foreign countries, and I have no 
 hesitation in accepting the view which the right hon. Gentleman 
 has placed before the House that without undue sanguineness 
 you may look forward to labour exchanges to furnish considerable 
 palliative. It is extremely important that the House should clearly 
 understand what is the nature of the gain which they may reason- 
 ably count upon these labour exchanges to furnish. . . . 
 
 Let us take a simple illustration, and then reduce it to a con- 
 crete case. Take the case of one employer who employs ten men 
 on Monday and another who employs ten men in the same class of 
 employment on Tuesday. If there is no such organisation as that 
 contemplated by the labour exchanges, the result will be you will 
 have twenty men partially employed on those two days. The ejcpress 
 object of the organisation and the labour exchanges is that instead 
 of having twenty men partially employed, you will have ten men fully 
 employed. It is quite true that the labour is decasualised, and I 
 am one of those who contemplate the economic consequences as a 
 whole that society gets by the decasualisation of the whole of that 
 labour. But it is very important that all engaged in attempting to 
 suggest remedies for unemployment should realise what would be 
 involved in the decasualisation of that labour in order to measure 
 the admitted gains with the disadvantages, which cannot certainly 
 
208 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS , 
 
 be disputed. It follows that decasualisation of the kind contem- 
 plated in this Resolution replaces ten half-employed men by five 
 fully-employed men. If you are going to decasualise labour in that 
 way, if you are going to see that the men who are doing that 
 constant amount of labour shall have it more widely distributed, it 
 follows that you are going to replace ten half-employed men by 
 five fully-employed men. 
 
 The right hon. Gentleman stated very modestly that conclusion 
 when he said that he did not claim that labour exchanges would 
 add to employment. I think he might have stated it more strongly, 
 because not only will the establishment of labour exchanges not add 
 to employment, but if they are to serve the only purpose which 
 they can economically serve, the necessary consequence of their 
 establishment must be actually to diminish employment. I recognise 
 that, and although I do so, I still do* not hesitate to say that the 
 Bill which the right hon. Gentleman is going to produce is one 
 well worth introducing and worthy of the support of the House. 
 The reason which I venture to offer to the House for that view is 
 that, in my opinion, it is far better in the interests of society as a 
 whole that you should have ten men fully paid and fully nour- 
 ished than twenty men partially paid and partially nourished. It is 
 clear that under this system you will not be able to supply even 
 partial labour for as large a number of workers as you find partial 
 work for to-day, and you are bound to increase the number of 
 men who will have to appeal for corrective treatment or outdoor 
 relief. I think it is important that those who are pressing forward 
 this proposal to start labour exchanges should realise that the in- 
 evitable economic consequence of establishing those exchanges 
 will be that you will diminish the number of men who can find 
 work of any kind, although you are going to give them a larger 
 living wage. 
 
 The right hon. Gentleman has touched upon a much more dif- 
 ficult question in regard to compulsory insurance. Now, Sir, I 
 do not desire for a single moment to underrate the difficulties of 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 209 
 
 compulsory insurance, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentle- 
 man will find himself confronted with very serious opposition from 
 these benches, because during the discussions on old age pensions 
 my hon. Friends here on this side of the House pressed upon the 
 Government that compulsory contributions would be a reasonable 
 basis for the system. We were told that there was something 
 un-English in such a proposal — that is, the proposal of compul- 
 sory contribution. Speaking for myself, I was never convinced by 
 that argument, and I am unable to see why if the working classes 
 would never consent to a system of compulsory contributions for 
 old age pensions, the Government are entitled to suppose that 
 they will consent to compulsory contributions to provide against 
 unemployment. Speaking for myself, I am convinced that the true 
 and only method lies on the lines which the right hon. Gentleman 
 has indicated. I do not think that compulsory contribution to any- 
 thing can be easily made. But I do venture to think that the pro- 
 posal which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested to the House 
 is such that all sections of the House may unite in supporting it. 
 It is a proposal, whether popular or unpopular, which will conduce 
 to the interests of the working classes. 
 
 Extract jg 
 
 LABOUR PARTY'S ATTITUDE TOWARD UNEMPLOYMENT 
 
 (Mr. Arthur Henderson, Commons, May ig, jgog) 
 
 Mr. Henderson ^ • . . . I have risen for the purpose of giving 
 a very general but a very hearty welcome to the statement which 
 the President has made. I regret exceedingly that the House 
 was not much fuller to listen to what, in my opinion, has been, 
 so far as the great majority of the people in all our constituencies 
 are concerned, one of the most important, and what I believe 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 5, col. 518 sqq. 
 
2IO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 will prove to be one of the most far-reaching, statements which 
 have been delivered during the time I have been associated with 
 Parliament. I also rejoice at the statement made by the hon. and 
 learned Member for the Walton Division [Mr. F. E. Smith]. He 
 concluded by urging that this question should be kept as far as 
 possible on purely non-party lines. I think this is an excellent 
 beginning, for there is no social question that touches so vitally 
 the condition in which so many of our people are compelled to 
 live as this great problem of unemployment, and I think of all 
 questions this is the one that every section in this House should 
 strive to keep entirely apart from party bias. It is the problem 
 upon which we should centre the whole of our attention, in order 
 to find the best and most practical remedy. 
 
 We on these Benches may be pardoned if we feel slightly grati- 
 fied at the statement that the President has addressed to the 
 House. I think that statement contains the germs of some pro- 
 posals for which we have been striving in the Labour party for a 
 good many years past. I think we may feel almost ready to con- 
 gratulate ourselves that at last the Government have made a begin- 
 ning in taking out — I will put it in a very rough form — the Right 
 to Work Bill in penny numbers. I know the President would not 
 admit that. It would scarcely do for him to make such an admission 
 having regard to the attitude which the Government have always 
 taken up when this Bill of ours has been before the House, but I 
 think our Bill contained labour exchanges. It contained a form of 
 maintenance in the absence of work. I think our Bill made some 
 reference to insurance, and we are gratified to find that at last a 
 beginning is to be made, if not in the adoption of the complete 
 scheme, one which goes a long way in the direction that we have 
 suggested for some time past. 
 
 When I come to look at the two main principles which have been 
 outlined to us to-night, I am personally very pleased to find that 
 the Government are going to set up what I hope will be a com- 
 plete system of co-ordinating labour exchanges. I am well aware of 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 211 
 
 the objection which can be lodged against labour exchanges. They 
 do not provide, in a strict sense, work for the unemployed. The 
 only thing they do is, if there is a position going, it does not ne- 
 cessitate the demoralising tramping system, which, in my judgment, 
 has done more to reduce the status of the workmen of this coun- 
 try than anything else I know of. I venture to say that some men 
 have been compelled, in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining 
 information as to the condition of the labour market in other dis- 
 tricts than those in which they reside, to begin the tramping system, 
 and in beginning that system they have begun the demoralisation 
 of their own lives, and have gone so far down that they have never 
 again been able to get back to the former standard of their man- 
 hood. The German system, which, I believe, the President of the 
 Board of Trade is very closely following, is, in my judgment, excel- 
 lent, and it is almost impossible to describe to the House the dif- 
 ference of the condition of the unemployed workmen in Germany 
 and the condition that you find them in in this country. I believe 
 that it is very largely due to the fact that they have been able to 
 remain at home and to ascertain the actual condition of the labour 
 market, and that, if they have to move, they have been assisted 
 to move with their families, and have thus been kept free from 
 much of the demoralising associated with unemployment in our 
 own country. 
 
 As to the second proposal outlined, I must say that, whilst I 
 give to it a very cordial welcome, I regret that the Government 
 have not seen their way clear to make the scheme much more com- 
 prehensive. What I fear is that the scheme of insurance that has 
 been outlined will be largely prejudiced because some of the worst 
 trades in our present recurring periods of unemployment are not 
 to be included. Probably I may be answered by the Government 
 that in their scheme they have only included such trades as enable 
 them to get proper information upon which to base the actuarial 
 cost that would be incurred. But the Government at present espe- 
 cially should not lose sight of the fact that some of the trades not 
 
212 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 so highly organised, some of the trades which in days gone by were 
 not so hard hit by unemployment as they are to-day, will feel very 
 strongly Isecause they are left entirely out of any provision in con- 
 nection with this State insurance scheme. I should like to learn at 
 the earliest possible moment — for I did not notice anything in 
 the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on this point — 
 whether this scheme that is going to be set up is going to be re- 
 garded as purely temporary, and whether there is going to be 
 taken in the Bill provision for its easy extension, provided that 
 there is a desire expressed on the part of the other trades hardly 
 hit by unemployment that they should be included without the 
 necessity of going through the very long delay that often takes 
 place in the process of passing another Bill through both Houses 
 of Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Churchill . I may state that the Government contem- 
 plate taking power for the extension of the system in the event of 
 its succeeding — after all, that is the important point — to other 
 trades and industries suitable for it, provided that Parliament 
 approves of that extension and that money is available. 
 
 Mr. Henderson : I am delighted to hear the statement made 
 by the right hon. Gentleman. I think this will assist in modifying 
 very considerably the feeling of opposition that might have arisen 
 in connection with some of the trades that are not for the moment 
 included in the scheme. I have no doubt we will be told during 
 subsequent discussion that this is going to be a costly scheme. 
 Having regard to the fact that workmen are going to be included 
 and will have to contribute, that the employers will have to con- 
 tribute, and that the State itself is going to be associated with 
 what I venture to hope will be a very generous contribution, I 
 have no hesitation in saying that while the scheme may be to a 
 certain extent costly, the cost is not excessive. 
 
 There are other proposals that have been brought before the 
 House for the purpose of assisting to remedy this great unem- 
 ployed problem, as to which I do not say a single word of a 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 213 
 
 controversial character; but I have heard it suggested in this 
 House and in the country that we ought to go in for a larger naval 
 programme in order to assist in solving the unemployed problem. 
 When I consider this scheme of insurance I have no hesitation in 
 saying that, though it may be costly, it will be much more perma- 
 nent in character for good than any large scheme or programme 
 of armaments for the purpose of assisting the solution of this great 
 social problem. We welcome this scheme, not because we con- 
 sider it is a complete remedy for this problem. We welcome it 
 because we believe it is a beginning, and that it asserts in another 
 form than that outlined in our Bill the recognition by the State of 
 its obligations to make some provision for the relief and for the 
 maintenance of those who have been suffering so seriously from 
 unemployment in recent years, and on these grounds we shall 
 give it a general and most hearty support. And our only regret 
 is that the President has not seen his way to announce to the 
 House that not only the labour exchange portion of the scheme 
 but the insurance portion will be forced through Parliament dur- 
 ing the present Session. 
 
 Extract 40 
 
 LABOUR EXCHANGES ACT, 1909 
 
 (9 Edw. 7, ch. f) 
 
 An Act to provide for the establishment of Labour Exchanges and 
 for other purposes incidental thereto. 
 
 (20th September 1909) 
 
 Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 
 and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the 
 authority of the same, as follows : 
 
214 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 I. Power of Board of Trade 
 
 (i) The Board of Trade may establish and maintain, in such 
 places as they think fit, labour exchanges, and may assist any 
 labour exchanges maintained by any other authorities or persons, 
 and in the exercise of those powers may, if they think fit, co- 
 operate with any other authorities or persons having powers for 
 the purpose. 
 
 (2) The Board of Trade may also, by such other means as they 
 think fit, collect and furnish information as to employers requiring 
 workpeople and workpeople seeking engagement or employment. 
 
 (3) The Board of Trade may take ov.er any labour exchange 
 (whether established before or after the passing of this Act) by 
 agreement with the authority or person by whom the labour ex- 
 change is maintained, and any such authority or person shall have 
 power to transfer it to the Board of Trade for the purposes of 
 this Act. 
 
 (4) The powers of any central body or distress committee, and 
 the powers of any council through a special committee, to establish 
 or maintain, under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, a labour 
 exchange or employment register shall, after the expiration of one 
 year from the commencement of this Act, not be exercised except 
 with the sanction of, and subject to any conditions imposed by, the 
 Local Government Board for England, Scotland, or Ireland, as 
 the case may require, and that sanction shall not be given except 
 after consultation with the Board of Trade. 
 
 2. Regulations and Management 
 
 (i) The Board of Trade may make general regulations with re- 
 spect to the management of labour exchanges . established or as- 
 sisted under this Act, and otherwise with respect to the exercise 
 of their powers under this Act, and such regulations may, subject 
 to the approval of the Treasury, authorise advances to be made by 
 way of loan towards meeting the expenses of workpeople travelling 
 
THE UNEMPLOYED 215 
 
 to places where employment has been found for them through a 
 labour exchange. 
 
 (2) The regulations shall provide that no person shall suffer any 
 disqualification or be otherwise prejudiced on account of refusing 
 to accept employment found for him through a labour exchange 
 where the ground of refusal is that a trade dispute which affects 
 his trade exists, or that the wages offered are lower than those 
 current in the trade in the district where the employment is found. 
 
 (3) Any general regulations made under this section shall have 
 effect as if enacted in this Act, but shall be laid before both Houses 
 of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and, if either 
 House of Parliament within the next forty days duririg the session 
 of Parliament after any regulations have been so laid before that 
 House resolves that the regulations or any of them ought to be 
 annulled, the regulations or those to which the resolution applies 
 shall, after the date of such resolution, be of no effect, without 
 prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime under 
 the regulations or to the making of any new regulations. 
 
 (4) Subject to any such regulations, the powers of the Board 
 of Trade under this Act shall be exercised in such manner as the 
 Board of Trade may direct. 
 
 (5) The Board of Trade may, in such cases as they think fit, 
 establish advisory committees for the purpose of giving the Board 
 advice and assistance in connexion with the management of any 
 labour exchange. 
 
 J. Petialties for making False Statements 
 
 If any person knowingly makes any false statement or false 
 representation to any officer of a labour exchange established un- 
 der this Act, or to any person acting for or for the purposes of 
 any such labour exchange, for the purpose of obtaining employ- 
 ment or procuring workpeople, that person shall be liable in respect 
 of each offence on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten 
 pounds. 
 
2l6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 4.. Expenses of the Board of Trade 
 
 The Board of Trade may appoint such officers and servants for 
 the purposes of this Act as the Board may, with the sanction of 
 the Treasury, determine, and there shall be paid out of moneys 
 provided by Parliament to such officers and servants such salaries 
 or remuneration as the Treasury may determine, and any expenses 
 incurred by the Board of Trade in carrying this Act into effect, 
 including the payment of travelling and other allowances to mem- 
 bers of advisory committees and other expenses in connexion there- 
 with, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall 
 be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. 
 
 5. Interpretation 
 
 In this Act the expression " labour exchange " means any office 
 or place used for the purpose of collecting and furnishing infor- 
 mation, either by the keeping of registers or otherwise, respecting 
 employers who desire to engage workpeople and workpeople who 
 seek engagement or emplo)mient. 
 
 6. Skort Title 
 This Act may be cited as the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 SWEATED LABOUR 
 
 [How to remove the worst evils resulting from long hours and 
 low wages had disturbed the minds of British statesmen for a long 
 time. Many philanthropists like Oastler, Hobhouse, Sadler, Kings- 
 ley, and the Earl of Shaftesbury laboured to improve the situation ; 
 and a Select Committee of the House of Lords made an elaborate 
 investigation extending over the years 1888 to i8go. The Report 
 of this Select Committee, which aroused a good deal of public in- 
 terest and sympathy, stated, among other things, that without being 
 able to assign an exact meaning to sweating, the evils known by 
 that name were: (i) an unduly low rate of wages; (2) excessive 
 hours of labour ; (3) an unsanitary state of the houses in which 
 work was carried on. 
 
 The situation with regard to low wages was summed up by the 
 Select Committee as follows : 
 
 It may be said that the inefficiency of the workers, early marriages, and 
 the tendency of the residuum of the population in large towns to form a 
 helpless community, together with a low standard of life and the excessive 
 sfipply of unskilled labour, are the chief factors in producing sweating. 
 Moreover, a large supply of cheap female labour is available by the fact 
 that married women working at unskilled labour in their homes, in the in- 
 tervals between attending to their domestic duties, and not wholly support- 
 ing themselves, can afford to work at what would be starvation wages to 
 unmarried women. Such being the conditions of the labour market, abun- 
 dant materials exist to supply the unscrupulous employer with his wretched 
 dependent workers.' 
 
 1 Fifth Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Sweat- 
 ing System (1890), p. cxxxv, 
 
 217 
 
2l8 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 After the publication of the report, an Anti-Sweating League 
 was formed with the purpose of securing the parliamentary enact- 
 ment of a minimum wage for workers in sweated industries and 
 trades. Prior to 1906 several unsuccessful attempts were made to 
 prevail upon the Unionist party to sponsor some form of minimum . 
 wage bill. 
 
 On February 21, 1908, Mr. George Toulmin introduced in the 
 House of Commons a bill designed to establish wages boards with 
 power to fix the minimum wage for workers in certain scheduled 
 trades, the Home Secretary having power to add to the schedule. 
 The Boards would be composed of representatives of employers 
 and employed in equal numbers, with a chairman chosen by the 
 members or nominated by the Home Secretary. Payment of the 
 minimum wage would be enforced through the factory inspectors, 
 the payment of less being punished by imprisonment. Mr. Toul- 
 min gave some pitiable instances of underpayment and stated 
 that a similar law worked well in Australia. The Bill was opposed 
 by many Unionists, including Sir F. Banbury, as the thin end of 
 the Socialistic wedge, but it was accepted in principle by several 
 Unionists and Tariff Reformers, including Mr. Lyttelton, and also 
 by Mr. Herbert Gladstone, the Home Secretary, whose suggestion 
 that it be referred to the Select Committee on Home Work, was 
 adopted. 
 
 Early in 1909 two attempts, independent of the Government, were 
 made to deal with the problem of sweating : Mr. H. H. Marks, a 
 Unionist and Protectionist, unsuccessfully moved on March 23 for 
 leave to bring in a bill providing that when a minimum rate 
 of wages in any trade had been established by law or custom, 
 it should be protected from the competition of goods produced 
 abroad by sweated or lower-paid labour; and Mr. Hills, another 
 Unionist, moved the second reading of a bill on March 26 to create 
 wages boards of employers and employed to fix a minimum wage 
 for tailoring, dressmaking, shirtmaking and certain other trades, to 
 be designated by the Home Secretary. The debate on this Bill 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 219 
 
 was eventually adjourned pending the debate on the Government 
 Bill, which had been introduced by Mr. Winston Churchill, President 
 of the Board of Trade, on March 24 {Extract 41), and which pro- 
 ceeded along similar lines, save that the administrative machinery 
 provided for in Mr. Churchill's Bill was by devolution of powers from 
 the Board of Trade, while Mr. Hills' measure began from below. 
 
 The second reading of the Government Bill (the Trade Boards 
 Bill) was moved by Mr. H. J. Tennant, the Parliamentary Secre- 
 tary to the Board of Trade, on April 28 {Extract 42). He reminded 
 the House of the prevalence of the evils of sweating established 
 by the Home Work Committee of igo8, and declared that the 
 Bill would apply only to exceptional industries, unorganised, im- 
 mobile, and carried on under unhealthy economic conditions. It 
 was an experiment and a revolution, the first modern proposal 
 of Government machinery for settling and enforcing 'the rate of 
 wages. He called attention to the action taken by Continental 
 Governments, and thought some agreement with them might be 
 reached. Mr. Lyttelton supported the Bill in a sympathetic speech, 
 but with some reservations, chiefly as to the powers to be given to 
 the Board of Trade ; Mr. Marks renewed his effort to raise the 
 Tariff Reform issue, and after other speeches Mr. Balfour insisted 
 {Extract 43) on certain difficulties, especially that set up by for- 
 eign competition, but supported the second reading ; to these 
 Mr. Churchill replied that other nations were taking" steps to deal 
 with sweating, and that wages might be raised without affecting 
 prices, to which, indeed, the wages paid often bore no relation. 
 Mr. T. F. Richards, a workingman member of Parliament, urged 
 , {Extract 44) that the measure be made more comprehensive. 
 
 It may be added that the Bill went to a Standing Committee, 
 and was' reported to the House and read a third time on July 16. 
 A Labour attempt was made unsuccessfully to provide for the in- 
 clusion of other trades besides those scheduled ; and the foreign 
 competition question was again raised unsuccessfully by Mr. H. H. 
 Marks. The Bill was extended by a provision that an employer 
 
220 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 convicted of paying wages below the minimum rate might also be 
 ordered to make up the deficient wages ; and a clause relating to 
 sub-contracting was dropped. In the House of Lords, the Bill 
 passed second reading on August 30 and third reading on Septem- 
 ber 20; on the former occasion, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell ex- 
 pressed the Government view {Extract 43) and the Marquess of 
 Salisbury that of the Opposition {Extract 46). Royal assent was 
 accorded the Bill on October 20. 
 
 The Bill, enacted as the Trade Boards Act, 1909, is Extract 4^.] 
 
 Extract ^i 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF THE TRADE BOARDS BILL 
 
 (Mr. Winston Churchill^ President of the Board of Trade, Commons, 
 March 24, igog; Sir Frederick Banbury, ibid.) 
 
 Mr. Churchill ■':... The central principle of the Trade 
 Boards Bill is the establishment of Trade Boards in certain trades 
 where the evils known as sweating prevail, and the fixing by those 
 particular Boards of a minimum standard of wages, and the en- 
 forcement by those Trade Boards of that minimum when fixed. 
 
 The Trade Boards set up under this Bill will exercise other 
 functions besides their particular statutory functions of fixing a 
 minimum rate of wages. They will be a centre of information, 
 and I hope they will become the foci of organisation. As centres 
 of information they may as time goes on be charged with some 
 other aspects of the administration of the work of the trades, with 
 the question of the training of the workers, and also they will be 
 able to afford information upon the subject of unemployment. 
 They will generally be not merely boards for the purpose of fixing 
 the minimum rate of wages, for that is their primary purpose, but 
 boards designed to nourish, as far as possible, the interests of the 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 2, col. 1787 sqq. 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 221 
 
 workers, the health, and the state of the industry of each particular 
 trade in which they operate. 
 
 The trades which will be scheduled under the Bill, and to which 
 the Bill will at once apply, are these : the tailoring trade, — but let 
 me say that after very careful examination we have arrived at a 
 correct definition of those portions of the tailoring trade to which 
 the Act should apply, that is, the ready-made and wholesale be- 
 spoke, — the trade of cardboard-box making, machine-made-lace 
 and finishing trade, and the ready-made-blouse-making trade. 
 Those are the trades that are scheduled under the Bill for a 
 beginning ; but power is taken in the Bill to extend the pro- 
 visions of the Bin to other trades by an Order which acquires 
 validity when it has lain on the table of the House unchallenged 
 for thirty days. So much for the scope of the Bill. 
 
 There are two methods by which Trade Boards may be called 
 into being. You may make local Trade Boards in the different dis- 
 tricts. Then you may federate all those Trade Boards and form a 
 Central Council ; or, on the other hand, you can have a Trade Board 
 which would give the duties and power to local Trade Boards or 
 local committees, which are set up in the particular districts by 
 the trade. Having to choose between the principle of devolution 
 and federation of local bodies into a central body, we have chosen 
 devolution from the central body. It is of very great importance 
 that the balance should be held evenly between one district and 
 another in some of those trades. Therefore, I felt any assistance 
 of this character must be gripped and co-ordinated strictly from 
 the centre in each trade. 
 
 The Trade Board, having been formed in any trade, establishes 
 a district trade committee. The district trade committee will con- 
 sist of local representatives of the employers and of the work- 
 men, and a proportionate number of the Central Trade Board. 
 The Trade Board itself will also be composed of the representa- 
 tives of the employers and of the workers, and the Trade Board 
 in any trade will have three expert paid official members, salaried 
 
222 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 official members, and, I trust, where women arelargely employed, 
 at least one of those members shall always be a woman. Those 
 official members are the link we are relying on to couple together 
 and strengthen the local organisations and to procure, with a gen- 
 eral view to that harmony of action which is essential, that the 
 provisions of this Bill are really to be useful and effective. The 
 official members of the Central Trade Boards will also be mem- 
 bers of the district trade committees, and the official member of 
 the district trade committee will occupy the chair whenever that 
 committee meets. 
 
 Great latitude is taken by the Board of Trade in regard to the 
 processes by which those Trade Boards are called into existence. 
 We give power by any method — by election, and where the ma- 
 terials for election do not exist, and those who have studied this 
 question know that in many cases they do not exist, we take the 
 power to proceed ... as circumstances may direct. . . . 
 
 The Bill applies, indeed is indispensable, not only to home 
 workers, but to factory workers, and that is obviously necessary. 
 To screw up by those special and ■ artificial means the position of 
 the home worker, while leaving the factory untouched, would be 
 to improve the lot of the home worker by a process which in prac- 
 tice would be very harsh. The Bill allows the different treatment 
 to be applied simultaneously to the home workers and factory 
 workers in any district. A minimum time-rate will be the general 
 basis, and to that minimum time-rate all piece-rates will be referred. 
 It will be open to the Trade Boards to fix the general minimum 
 piece-rates in regard to articles more or less standard in their char- 
 acter and regularly produced. It will be open to an employer to go 
 to the Trade Board and ask for a special minimum in regard to 
 any special class of work he has on hand. It will be open for the 
 Trade Board to fix different piece-rates and in some cases different 
 time-rates for the whole of the factory workers in any particular 
 district. All these rates will be co-ordinated as between district and 
 district by the general division of the Trade Board, 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 223 
 
 Now, I have dealt with the scope, and I have dealt with the 
 machinery, and I propose to deal with the procedure. The dis- 
 trict trade committee — that is, the local body in session, with 
 its official members — recognises minimum time piece-rates. The 
 Trade Board of the whole trade considers those in all their bear- 
 ings from a central point of view, and, after an interval to hear 
 objections, amends, approves, and finally prescribes. Thereupon 
 the minimum, when prescribed by the Trade Board, will become 
 obligatory on Government and municipal contractors, and in all 
 cases the wages specified are recoverable as a civil debt in the 
 absence of a written contract to the contrary. The rates will be 
 posted in a manner similar to the notices under the Factory Acts, 
 and a white list, accessible to the public, will be formed of manu- 
 facturers voluntarily agreeing to be bound under penalties to ob- 
 serve the minimum rate. No one who does not appear on that 
 list will be eligible for any Government contract. 
 
 By such methods it is hoped by the Board of Trade, and some 
 who have studied the question, that there will be in the first instance 
 a healthy trade opinion from the beginning, and that, beginning, an 
 organisation will be formed which, with a certain backing of solid 
 support within the trade committees, will act on the state of min- 
 imum wage which we are anxious to enforce. At any time not 
 less than six months after the minimum rates have been prescribed, 
 the Board of Trade may, on the application of the Trade Board, 
 make an order, making those rates obligatory by law on all per- 
 sons. It may then use, to enforce the rates, the powers which we 
 are going to ask Parliament to confer upon us by the Act. I say 
 at the outset that the enforcement will be effective in proportion 
 as there is a strong element of support among the workers and 
 among the employers in the trade committees. But it is also 
 necessary, and I could not be responsible for the Act without 
 that necessity being made, that full powers of enforcement, not 
 only by investigation and complaint, but also by inspection, should 
 rest in the hands of the authorities who administer the Act. The 
 
224 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 use of such powers must depend upon the circumstances of each 
 particular varying trade and on each particular varying district, 
 but that those powers should be made in the Act is in our 
 judgment essential. 
 
 I therefore take powers which authorise entry to factories, 
 to workshops and places where work is being carried on, at all 
 reasonable and suitable times. The powers which the Act confers 
 provide for investigation of the complaints by a thoroughly efficient 
 system of inspection by officers who will devote their whole time 
 to the work and who will be appointed with the sanction of the 
 Board of Trade to work under Trade Boards in each particular 
 trade and under the local committees in each particular district. 
 Arrangements are made in the Bill to utilise the services of the 
 factory inspectors of the Home Office, who are also engaged in 
 covering ground not far removed from that which we are now 
 entering. In order that we may not have to come to Parliament 
 again for the fullest power to give effect to these proposals by 
 clauses in the Bill, we ask the House to enable the powers which 
 the Board of Trade have under this Act to be transferred if 
 necessary to the Home Office for administration by the Home 
 Office. That gets over any difficulty of a subsequent demand 
 upon Parliament for further powers and places in the hands of 
 the authorities many channels through which to enforce the Act, 
 and the power of choosing from a variety of measures that which 
 will attain the most favourable result. 
 
 I have now unfolded the main outlines of the Bill. The prin- 
 ciples on which we are proceeding are to endeavour to foster 
 organisation in trades in which, by reason of the prevalence of 
 exceptionally evil conditions, no organisation has yet taken root, 
 and in which, in consequence, no parity of bargaining power can 
 be said to exist; to use these organisations, when formed, as 
 instruments to determine minimum standards below which the 
 wages paid ought not to be allowed to fall; to rally to the side 
 of these minimum standards all the healthy elements in the trade ; 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 225 
 
 and, finally, if and when this has been achieved, to protect the 
 good employers — and there are always good employers in the 
 worst of trades — who are anxious to pay a proper rate of wages 
 from being undercut, and to protect them by compulsory powers 
 which are no doubt far-reaching in their character, which I also 
 think will be found to be properly safeguarded in their use. I 
 hope the House will now accord me permission to introduce the 
 Bill. The difficulties which confront those who attempt to deal 
 with these questions are no doubt great ; but there is a very large 
 measure of sympathy and interest in such efforts, not by any 
 means " confined to one side or one quarter of the House, and I 
 am confident that Parliament wiU not grudge the time and labour 
 which the consideration of these questions and the attempt to 
 legislate upon them will most certainly require. 
 
 Mr. Speaker : The question is that leave be given to bring in 
 the Bill. Does any Member rise to oppose ? 
 
 Sir Frederick Banbury : Yes, Sir ; certainly. The right hon. 
 Gentleman has given utterance to some elaborate sentences to 
 explain the principles which actuated His Majesty's Government 
 in introducing this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might have 
 saved the time of the House, and made his position more clear, 
 if he had said that the principles which actuated His Majesty's 
 Government were to be found in a complete surrender to the 
 Socialist party. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the object 
 of his Bill — and I call the attention of the hon. Member for 
 Preston to this — is to screw up by artificial methods the posi- 
 tion of the worker. And he also said something about power to 
 protect the worker and about fixing the minimum wages, and 
 finished up by saying, " So much for the scope of the Bill." I 
 think the scope is very large, because, as I understand, there is 
 not a single trade in the country which may not be brought within 
 the provisions of the Bill. It seems that one effect of this Bill will 
 be to provide employment for certain people at the expense of 
 the State at a time when the finances of the State are as bad as 
 
226 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 they can possibly be ; another will be to put a final nail in the 
 coffin of the trade of this country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members 
 laugh. Do they suppose that people here in England will, be able 
 to cope with all the provisions which the right hon. Gentleman has 
 indicated ? Are they aware that employers abroad are not ham- 
 pered by any of these restrictions which it is sought to impose 
 upon employers in this country ? The result will be that the few 
 remaining trades in this country— [Laughter.] I do not con- 
 sider this a laughing matter. I think the position of this country 
 is extremely grave, not only in regard to its trade, but in regard 
 also to many other matters. I cannot admit that it is a laughing 
 matter to interfere with the trade of the country. It may be right, 
 or it may be wrong, but it is a serious question, and one which 
 will have to be dealt with with gravity, even in this House of 
 Commons. 
 
 Extract 42 
 
 SECOND READING OF THE TRADE BOARDS BILL 
 
 (J\tr. H. J. Tennant, Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, 
 Commons, April 28, l^og) 
 
 Mr. Tennant^: It is a singular coincidence that on April 28, 
 1890, exactly nineteen years ago to this day, the Select Committee 
 of the House of Lords, called Lord Dunraven's Committee, made 
 a Report. That Committee sat over a long period, and examined 
 no less than 291 witnesses. It reported that sweating had been 
 known for fifty years. It referred to " a rate of wages inadequate 
 to the necessities of the workers or disproportionate to the work 
 done." It reported that the state of things which existed involved 
 excessive hours of labour and insanitary state of houses. The 
 Committee also said : 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 342 sqq. 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 22/ 
 
 These evils can hardly be exaggerated. The earnings of the lowest 
 classes of workers are barely sufficient to sustain existence. The hours of 
 labour are such as to make the lives of the workers periods of almost 
 ceaseless toil, hard and often unhealthy. 
 
 The Committee concluded with the impressive remark : 
 
 We make these statements on evidence of the truth of which we are 
 fully satisfied, and we feel bound to express our admiration of the courage 
 with which the sufferers endure their lot, of the absence of any desire to 
 excite pity by exaggeration, and of the almost unbounded charity they dis- 
 play towards each other in endeavouring by gifts of food and other kind- 
 nesses to alleviate any distress for the time being greater than their own. 
 
 All, or nearly all, of the recommendations of that Committee 
 have been embodied in new legislation. Has there been any con- 
 siderable improvement in the interval ? Let us hope that there has. 
 Miss Squire, a very competent inspector of factories, says that the 
 conditions have been largely improved since that Committee sat, 
 but in spite of this and of the great prosperity enjoyed by the 
 bulk of the nation, the Home Work Committee reported last year 
 that there was " no doubt whatever that the number of sweated 
 individuals is very large, And that it is still true that the evils of 
 sweating are very great." That Committee also reported : 
 
 The earnings of a large number of people are so small as alone to be 
 insufficient to sustain life in a most meagre manner, even when the work- 
 ers toil hard for extremely long hours, that the conditions under which 
 they live are altogether pitiable and distressing, and that sufficient evi- 
 dence has been put before us to show that sweating still exists to such a 
 degree as to call urgently for the interference of Parliament. 
 
 The Bill which I am now asking the House to read a second 
 time is an attempt to deal with these conditions of labour. The 
 principle of this legislation was introduced to this House by my 
 right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean [Sir Charles 
 Dilke], who has been the author of so many schemes for social 
 progress. May I felicitate him on the important stage which has 
 been reached now by a measure which I know is near his heart. 
 
228 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 It is a pleasure to me to reflect that I have been associated with 
 him from the beginning in this legislation — in this and many other 
 endeavours in the direction of industrial improvement. . . . 
 
 Our remedy is only intended to apply to a very limited extent. 
 It is a remedy which has reference to low wages, and does not deal 
 with the question whether State action can, or ought to, control 
 wages. The general rates of wages throughout the country will be 
 settled by other means than this Bill — that is, by economic forces. 
 It is generally accepted that State interference with the remunera- 
 tion for labour can only be justified in exceptional cases where two 
 fundamental conditions are absent — I mean the mobility of labour 
 in its true sense and effective organisation. It is only in those two 
 cases that we propose to apply this legislation. Indeed, the appli- 
 cation of this measure is very limited. It is intended to be applied 
 exclusively to exceptionally unhealthy patches of the body politic 
 where the development has been arrested in spite of the growth of 
 the rest of 'the organism. It is to the morbid and diseased places 
 — to the industrial diphtheritic spots — that we should apply the 
 antitoxin of Trade Boards. 
 
 Incidentally, may I say, that these spots are not peculiar to this 
 country. The same evils exist in other industrial countries — France, 
 Germany, Austria, and the United States of America. The House 
 will be familiar with the theory and practice of the pocket-money 
 wage earner. A girl may wish to have a little work to do, although 
 she may possibly live in a very comfortable home. Wages with her 
 are not the primary consideration. She simply wants to supplement 
 her income, and she is not particular as to the rate of wages that 
 she may get. Thus we have the paradox that the same result is 
 achieved by the ignorant whim of the comparatively well-to-do per- 
 son and by the dire necessity of the starving. Both accept work 
 at sweated rates, and the result is sweated trade. The trade be- 
 comes a parasitic trade, feeding upon other industries and trades in 
 the country and on the wealth of the nation, for in such' a case the 
 wages bill of the sweated industry is largely paid by the relatives 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 229 
 
 with whom the worker lives, by the poor law, by the community 
 who subscribe to hospitals and asylums, by charity, and by a pro- 
 portion of the cost of old age pensions. I think I may say that 
 such a trade is a parasitic trade, when we hear the argument, " Is 
 it not better that you should give the girl some work rather than 
 no work — that she should be sweated rather than starved ? " To 
 that I reply, " No, a hundred times No.'' In the first place the 
 argument is false, because starvation is not an alternative, but 
 usually an accompaniment of sweating, and I agree with the witness 
 who gave evidence before the Royal Commission on Labour, that 
 it is easier to starve without the work. One of the best results of 
 this Bill will be the recognition of the inefficient and unemployable 
 by the State. It is far more humane, far safer, and far cheaper 
 that the nation should recognise and deal with these sweated 
 workers. If the girl is sweated, rather than go to the poor law 
 she drags others down with her into this industrial abyss. 
 
 It is to combat these evils that we are introducing this Bill. It 
 is at once an experiment and a revolution — a new step in the 
 social progress. These conditions which are now familiar to the 
 House demand drastic treatment and, therefore, I feel that no 
 apology will be expected of me because we are introducing a 
 drastic measure. Parliament, quite two generations ago, enacted 
 that payment of wages should take place in the coin of the realm. 
 Parliament has also decreed that Government contractors shall pay 
 a definite and standard rate of wages, and great authorities like 
 the London County Council have decided that their contractors 
 must pay a minimum rate of wages. This is the first occasion, 
 certainly in modern Parliamentary times, in which any Govern- 
 ment has proposed machinery, first for deciding, and secondly for 
 enforcing, a legal rate of wages. To that extent the proposal is 
 new — to that extent the proposal is a revolution. 
 
 Now, may I address myself to the hon. Baronet the Member 
 for the City of London, who said that such a .Bill as this is going 
 to alter the whole system on which the fabric of British trade has 
 
230 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 been built up. He says it is going to do little or not much good 
 to the workers. Now I assume that the argument is based on the 
 assumption that if you raise the rate of wages, you necessarily 
 increase prices. I should like to quote an extract from an interest- 
 ing Report written by Mr. Ernest Aves (quoted in the Report of 
 the Home Work Committee). He says : 
 
 Some of the fallacies, mainly traceable to an assumed fixity in the 
 determining conditions — personal and economic — which underlie this 
 assumption in its application to certain industries are recalled by Victorian 
 experience, and the extent to which the combined view is held that special 
 boards have increased wages and have not increased cost is of practical 
 significance, since it is found to prevail in several of those trades in which 
 the evil of underpayment is apt to be most prevalent. The special boards 
 themselves may or may not have sent wages up to the extent often as- 
 sumed or even at all. The fact remains that in several trades in which 
 wages have tended upwards there is much testimony to the fact that 
 neither cost nor price have been similarly affected, and in some instances 
 it has been admitted that they have tended in the opposite direction. 
 
 I have expressly avoided dealing with the Australian experiment 
 because I am perfectly aware that the conditions in this country 
 are so entirely different from those in Victoria ; but I do think 
 I am entitled to say, at any rate, that it has been proved that 
 the assumption that invariably and inevitably an increase of prices 
 must take place with an increase of wages is not a fact. Well, 
 again, I should like to remind the House that an increase of 
 wages brings increased efficiency, and increased efficiency brings 
 an increase not only in quality but in quantity. There is no doubt 
 that it further stimulates resource on the part of manufacturers 
 and the inventive genius of the people who give their minds to 
 mechanics. 
 
 Sir Frederick Banbury : As the hon. Gentleman has referred 
 to me, I should like to say that I never stated that an increase of 
 wages must be accompanied by an increase of price. What I said 
 was that unless an increase of wages was accompanied by an 
 increase of price, an industry might disappear. 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 23 1 
 
 Mr. Tennant : I am endeavouring to show there are many 
 things upon which an industry can draw before it becomes extinct. 
 The Home Work Committee found material difference existing in 
 the rates usually paid by different employers in the same town at 
 the same moment for the same work. Again, I would like to 
 remind the House that high wages do not carry with them high 
 prices. That is proved by the sweated trades. Certainly low wages 
 do not necessarily carry with them low prices. That was certainly 
 proved in the cotton and the iron and steel trades of this country, 
 where you have in many cases existing minimum rates of wages 
 which have not been found to raise prices. Furthermore, there are 
 certain profits of the middleman — exorbitant profits, as some of 
 us think — which will disappear. Trade Boards in their establish- 
 ment will bring together not only the workpeople but the employers. 
 They may possibly find it convenient to make arrangements — they 
 may, at any rate, have a chance to make arrangements — by which 
 they will be able to avoid some of the very violent competition 
 which they now wage against each other, and they may be able to 
 effect considerable economy. It may also be urged that they will 
 also endeavour to raise prices. If they do so they will only do it 
 temporarily, because there is sufficient capital to set up new facto- 
 ries or workshops, and that will soon bring back prices to their 
 old level. 
 
 I think I have demonstrated that the experience which we have, 
 at any rate, has shown that normally a rise of wages does not bring 
 about a rise in price. It is ridiculous to assume that a rise in wages 
 must bring about an increase in price. But suppose it does, let us 
 imagine what will be the result. Will the worker be harmed by a 
 reduced demand for a dearer article ? Unless the decrease in the 
 demand is very great, I say this, with great conviction, that it 
 would be better that the worker should be employed on a lesser 
 demand, with reasonable hours of work at a fair rate of wages, 
 than on a great demand with long hours at sweated rates of wages. 
 [Ironical cheers.J I suppose what is running in the minds of the 
 
232 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 hon. Gentlemen who cheer is that you are going to invite for- 
 eign competition from abroad. [An Hon. Member : That is it.] 
 Then I say to those hon. Gentlemen who cheer, remember that 
 these Trade Boards are composed of the best representatives of the 
 trades that the Board of Trade can find, and they will be and ought 
 to be the guardians of the interests of the trade, as they are both 
 employers and employees, dependent upon the prosperity of the 
 trade. Look at the great staple industries, I say, again. Look at 
 the cotton trade, where the wages are highest. They compete 
 against the same trade in India and Japan, where the wages are 
 lowest, and they are not afraid of foreign competition. They have 
 never found it difficult to compete against India and Japan in the 
 neutral markets of the world. 
 
 But let us consider what other nations are doing. For instance, 
 take Germany. Germany has an elaborate Factory Code, and she 
 held an exhibition in Berlin similar in character to our Sweated 
 Industries Exhibition. There is at the present moment a Committee 
 of the Reichstag considering the further limitation of home work, 
 and it is proposed to empower the Federal Council, and also the 
 local police, to make rules requiring all home workers to be fur- 
 nished with a wage-book, or labour ticket, and to see that in every 
 room in which home work is carried on there should be posted 
 a statement of the wages to which each worker is entitled. The 
 Governments of Bavaria and Baden have recently made investiga- 
 tions into these industries through their factory inspectors, and the 
 reports which have been published as a result contain various 
 recommendations as to their legal regulation. The measures sug- 
 gested by the Bavarian Report (1907) include : (i) the obligation to 
 employ wage-books or tickets ; (2) the extension to aU home workers 
 of the insurance laws ; (3) obligatory registration ; (4) the fixing of 
 minimum rates of wages with allowances for rent, light, heating, 
 and time lost in fetching and delivering work ; (5) inspection of the 
 dwellings used for domestic industry. That is beyond any proposals 
 that we offer by Bill, and those are the proposals of Germany. 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 233 
 
 Austria is also making certain proposals, which I have not time 
 to go into, but there was held in 1906 a conference under the 
 auspices of the International Association for Labour Legislation 
 at Geneva, where certain resolutions were passed in regard to 
 the social conditions of home workers, the industrial condition of 
 workers in Europe having regard to the competition with foreign 
 nations, and the finding of a legislative remedy. Arising out of 
 that meeting there has been held, in conformity with the resolution 
 passed at Geneva, an inquiry in France in regard to what is called 
 the French lingerie trade, which is famous all over the world and 
 very expensive. That inquiry has elicited the fact that 56 per cent 
 of the home workers in this white lingerie trade work an average 
 of more than ten hours a day, at rates of pay not exceeding ijd. 
 an hour, and 50 per cent of them have net earnings of less than 
 ;^i6 per annum. 
 
 I think I have said enough to show that public conscience on 
 the Continent of Europe has been aroused with regard to the evils 
 of the sweating system, and it will not be very difficult for us to ar- 
 rive at an agreement with foreign nations similar to that which has 
 recently been carried out in the Bill of last year for the prohibition 
 of the importation or use of white phosphorus in matches. If prices 
 are not raised, it leaves me free to assert that competition in the 
 markets of the world is an unreal and negligible bogey, and what 
 objection have hon. Gentlemen then to this legislation ? Is it going 
 to be asserted, as I have heard it asserted, that it will be so diffi- 
 cult to enforce that enforcement will be impossible, and evasion 
 will be the rule rather than the exception ? I think that argument 
 implies want of grasp of the principle which underlies this Bill, 
 and that is, that the determinations are not going to be exagger- 
 ated beyond what the trade will bear by those who are dependent 
 upon the trade for a livelihood. The decisions of the Trade Boards 
 will be in harmony with and representative of trade opinion. I will 
 ask the House whether evasion is a reason for inaction. We know 
 that new principles have been carried out in the law of this country 
 
234 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 in regard to work and wages. The provisions as to particulars 
 and truck are evaded to a great extent and to an injurious degree, 
 but I am sure that hon. Members below the gangway will bear 
 me out when I say that enormous good has resulted from those 
 enactments, and are we going to deny the indubitable benefits of 
 this legislation simply because we are afraid that for some of those 
 who are most in need of it our intentions may be frustrated? I 
 cannot help thinking that that is not good argument. 
 
 There are certain criticisms which have been made upon the 
 details of this legislation. They are largely Committee points, but 
 there are one or two which I think I ought to advert to. The hon. 
 Member for Durham said that he objects to the centralising organi- 
 sation embodied in the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member 
 for the Spen Valley said it was doubtful policy to appoint commit- 
 tees throughout the country and co-ordinate the whole. I say that, 
 after all, this Bill carries all that my right hon. Friend the Mem- 
 ber for the Spen Valley would wish, because the district trade com- 
 mittee will make suggestions which will go forward to the Central 
 Trade Boards, and I maintain that the suggestions of the district 
 trade committees will be seldom altered by the Central Trade Boards. 
 The right hon: Gentleman said that " wages should be fixed in 
 the first instance between the workers and their employers in the 
 localities, and that the co-ordination should come afterwards." 
 That is, I think, exactly what we have done, because, so far from 
 the localities being debarred from making their own suggestions 
 for the government of their own local trade, we have provided by 
 clause 12 that "no such minimum rate . . . and no variation or 
 cancellation of (it) . . . shall have effect unless either the rate has 
 been recommended by the district trade committee or an opportu- 
 nity has been given to the committee to report thereon to the Trade 
 Board, and the Trade Board have considered the report (if any) 
 made by the committee." It seems to me that the principle of 
 local government could not be given wider application. The hon. 
 Member for Durham and others have also complained of the 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 235 
 
 optional character of the Bill. I do not know whether by that he 
 alludes to the setting up of the Trade Boards or to making their 
 determinations compulsory. Probably both. [An Hon. Member : 
 Both.] On the question of setting up the Trade Boards, I think 
 there is very little indeed to be said. The Board of Trade are the 
 proper authority to set up these bodies, and I can assure the hon. 
 Gentleman that it is the intention of the Board of Trade to set 
 them up. The word " may " is inserted in the Bill to be on the 
 safe side in case that it is found impossible to set them up in any 
 particular trade, and in order that we shall not be guilty of a legal 
 offence if we fail to achieve the impossible. I think the House will 
 believe in the integrity of our intentions, and I trust it will not 
 withhold its concurrence from our prudential motive. 
 
 With regard to making the determination compulsory, the Board 
 of Trade is the authority responsible to Parliament, and that being 
 so, it should retain to itself the last word in the matter. I think an 
 arrangement can be arrived at between hon. Gentlemen below the 
 gangway and ourselves, which we practically came to yesterday, 
 by which we may arrive at a working agreement. I think I have 
 shown that the evil with which we are attempting to deal is a real 
 evil, that it is of old standing, and that it clamours for remedy. I 
 have also shown that our remedy has the same inspiration and the 
 same objective as was possessed by the old reformers, and pro- 
 ceeds upon lines parallel with those which have led the State to 
 interfere with the control of the hours of labour and the conditions 
 of safety and sanitation. Our remedy only gives statutory sanction 
 to principles and methods adopted in numberless cases by volun- 
 tary agreement, which have been attended with the greatest possi- 
 ble success. I do not anticipate from this legislation either disloca- 
 tion of trade, damage to employers, or diminution of employment. 
 Our proposals are very limited in their application, they are limited 
 to those plague spots of industry which, without drastic treatment, 
 will continue, as they have continued for three quarters of a cen- 
 tury, feeding upon the national wealth, supplying recruits to our 
 
236 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 hospitals, asylums, and workhouses, and swelling the ranks of the 
 unemployed, and being the forcing grounds of the unemployable. 
 When I am told that this legislation will subvert the foundations 
 upon which the commercial supremacy of this country is based, 
 I decline to believe that the commercial supremacy of this or any 
 other country rests upon sweated labour. If I am told capital will 
 not stand it, I answer there is another and a greater capital with 
 greater claims upon us. It is against the drain upon this capital 
 that this effort we are making to-day is directed ; against this waste 
 we protest — I mean the life capital of the nation. 
 
 Extract 43 
 
 SWEATED LABOUR AND FOREIGN COMPETITION 
 
 {Mr. Arthur J. Balfour, Commons, April 28, igog) 
 
 Mr. Balfour*: . . . The broad fact remains that the rate of 
 wages you fix for one part of the country might or might not be 
 suitable to another. And it seems to me that the difficulties which 
 will be thrown upon the Board of Trade will be very great. While 
 those difficulties will undoubtedly have the result of restricting the 
 area over which this Bill could be properly allowed to extend, that 
 difficulty is nothing compared with the competition between Brit- 
 ish and foreign sweated industries. Cases will clearly arise in this 
 country, unless you are very careful, in which the only result of 
 fixing a rate of wages, would be to drive the industry out of this 
 country, and send it to another country. I admitted the truth of 
 the statement that the result of raising wages was not in many 
 instances to increase the price. The whole machinery of produc- 
 tion may be improved, and the whole raising of wages of produc- 
 tion may be improved. These wages are not fixed by competition, 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 384-385, 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 237 
 
 but it is a forced sale of value. It is not competition value. It is 
 a forced sale value. It is grossly unfair of anyone to say that a 
 forced sale represents the true value of the article sold. A forced 
 sale never gives a true market rate of wages. Therefore, I do not 
 think that if this Bill is properly worked, it will interfere with any- 
 thing that can truly be said to be a fair market rate of wages. 
 
 But at the same time there are cases in which the raising of 
 wages does not diminish the cost, there may be and must be cases 
 wRere the industry is not carried on so economically when the 
 wages are raised. How are you going to deal with these cases ? 
 You really cannot dismiss that as a Protectionist crotchet. What- 
 ever your views on Protection may be, you are now interfering 
 not with the fair value of wages but with the cost at which certain 
 articles may be introduced. You ought to interfere all round. I 
 do not think how you can refuse to do so. Your only possible 
 alternative would be not merely to restrict the operation of the 
 Bill to those industries to which the right hon. Gentleman the 
 Member for the Forest of Dean [Sir Charles Dilke] has referred, 
 but to take into account the conditions under which those indus- 
 tries are carried on in foreign countries, and to ask yourselves 
 whether those industries are carried on under sweated labour. If 
 you think that the raising of wages in this country will make the 
 cost of production greater, you are driven to the inevitable con- 
 clusion that you are going to hand over the trades to foreign 
 sweated labour. You are absolutely bound to make provision to 
 deal with that difficulty. Under this Bill the only provision you can 
 make is to exclude the industry in question from the beneficent 
 operations of this measure. That is a very unpleasant alternative. 
 But the Government must face it. No answer has been given, or 
 can be given, and the House must either reconcile itself to finding 
 some method of regulating between home and foreign productions 
 in the special industries or exclude them from the operation of 
 the Bill. . . . 
 
238 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract /j.^ 
 
 A LABOUR VIEW OF THE TRADE BOARDS BILL 
 (Mr. T. F. Richards, Commons, April 28, zgog) 
 
 Mr. Richards '■ : I regret exceedingly that someone who has 
 had some practical experience of the sweating industry has not 
 had an opportunity to present his view to the House. With Ihe 
 exception of myself, who belong to the boot and shoe industry, and 
 the hen. Member for East Leeds, who belongs to the furnishing 
 trade, I am not aware that any other hon. Member has any direct 
 association with this particular industry. So far as we are concerned 
 we regret exceedingly that we are not in the schedules. I certainly 
 should have liked to see the boot and shoe industry in the schedule 
 for more reasons than one. So far as the East End of London is 
 concerned, there are 24,000 operatives employed in this industry. 
 Whilst we in the trade unions can protect ourselves, the Hebrew 
 workers of our industry cannot protect themselves. They have no 
 association, simply and solely because their wages are so small that 
 they have not sufficient means to contribute to an association, and 
 I want, if I possibly can, to take this sweating question away from 
 the manufacturers for the time being. 
 
 We do not complain in our particular trade of sweated wages 
 paid by manufacturers. What we complain of is the sweater, the 
 middleman, the ex-operative, who goes to the employer and takes 
 our work and pays just what wages he thinks fit, and by that 
 means eases the direct manufacturer of playing the part which he 
 ought to do in manufacturing his own goods direct. In my own 
 industry fifteen or twenty years ago in Leicester we were so dis- 
 gusted at the sweating that was in operation, where one man often 
 took work out and employed five, six, seven, eight, or nine boys or 
 youths whom he sweated, that we asked the manufacturers to make 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 393 sqq. 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 239 
 
 structural alterations to their premises, and allow us to go inside, 
 because we were home workers at the time. They demurred for 
 a time, but we threatened to strike simply and solely because we 
 were strong enough to strike. But I am pleased to say that the 
 employers allowed us to go indoors. 
 
 Some members have said that this Bill will kill home work alto- 
 gether. I think it is going to check home work, and I should like 
 to' see home work checked if we operatives carmot get a living wage. 
 In respect of the statement of one of my friends from Ireland, who 
 made the suggestion that the Irish members do not want this Bill 
 to apply to Ireland, we have to-day received a letter with a request 
 from the Irish Trade Union Congress, that we will do everything 
 we possibly can to oppose the idea that this should be excluded 
 from Ireland. The Irish trade unionists know full well that there 
 is sweating in Ireland the same as in every other part of the 
 country, and it is this middle sweater that I am concerned about. 
 
 For the last fifteen years my work has been to do nothing else 
 than to settle disputes between our members and employers, and 
 I challenge contradiction when I say that our manufacturers are 
 desirous of paying good wages, but they do want us to do our 
 utmost to bring everyone up to the same standard. That is their 
 trouble. So far as the men are concerned, in my own industry we 
 have little to complain of where the men are organised. In the 
 East End of London it was my duty only two months ago to go 
 down and find a poor Hebrew, an alien I admit. He was not 
 naturalised. He was working there. He showed me his book, 
 and in a month he had not earned £2 5s., and that very day he 
 had received a 3d. reduction. I said, " Why do you stand to it ? " 
 He said : " What shall I do ? I have a wife and four children. 
 What am I to do ? " His wages were insufficient to subscribe to 
 an organisation which would defend him, and this Wages Board 
 Bill I hope will be utilised to assist cases of that kind. 
 
 This has not always been the case. There are other parts of 
 the United Kingdom where this idea prevails, and so far as our 
 
240 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 factories are concerned now it applies very largely to females. Un- 
 fortunately the females in our industry when they get married 
 leave the factory and work at home, and as a consequence they 
 accept 2S. 6d., 5 s., or 7 s. 6d. Generally speaking, los. is about as 
 high a wage as they get. Under the circumstances we might do 
 something to improve the wages in this particular. Our boards of 
 arbitration in London and in Leicester grant permits so that the 
 operative shall not be persecuted. In case of illness or of general 
 weakness the board of arbitration, which is composed of employers 
 and employed, grant a permit for the persons who work outdoors, 
 but at the same time they take into consideration that that person 
 has an adequate wage for the work that he or she performs, and this 
 is the point that we are considering. We want these people to have 
 something upon which they can adequately and comfortably exist. 
 I was astounded yesterday to see that case with reference to the 
 Territorial Army clothing. I have some facts and information in 
 my possession that the Government might render assistance in that 
 particular and not encourage work of this kind to be given out with- 
 out enforcing the Trade Union Rates of Wages Resolution of this 
 House. I think the Government would do well to strengthen it 
 in that particular. So far as we as trade unions are concerned we 
 are endeavouring to "the best of our ability to bring other countries 
 up to our own standard because we have intercommunication and 
 international trade union conferences, and I hope by that means 
 we shall make the improvement that we think is necessary in this 
 way. I do not think for a moment that anyone will be persecuted 
 if only we adopt the policy which these boards of arbitration do, 
 namely, that if a person happens to be aged or infirm or feeble 
 and cannot work inside a factory, he ought to have an opportunity 
 of working outdoors. We have been told by the representative 
 from Birmingham that we might kill this trade. We ought to kill 
 a trade which will not give an adult man or woman after working 
 60 hours a week more than 5 s. or 6s. I have no love or regard for 
 trades of that description ; they ought to come under the general 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 24 1 
 
 purview of this nation as a whole. I know full well that so far 
 as my own trade is concerned there is not a single manufacturer 
 with whom I have come in contact who complains that because 
 we have got men working indoors, because we have raised wages 
 in many cases, it has checked their methods of manufacture, 
 and I refuse to believe that it is likely to check the method of 
 manufacture in these industries. I am satisfied in my own mind 
 that if the Bill is given an opportunity, and boards are set up with 
 an equal number of representatives of workmen and of manufac- 
 turers, there will be no injustice perpetrated or perpetuated on the 
 trade or on the operatives. 
 
 Extract ^^ 
 
 THE LORDS' DEBATE — A LIBERAL VIEW 
 
 {Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, Lords, August 30, igog) 
 
 Lord Hamilton of Dalzell ^ : My Lords, the main object of 
 this Bill is the establishment of a minimum rate of wages in certain 
 trades in which what is termed sweating is well known to exist. 
 The establishment by statute of a minimum rate of wages is, I 
 suppose, a novel expedient, but your Lordships are aware that 
 regulation of the conditions of labour in certain trades is by no 
 means new, and that ever since the passing of the First Factory 
 Act Parliament has from time to time agreed to legislation having 
 that object. Only last year your Lordships agreed to a Bill limiting 
 the hours of labour in mines. I have lived all my life amongst 
 miners, and I never doubted for a moment that the passing of that 
 Bill was a right and a just measure ; but I confess that I had an 
 uneasy feeling, not with regard to those whom the Bill affected, 
 but with regard to those who were not included in it. I felt, and 
 I think many of your Lordships may have felt, that besides the 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 2, col. 974 sqq. ' 
 
242 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 miners — and I am sure we do not grudge them their good luck 
 — there were many other people, helpless people, with no political 
 or other organisation, who stood in equal need of help. Therefore 
 I am glad, and I believe your Lordships will be glad, that the case 
 of those poor and helpless people is now to be dealt with. But I 
 admit that that is a sentimental consideration, and it is a considera- 
 tion which is, perhaps, out of place in dealing with a Bill which is 
 not based upon sentiment but upon hard solid facts. 
 
 I think the facts are well known to us all. Everyone knows 
 what sweating is, and everyone acknowledges it to be a great evil. 
 It is not a new thing. It has been known to exist and its existence 
 has been noted for the. last fifty years or more. I do not suppose 
 that during the last twenty years there is any feature of our social 
 system which has been so much inquired into, so much spoken about, 
 and so much written about as the evil of sweating ; and the Gov- 
 ernment are of opinion that the time has now come when the only 
 practical remedy should be applied. It is not only in this country 
 that sweating has excited attention. It has excited attention in 
 practically every civilised country, and in Germany, in particular, 
 I understand that legislation on this subject is imminent. I would 
 commend that fact to anyone who may be afraid that by legisla- 
 tion of this sort trade in this country may be driven abroad ; and 
 I would point out that even if we do move a little faster in this 
 matter than other countries, and if we do take the lead, as in a 
 matter of this sort I think we ought to take the lead, we shall prob- 
 ably not maintain that lead indefinitely, because other countries are 
 moving, and moving very fast, in the same direction. 
 
 I shall not attempt to coin a new definition of " sweating." There 
 are many such in circulation already, but I will take what I believe 
 to be the ordinary meaning of the word — the payment by an em- 
 ployer to his workpeople of a wage which is insufficient to purchase 
 for them the necessaries of life ; and in bringing forward this Bill 
 I would simply ask your Lordships whether or not you consider 
 that such wages ought to continue to be paid. I do not think that 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 243 
 
 there can be more than one answer to such a question. It is al- 
 ready, to our credit as a nation, a punishable offence in this coun- 
 try to allow an animal which is dependent upon us to starve, and 
 it does not seem very much to ask that the same principle should 
 be extended to human beings. When an insufficient wage is paid, 
 something approaching starvation must take place, perhaps not 
 actually in the matter of food, but in poorness of clothing, poor- 
 ness of lodging, and bad quality of food — that is, unless the in- 
 sufficient wages are supplemented from some other source. There 
 are cases, of course, in which the wages are so supplemented. In 
 some cases that may be done by charitable reKef, perhaps rather 
 misplaced charitable relief, and even I believe by Poor Law relief 
 in some form or another. I think it might fairly be said that a trade 
 which cannot exist without such assistance must be a thoroughly 
 rotten one and a trade of which we should be well rid. 
 
 But, as a matter of fact, there is not the slightest reason to sup- 
 pose that any trade will either be killed or driven abroad by this 
 Bill, and I do not think that any better proof of that is needed 
 than the warm support which has been given to this Bill by almost 
 all of those, both masters and men, connected with the trades men- 
 tioned in the Schedule. What we imagine will happen wiU be that 
 a levelling-up process will take place. The best class of employer, 
 the man who pays fair wages now, will continue to pay fair wages ; 
 the second class of employer, the man who we have reason to 
 believe would like to pay fair wages but is afraid of having his 
 prices undercut by the class immediately below him, will be enabled 
 to pay fair wages ; and the third class of employer, the genuine 
 sweater, wiU have to pay fair wages whether he likes it or not. 
 There is one source from which wages may be supplemented which 
 I have not mentioned, and which falls under a rather different head- 
 ing. There are certain people, principally women, who wish to earn 
 a little money but are not really dependent on the trade for their 
 living, such as girls living at home with their family or married 
 women who have no children to look after. It sometimes happens 
 
244 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 that for the purpose of earning a few shillings, a Ijttle spending 
 money, such people are willing to accept considerably less than the 
 market rate of wages, and it may perhaps be said that if both 
 parties are agreeable to that arrangement, there is no reason to 
 interfere. But I think, my Lords, that it is necessary to look a 
 little deeper than that, and if we do, it will be seen that it is far 
 from right that those people, for the purpose of earning a little 
 pocket money, should drag down the level of wages and inflict 
 serious injury on people who have to depend on the trade for their 
 living. There is no reason why these people should not be paid at 
 the same rate as any other people doing the same work. If their 
 work is worth having, it must be worth paying for. If they only 
 devote part of their time to this work, they will naturally not earn 
 as much in a day as a person of equal ability who devotes the 
 whole day to the work. But the point is that the rate should be 
 the same. There is no reason why it should not be, and therefore 
 we do not propose to make any exception in those cases. 
 
 Four trades have been selected for the purposes of the Bill, 
 and they are set out in the Schedule. They are certain parts of 
 the tailoring trade, the paper-box-making trade, certain parts of 
 the commoner lace- and net-finishing trade, and certain parts of the 
 chain-making trade. Those are all trades in which sweating is 
 acknowledged to exist. There are provisions in the Bill to enable 
 its extension to other trades, and it is the intention that trades 
 carried on under similar circumstances shall be included. That 
 will be done on the initiative of the Board of Trade and will be 
 carried out by means of a Provisional Order Bill. Thus your Lord- 
 ships will see that the control of Parliament in the case of the 
 inclusion of a new trade is absolutely maintained. What will hap- 
 pen will be this. The Board of Trade will say that in their opinion 
 the Act ought to be extended to a certain trade, and a Provisional 
 Order will be promoted in the ordinary way and passed through 
 Parliament with the object of carrying that out. It will rest entirely 
 with Parliament to say whether or not that Bill should pass. I 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 245 
 
 should like to say here, as strongly as possible, that it is not fair, 
 as has been done, to describe this Bill as being the thin end of a 
 wedge. The scope of the Bill is absolutely defined, and there is 
 no intention of using its provisions as a general means of regulating 
 wages in all trades. If your Lordships will turn to subsection (2) 
 of Clause i , you will see that it is not possible that the BUI should 
 be so used. In that subsection the Board of Trade are only given 
 power to make a Provisional Order "if they are satisfied that 
 the rate of wages prevailing in any branch of the trade is excep- 
 tionally low." It will therefore be seen that the machinery for in- 
 cluding a new trade can only be set in motion if those exceptional 
 circumstances can be shown to exist. . . . 
 
 Extract ^6 
 
 THE LORDS' DEBATE — A CONSERVATIVE VIEW 
 (Marquess of Salisbury, Lords, August ^o, igog) 
 
 The Marquess of Salisbury ^ : My Lords, I am sure your 
 Lordships will all be of opinion that in the interesting observations 
 which the noble Lord opposite has just made he has not said one 
 word too much in commiserating the position of those unfortunate 
 women who are the victims of this sweated labour. There is no 
 spectacle more deplorable than that of these unfortunate workers, 
 not themselves able to fight their way through life in a manner 
 which men might do, and subject to most adverse conditions both 
 of work and of wages. Nothing that the noble Lord has said, 
 nothing that any of your Lordships can say, will be an exaggera- 
 tion of the pitifulness of the cases of which testimony was given 
 before the Select Committee of the House of Commons. 
 
 But, my Lords, I thought, if I may be allowed to criticise the 
 general tenor of the noble Lord's remarks, that he made too light 
 of the difficulty of dealing with this subject. He said the procedure 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. j, col. 979 sqq. 
 
246 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 of the Bill was simple. I am sure that I agree with him, but, even 
 if the procedure of the Bill is simple, certainly the subject matter 
 with which the Bill deals is not simple, but, on the contrary, very 
 complicated. It would be a mistake if your Lordships thought 
 that the mass of home workers are sweated. The evidence appears 
 to be conclusive in the other direction. Apparently, the majority 
 of home workers are persons, no doubt working at a very low 
 standard in the industrial scale, but perfectly able to look after 
 themselves, and, in a sense, well-to-do. But there is a minority, a 
 very considerable minority, a deplorable minority, in connection 
 with whom those conditions do not obtain. Unfortunately, it is 
 impossible to legislate with regard to one set of workers — namely, 
 those whom we pity — without affecting the case of those workers 
 who are perfectly well-to-do, and, in a measure, quite satisfied with 
 the present conditions of their life. That is the first difficulty, and 
 it is a very great difficulty. 
 
 There is a second difficulty which pertains, not to the generality 
 of the workers, but to those very workers whom we are here to-day 
 to pity, and, if possible, to succour. It would be a cruel kindness 
 if by any legislation to which your Lordships' House gave assent 
 we were to add to the sufferings of these poor workers one further 
 crushing disaster — namely, to take away from them the only work 
 they have. Therefore, we must walk very warily, and I confess I 
 regretted the tone of confidence which I think was the feature of 
 the noble Lord's speech. He was only following the example of 
 his chief. I noticed that the President of the Board of Trade, 
 speaking in another place and upon another Bill, — the Labour 
 Exchanges Bill, — sketched a picture of a sort of universal condi- 
 tion of Trade Boards. When he was advocating the necessary 
 expense for the edifices under the Labour Exchanges Bill he spoke 
 as though there would be a Trade Board meeting in every such 
 building, which he put forward as a reason for its existence. That 
 may be, or may not be, an ultimate development, but at the 
 present moment the matter is only experimental, and I hope your 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 247 
 
 Lordships will treat it as experimental. Whether hereafter this 
 experiment may be a success, and whether your Lordships will 
 agree under the provisions of the Bill to extend its operation to 
 other trades, are matters in which we need not inquire at the 
 present moment. Let us first see how this experiment succeeds 
 before we cast our eyes further afield. 
 
 I confess that I see no way out of the main proposition which 
 the Government have put before your Lordships' House. As far 
 as I myself am concerned, I assent to the establishment of these 
 Trade Boards, whose principal function is to fix a minimum rate 
 of wages. I do so because the ordinary trade remedy for these 
 evils appears to be impracticable — I mean the union of the 
 workers. That is the proper remedy wherever it can be applied, 
 and that is the remedy one would like to see applied in these 
 cases. They know much better — I am speaking of employer and 
 employed — what is good for them than any Trade Board which 
 the ingenuity of the Government or of your Lordships' House can 
 construct. But, unfortunately, the evidence is almost conclusive 
 that these women have not made sufficient progress in the arts of 
 citizenship to be able to combine in a trade union, and until they 
 do I presume we must be content with this procedure, not so good 
 and not so effective as the other would have been. . . . 
 
 Extract .^7 
 
 TRADE BOARDS ACT, 1909 
 
 (p Edw. 7, ch. 22) 
 
 An Act to provide for the establishment of Trade Boards for 
 certain Trades. (20th October 1909) 
 
 Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 
 and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the 
 authority of the same, as follows : 
 
248 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Establishment of Trade Boards for Trades to which the 
 Act applies 
 
 I. Application of Act to Certain Trades 
 
 (i) This Act shall apply to the trades specified in the schedule 
 to this Act and to any other trades to which it has been applied by 
 Provisional Order of the Board of Trade made under this section. 
 
 (2) The Board of Trade may make a Provisional Order apply- 
 ing this Act to any specified trade to which it does not at the time 
 apply if they are satisfied that the rate of wages prevailing in any 
 branch of the trade is exceptionally low, as compared with that in 
 other employments, and that the other circumstances of the trade 
 are such as to render the application of this Act to the trade 
 expedient. 
 
 (3) If at any time the Board of Trade consider that the con- 
 ditions of employment in any trade to which this Act applies 
 have been so altered as to render the application of this Act to the 
 trade unnecessary, they may make a Provisional Order that this 
 Act shall cease to apply to that trade. 
 
 (4) The Board of Trade may submit to Parliament for confir- 
 mation any Provisional Order made by them in pursuance of this 
 section, but no §uch Order shall have effect unless and until it is 
 confirmed by Parliament. 
 
 (5) If, while a Bill confirming any such Order is pending in 
 either House of Parliament, a petition is presented against any 
 Order comprised therein, the Bill, so far as it relates to that Order, 
 may be referred to a select committee, or, if the two Houses of 
 Parliament think fit so to order, to a joint committee of those 
 Houses, and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose 
 as in the case of Private Bills. 
 
 (6) Any Act confirming a Provisional Order made in pursuance 
 of this section may be repealed, altered, or amended by any sub- 
 sequent Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade and 
 confirmed by Parliament. 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 249 
 
 2. Establishment of Trade Boards for the Particular Trades 
 
 (i) The Board of Trade shall, if practicable, establish one or 
 more Trade Boards constituted in accordance with regulations made 
 under this Act for any trade to which this Act applies or for any 
 branch of work in the trade. 
 
 Where a Trade Board is established under this Act for any trade 
 or branch of work in a trade which is carried on to any substantial 
 extent in Ireland, a separate Trade Board shall be established for 
 that trade or branch of work in a trade in Ireland. 
 
 (2) Where a Trade Board has been established for any branch 
 of work in a trade, any reference in this Act to the trade for 
 which the Board is established shall be construed as a reference 
 to the branch of work in the trade for which the Board has been 
 established. 
 
 J. General Duties of Trade Boards 
 
 A Trade Board for any trade shall consider, as occasion requires, 
 any matter referred to them by a Secretary of State, the Board of 
 Trade, or any other Government department, with reference to 
 the industrial conditions of the trade, and shall make a report 
 upon the matter to the department by whom the question has 
 been referred. 
 
 Minimum Rates of Wages 
 
 if.. Duties and Powers of Trade Boards with Respect to Minimum 
 Rates of Wages 
 
 (i) Trade Boards shall, subject to the provisions of this sectioh, 
 fix minimum rates of wages for timework for their trades (in this 
 Act referred to as minimum time-rates), and may also fix general 
 minimum rates of wages for piecework for their trades (in this Act 
 referred to as general minimum piece-rates), and those rates of 
 wages (whether time- or piece-rates) may be fixed so as to apply 
 universally to the trade, or so as to apply to any special process 
 
2SO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 in the work of the trade or to any special class of workers in the 
 trade, or to any special area. 
 
 If a Trade Board report to the Board of Trade that it is im- 
 practicable in any case to fix a minimum time-rate in accordance 
 with this section, the Board of Trade may so far as respects that 
 case relieve the Trade Board of their duty. 
 
 (2) Before fixing any minimum time-rate or general minimum 
 piece-rate, the Trade Board shall give notice of the rate which 
 they propose to fix and consider any objections to the rate which 
 may be lodged with them within three months. 
 
 (3) The Trade Board shall give notice of any minimum time- 
 rate or general minimum piece-rate fixed by them. 
 
 (4) A Trade Board may, if they think it expedient, cancel or 
 vary any minimum time-rate or general minimum piece-rate fixed 
 under this Act, and shall reconsider any such minimum rate if the 
 Board of Trade direct them to do so, whether an application is 
 made for the purpose or not : 
 
 Provided that the provisions of this section as to notice shall 
 apply where it is proposed to cancel or vary the minimum rate 
 fixed under the foregoing provisions in the same manner as they 
 apply where it is proposed to fix a minimum rate. 
 
 (5) A Trade Board shall on the application of any employer fix 
 a special minimum piece-rate to apply as respects the persons em- 
 ployed by him in cases to which a minimum time-rate but no general 
 minimum piece-rate is applicable, and may as they think fit cancel 
 or vary any such rate either on the application of the employer 
 or after notice to the employer, such notice to be given not less 
 than one month before cancellation or variation of any such rate. 
 
 J. Order giving Obligatory Effect to Minimum Rates of Wages 
 
 (i) Until a minimum time-rate or general minimum piece-rate 
 fixed by a Trade Board has been made obligatory by order of the 
 Board of Trade under this section, the operation of the rate shall 
 be limited as in this Act provided. 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 251 
 
 (2) Upon the expiration of six months from the date on which 
 a Trade Board have given notice of any minimum time-rate or 
 general minimum piece-rate fixed by them, the Board of Trade 
 shall make an order (in this Act referred to as an obligatory order) 
 making that minimum rate obligatory in cases in which it is applica- 
 ble on all persons employing labour and on all persons employed, 
 unless they are of opinion that the circumstances are such as to 
 make it premature or otherwise undesirable to make an obligatory 
 order, and in that case they shall make an order suspending the 
 obligatory operation of the rate (in this Act referred to as an order 
 of suspension). 
 
 (3) Where an order of suspension has been made as respects 
 any rate, the Trade Board may, at any time after the expiration 
 of six months from the date of the order, apply to the Board of 
 Trade for an obligatory order as respects that rate ; and on any 
 such application the Board of Trade shall make an obligatory 
 order as respects that rate, unless they are of opinion that a further 
 order of suspension is desirable, and, in that case, they shall make 
 such a further order, and the provisions of this section which are 
 applicable to the first order of suspension shall apply to any such 
 further order. 
 
 An order of suspension as respects any rate shall have effect until 
 an obligatory order is made by the Board of Trade under this section. 
 
 (4) The Board of Trade may, if they think fit, make an order 
 to apply generally as respects any rates which may be fixed by 
 any Trade Board constituted, or about to be constituted, for any 
 trade to which this Act applies, and while the order is in force any 
 minimum time-rate or general minimum piece-rate shall, after the 
 lapse of six months from the date on which the Trade Board have 
 given notice of the fixing of the rate, be obligatory in the same 
 manner as if the Board of Trade had made an order making the 
 rate obligatory under this section, unless in any particular case the 
 Board of Trade, on the application of any person interested, direct 
 to the contrary. 
 
2S2 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 The Board of Trade may revoke any such general order at 
 any time after giving three months' notice to the Trade Board 
 of their intention to revoke it. 
 
 6. Penalty 
 
 (i) Where any minimum rate of wages fixed by a Trade Board 
 has been made obligatory by order of the Board of Trade under 
 this Act, an employer shall, in cases to which the minimum rate is 
 applicable, pay wages to the person employed at not less than 
 the minimum rate clear of all deductions, and if he fails to do so 
 shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to 
 a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and to a fine not exceeding five 
 pounds for each day on which the offence is continued after convic- 
 tion therefor. 
 
 (2) On the conviction of an employer under this section for fail- 
 ing to pay wages at not less than the minimum rate to a person 
 employed, the court may by the conviction adjudge the employer 
 convicted to pay, in addition to any fine, such sum as appears 
 to the court to be due to the person employed on account of wages, 
 the wages being calculated on the basis of the minimum rate, but 
 the power to order the payment of wages under this provision shall 
 not be in derogation of any right of the person employed to recover 
 wages by any other proceedings. 
 
 (3) If a Trade Board are satisfied that any worker employed, or 
 desiring to be emplojed, on time-work in any branch of a trade to 
 which a minimum time-rate fixed by the Trade Board is applicable 
 is affected by any infirmity or physical injury which renders him 
 incapable of earning that minimum time-rate, and are of opinion 
 that the case cannot suitably be met by employing the worker on 
 piece-work, the Trade Board may, if they think fit, grant to the 
 worker, subject to such conditions, if any, as they prescribe, a per- 
 mit exempting the employment of the worker from the provisions 
 of this Act rendering the minimum time-rate obligatory, and, while 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 253 
 
 the permit is in force, an employer shall not be liable to any penalty 
 for paying wages to the worker at a rate less than the minimum 
 time-rate so long as any conditions prescribed by the Trade Board 
 on the grarlt of the permit are complied with. 
 
 (4) On any prosecution of an employer under this section, it 
 shall lie on the employer to prove by the production of proper 
 wages sheets or other records of wages or otherwise that he has 
 not paid, or agreed to pay, wages at less than the minimum rate. 
 
 (s) Any agreement for the payment of wages in contravention 
 of this provision shall be void. 
 
 7. Limited Operation of Minimum Rate which has not been 
 made Obligatory 
 
 (i) Where any minimum rate of wages has been fixed by a Trade 
 Board, but is not for the time being obligatory under an order of 
 the Board of Trade made in pursuance of this Act, the minimum 
 rate shall, unless the Board of Trade direct to the contrary in any 
 case in which they have directed the Trade Board to reconsider the 
 rate, have a limited operation as follows : 
 
 (a) In all cases to which the minimum rate is applicable an em- 
 ployer shall, in the absence of a written agreement to the 
 contrary, pay to the person employed wages at not less 
 than the minimum rate, and, in the absence of any such 
 agreement, the person employed may recover wages at 
 such a rate from the employer ; 
 (J)) Any employer may give written notice to the Trade Board 
 by whom the minimum rate has been fixed that he is will- 
 ing that that rate should be obligatory on him, and in that 
 case he shall be under the same obligation to pay wages 
 to the person employed at not less than the minimum rate, 
 and be liable to the same fine for not doing so, as he 
 would be if an order of the Board of Trade were in force 
 making the rate obligatory ; and 
 
254 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (/) No contract involving employment to which the minimum 
 rate is applicable shall be given by a Government depart- 
 ment or local authority to any employer unless he has 
 given notice to the Trade Board in accordance with the 
 foregoing provision : 
 
 Provided that in case of any public emergency the 
 
 Board of Trade may by order, to the extent and during 
 
 the period named in the order, suspend the operation of 
 
 this provision as respects contracts for any such work 
 
 ' being done or to be done on behalf of the Crown as is 
 
 specified in the order. , 
 
 (2) A Trade Board shall keep a register of any notices given 
 
 under this section : 
 
 The register shall be open to public inspection without payment 
 of any fee, and shall be evidence of the matters statfed therein : 
 
 Any copy purporting to be certified by the secretary of the Trade 
 Board or any officer of the Trade Board authorised for the purpose 
 to be a true copy of any entry in the register shall be admissible in 
 evidence without further proof. 
 
 8. Special Provision for IHece-work Employees 
 
 An employer shall, in cases where persons are employed on piece- 
 work and a minimum time-rate but no general minimum piece-rate 
 has been fixed, be deemed to pay wages at less than the minimum 
 rate — 
 
 (a) in cases where a special minimum piece-rate has been fixed 
 
 under the provisions of this Act for persons employed by 
 the employer, if the rate of wages paid is less than that 
 special minimum piece-rate ; and 
 
 (b) in cases where a special minimum piece-rate has not been 
 
 so fixed, unless he shows that the piece-rate of wages 
 paid would yield, in the circumstances of the case, to an 
 ordinary worker at least the same amount of money as 
 the minimum time-rate, 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 255 
 
 p. Prevention of Evasion 
 
 Any shopkeeper, dealer, or trader, who by way of trade makes 
 any arrangement express or implied with any worker in pursuance 
 of which the worker performs any work for which a minimum rate 
 of wages has been fixed under this Act, shall be deemed for the 
 purposes of this Act to be the employer of the worker, and the net 
 remuneration obtainable by the worker in respect of the work after 
 allowing for his necessary expenditure in connection with the work 
 shall be deemed to be wages. 
 
 10. Consideration of Complaints 
 
 (i) Any worker or any person authorised by a worker may com- 
 plain to the Trade Board that the wages paid to the worker by any 
 employer in any case to which any minimum rate fixed by the 
 Trade Board is applicable are at a rate less than the minimum rate, 
 and the Trade Board shall consider the matter and may, if they think 
 fit, take any proceedings under this Act on behalf of the worker. 
 
 (2) Before taking any proceedings under this Act on behalf of 
 the worker, a Trade Board may, and on the first occasion on which 
 proceedings are contemplated by the Trade Board against an em- 
 ployer they shall, take reasonable steps to bring the case to the 
 notice of the employer, with a view to the settlement of the case 
 without recourse to proceedings. 
 
 Constitution, Proceedings, etc. of Trade Boards 
 
 I J. Constitution of Trade Boards 
 
 (1) The Board of Trade may make regulations with respect to 
 the constitution of Trade Boards which shall consist of members 
 representing employers and members representing workers (in this 
 Act referred to as representative members) in equal proportions 
 and of the appointed members. Any such regulations may be made 
 SO as to apply generally to the constitution of all Trade Boards, or 
 
256 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 specially to the constitution of any particular Trade Board or any 
 particular class of Trade Boards. 
 
 (2) Women shall be eligible as members of Trade Boards as 
 well as men. 
 
 (3) The representative members shall be elected or nominated, 
 or partly elected and partly nominated as may be provided by the 
 regulations, and in framing the regulations the representation of 
 home workers on Trade Boards shall be provided for in all trades 
 in which a considerable proportion of home workers are engaged. 
 
 (4) The chairman of a Trade Board shall be such one of the 
 members as the Board of Trade may appoint, and the secretary 
 of the Trade Board shall be appointed by the Board of Trade. 
 
 (5) The proceedings of a Trade Board shall not be invalidated 
 by any vacancy in their number, or by any defect in the appoint- 
 ment, election, or nomination of any member. 
 
 (6) In order to constitute a meeting of a Trade Board, at least 
 one third of the whole number of the representative members and 
 at least one appointed member must be present. 
 
 (7) The Board of Trade may make regulations with respect to 
 the proceedings and meetings of Trade Boards, including the method 
 of voting ; but subject to the provisions of this Act and to any reg- 
 ulations so made Trade Boards may regulate their proceedings in 
 such manner as they think fit. 
 
 12. Establishment of District Trade Committees 
 
 (i) A Trade Board may establish district trade committees con- 
 sisting partly of members of the Trade Board and partly of persons 
 not being members of the Trade Board but representing employers 
 or workers engaged in the trade and constituted in accordance with 
 regulations made for the purpose by the Board of Trade and acting 
 for such area as the Trade Board may determine. 
 
 (2) Provisions shall be made by the regulations for at least one 
 appointed member acting as a member of each district trade com- 
 mittee, and for the equal representation of local employers and local 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 25/ 
 
 workers on the committee, and for the representation of home 
 workers thereon in the case of any trade in which a considerable 
 proportion of home workers are engaged in the district, and also for 
 the appointment of a standing sub-committee to consider applica- 
 tions for special minimum piece-rates and complaints made to the 
 Trade Board under this Act, and for the reference of any applications 
 or complaints to that sub-committee. 
 
 (3) A Trade Board may refer to a district trade committee for 
 their report and recommendations any matter which they think it 
 expedient so to refer, and may also, if they think fit, delegate to a 
 district trade committee any of their powers and duties under this 
 Act, other than their power and duty to fix a minimum time-rate 
 or general minimum piece-rate. 
 
 (4) Where a district trade committee has been established for 
 any area, it shall be the duty of the committee to recommend to 
 the Trade Board minimum time-rates and, so far as they think fit, 
 general minimum piece-rates, applicable to the trade in that area, 
 and no such minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act and no 
 variation or cancellation of such a rate shall have effect within that 
 area unless either the rate or the variation or cancellation thereof, 
 as the case may be, has been recommended by the district trade 
 committee, or an opportunity has been given to the committee to 
 report thereon to the Trade Board, and the Trade Board have 
 considered the report (if any) made by the committee. 
 
 jj. Appointed Members of Trade Boards 
 
 (i) The Board of Trade may appoint such number of persons 
 (including women) as they think fit to be appointed members of 
 Trade Boards. 
 
 (2) Such of the appointed members of Trade Boards shall act 
 on each Trade Board or district trade committee as may be directed 
 by the Board of Trade, and, in the case of a Trade Board for a 
 trade in which women are largely employed, at least one of the 
 appointed members acting shall be a woman : 
 
258 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Provided that the number of appointed members acting on the 
 same Trade Board, or the same district trade committee, at the same 
 time, shall be less than half the total number of members repre- 
 senting employers and members representing workers. 
 
 Appointment of Officers and Other Provisions for 
 enforcing act 
 
 14. Appointment of Officers 
 
 (i) The Board of Trade may appoint such officers as they 
 think necessary for the purpose of investigating any complaints 
 and otherwise securing the proper observance of this Act, and any 
 officers so appointed shall act under the directions of the Board of 
 Trade, or, if the Board of Trade so determine, under the directions 
 of any Trade Board. 
 
 (2) The Board of Trade may also, in lieu of or in addition to 
 appointing any officers under the provisions of this section, if they 
 think fit, arrange with any other Government department for as- 
 sistance being given in carrying this Act into effect, either generally 
 or in any special cases, by officers of that Department whose duties 
 bring them into relation with any trade to which this Act applies. 
 
 15. Powers of Officers 
 
 (i) Any officer appointed by the Board of Trade under this 
 Act, and any officer of any Government department for the time 
 being assisting in carrying this Act into effect, shall have power 
 for the performance of his duties — 
 
 (a) to require the production of wages sheets or other record 
 of wages by an employer, and records of payments made 
 to outworkers by persons giving out work, and to inspect 
 and examine the same and copy any material part thereof; 
 {p) to require any person giving out work and any outworker 
 to give any information which it is in his power to give 
 with respect to the names and addresses of the persons 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 259 
 
 to whom the work is given out or from whom the work 
 is received, as the case may be, and with respect to the 
 payments to be made for the work ; 
 (<:) at all reasonable times to enter any factory or workshop and 
 any place used for giving out work to outworkers ; and 
 (d) to inspect and copy any material part of any list of out- 
 workers kept by an employer or person giving out work 
 to outworkers. 
 (2) If any person fails to furnish the means required by an 
 officer as necessary for any entry or inspection or the exercise of 
 his powers under this section, or if any person hinders or molests 
 any officer in the exercise of the powers given by this section, or 
 refuses to produce any document or give any information which 
 any officer requires him to produce or give under the powers given 
 by this section, that person shall be liable on summary conviction 
 in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds ; and, 
 if any person produces any wages sheet, or record of wages, or 
 record of pa)mients, or any list of outworkers to any officer acting 
 in the exercise of the powers given by this section, knowing the 
 same to be false, or furnishes any information to any such officer 
 knowing the same to be false, he shall be liable, on summary 
 conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to imprison- 
 ment for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard 
 labour. 
 
 16. Officers to Produce Certificates when Required 
 
 Every officer appointed by the Board of Trade under this Act, 
 and every officer of any Government Department for the time 
 being assisting in carrying this Act into effect, shall be furnished 
 by the Board or Department with a certificate of his appointment, 
 and when acting under any or exercising any power conferred upon 
 him by this Act shall, if so required, produce the said certificate to 
 any person or persons affected. 
 
26o BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 I'j. Power to take and conduct Proceedings 
 
 (i) Any officer appointed by the Board of Trade under this 
 Act, and any officer of any Government Department for the time 
 being assisting in carrying this Act into effect, shall have power in 
 pursuance of any special or general directions of the Board of 
 Trade to take proceedings under this Act, and a Trade Board may 
 also take any such proceedings in the name of any officer appointed 
 by the Board of Trade for the time being acting under the direc- 
 tions of the Trade Board in pursuance of this Act, or in the name 
 of their secretary or any of their officers authorised by them. 
 
 (2) Any officer appointed by the Board of Trade under this 
 Act, or any officer of any Government Department for the time 
 being assisting in carrying this Act into effect, and the secretary 
 of a Trade Board, or any officer of a Trade Board authorised for 
 the purpose, may, although not a counsel or solicitor or law agent, 
 prosecute or conduct before a court of summary jurisdiction any 
 proceedings arising under this Act. 
 
 Supplemental 
 18. Regulations as to Mode of giving Notice 
 
 (i) The Board of Trade shall make regulations as to the notice 
 to be given of any matter under this Act, with a view to bringing 
 the matter of which notice is to be given so far as practicable to 
 the knowledge of persons affected. 
 
 (2) Every occupier of a factory or workshop, or of any place 
 used for giving out work to outworkers, shall, in manner directed 
 by regulations under this section, fix any notices in his factory or 
 workshop or the place used for giving out work to outworkers 
 which he may be required to fix by the regulations, and shall give 
 notice in any other manner, if required by the regulations, to the 
 persons employed by him of any matter of which he is required 
 to give notice under the regulations : 
 
SWEATED LABOUR 26 1 
 
 If the occupier of a factory or workshop, or of any place used 
 for giving out work to outworkers, fails to comply with this provi- 
 sion, he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each 
 offence to a fine not exceeding forty shillings. 
 
 ig. Regulations to be laid before Parliament 
 
 Regulations made under this Act shall be laid as soon as possi- 
 ble before both Houses of Parliament, and, if either House within 
 the next forty days after the regulations have been laid before that 
 House resolve that all or any of the regulations ought to be an- 
 nulled, the regulations shall, after the date of the resolution, be of 
 no effect, without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the 
 meantime thereunder or to the making of any new regulations. If 
 one or more of a set of regulations are annulled, the Board of 
 Trade may, if they think fit, withdraw the whole set. 
 
 20. Interchange of Powers between Government Departments 
 
 (i) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, direct that any 
 powers to be exercised or duties to be performed by the Board of 
 Trade under this Act shall be exercised or performed generally, or 
 in any special cases or class of cases, by a Secretary of State, and, 
 while any such Order is in force, this Act shall apply as if, so far 
 as is necessary to give effect to the Order, a Secretary of State 
 were substituted for the Board of Trade. 
 
 (2) Any Order in Council under this section may be varied or 
 revoked by any subsequent Order in Council. 
 
 21. Expenses 
 
 There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament — 
 (i) Any expenses, up to an amount sanctioned by the Treas- 
 ury, which may be incurred with the authority or sanc- 
 tion of the Board of Trade by Trade Boards or their 
 committees in carrying into effect this Act ; and 
 
262 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (2) To appointed members and secretaries of Trade Boards 
 
 and to officers appointed by the Board of Trade under 
 this Act such remuneration and expenses as may be 
 sanctioned by the Treasuiy ; and 
 
 (3) To representative members of Trade Boards and mem- 
 
 bers (other than appointed members) of district trade 
 committees any expenses (including compensation for 
 loss of time), up to an amount sanctioned by the Treas- 
 ury, which may be incurred by them in the performance 
 of their duties as such members ; and 
 
 (4) Any expenses, up to an amount sanctioned by the Treas- 
 
 ury, which may be incurred by the Board of Trade in 
 making inquiries, or procuring information, or taking 
 any preliminary steps with respect to the application of 
 this Act to any trade to which the Act does not apply, 
 including the expenses of obtaining a Provisional Order, 
 or promoting any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order 
 made under, or in pursuance of, the provisions of this 
 Act. 
 
 22. Title and Commencement 
 
 (i) This Act may be cited as the Trade Boards Act, 1909. 
 
 (2) This Act shall ,come into operation on the first day of 
 January nineteen hundred and ten. 
 
 Schedule 
 Trades to which the Act applies without Provisional Order 
 
 1. Ready-made and wholesale bespoke tailoring and any other 
 branch of tailoring in which the Board of Trade consider that the 
 system of manufacture is generally similar to that prevailing in 
 the wholesale trade. 
 
 2. The making of boxes or parts thereof made wholly or par- 
 tially of paper, cardboard, chip, or similar material. 
 
 3. Machine-made lace and net finishing and mending or darning 
 operations of lace curtain finishing. 
 
 4. Hammered and dollied or tommied chain-making. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 
 
 [An early obvious phase of the Industrial Revolution was the 
 remarkably sudden growth of manufacturing towns and cities, out 
 of all proportion to the increase of the rural population. And this 
 rush of thousands of countrymen to the cities at once precipi- 
 tated the gravest municipal problems. Properly to house the new 
 multitudes was no easy task. The meanest, ugliest dwellings were 
 hastily constructed ; dingy tenements arose ; new sections were 
 built up without provision for open spaces or parks — in fact, 
 without plan or design of any sort, save to house the working 
 classes with the least possible outlay of time and money. A Ruskin 
 might cry out against the ugliness, the filth, and the dirt of a grow- 
 ing industrial town of the mid-century and against the disease, 
 even the vice and crime that these engendered — those who owned 
 the land and had the capital for building must profit to the full 
 themselves, and besides, the workingmen were too poor to afford 
 anything else. 
 
 Overcrowding became the rule of the day and the cause of 
 many municipal ills. In 190 1 the Census Commissioners described 
 as overcrowded 392,000 tenements in which 2,667,000 persons 
 were living, that is to say, 8.2 per cent of the whole population of 
 England, and Wales. In the industrial towns of the United King- 
 dom " more than half a million people live in dwellings of only one 
 room. To-day in London, with all its immense wealth, nearly two- 
 thirds of the whole population live in dwellings of not more than 
 four rooms in all, while in 'Glasgow, famous for its splendid mu- 
 nicipal enterprises, no less than one-fifth of the people live in 
 
 263 
 
264 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 one-room dwellings, and more than half the people have houses of 
 not more than two rooms." ^ 
 
 To deal with the problem, several steps must be taken. In the 
 first place, the slums and older insanitary dwellings in the heart of 
 the town must be removed, and the newer tenements must be con- 
 structed with an eye to health, comfort, and beauty. Open spaces 
 and parks, places for real sunlight, playgrounds and recreation 
 centres, must be provided. Then, in the second place, there must 
 be adequate control of urban growth, so that as the town stretches 
 out into the country the workingmen's dwellings may not be dreary, 
 monotonous piles of brick, but pleasant cottages amply relieved by 
 trees and shrubs and grass. If these steps are to be taken, it is 
 essential also that every municipality should have plenty of cheap 
 land at its disposal and likewise cheap and rapid transit facilities. 
 
 Then, too, in the United Kingdom the problem has been compli- 
 cated still further by the fact that the ownership of the land in the 
 country as well as in the city has been in the hands of the few.^ 
 The peasant has not had a direct, personal interest in the land, 
 and the consequence has been to draw him too readily to the city 
 and to hinder any urban resident from settling in the country. To 
 break down land monopoly everywhere must be a policy of any 
 government bent upon social reform. 
 
 In 1884 an important Housing Commission was appointed with 
 Sir Charles Dilke, an enthusiastic reformer, as Chairman, and with 
 such members as King Edward VII, then Prince of Wales, Cardinal 
 Manning, and Lord Salisbury. Its exhaustive report made clear, 
 among other things, that pauperism and crime, drunkenness, physi- 
 cal degeneration, disease, and high death rates were all bound up 
 with the problem of housing. Several definite recommendations of 
 the Commission were embodied in the Housing of the Working 
 Classes Act of 1890 and in subsequent legislation. 
 
 1 Percy Alden, Democratic England, p. 170. Cf. also Mr. Seebohm Rowntree's 
 book, " Poverty," and the investigations of Mr. Charles Booth among the poor of 
 London. " Cf. supra, pp. 5, 6. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 265 
 
 But it was not until 1909 that serious attempts were made to 
 grapple with practically all forms of the housing problem. It 
 was against the land monopoly that many provisions of the cele- 
 brated Lloyd George Budget ^ of that year were directed, notably 
 the tax on the unearned increment and the proposals for land 
 development. 
 
 Already, in 1907, the Liberal Government had succeeded in se- 
 curing the enactment of an important Small Holdings and Allot- 
 ments Bill.^ In 1909, in addition to the Budget, a Housing and 
 Town Planning Act and a Development Act were passed. 
 
 The Housing and Town Planning Bill was introduced on Feb- 
 ruary 17, 1909, and when it reached second reading on April 5, 
 Mr. John Bums, President of the Local Government Board, said 
 (Extract 48) that it was an almost exact reproduction of a Bill 
 considered in Grand Committee in 1908. It proposed that the 
 existing law which enabled local authorities to provide new houses 
 should be obligatory, and increased facilities would be given for 
 the acquisition of land for housing on small-holding terms. Loans 
 would be obtainable for periods up to eighty years at the minimum 
 rate of interest possible, and the Housing Acts would be consoli- 
 dated into one. The law with regard to closing orders and demoli- 
 tion of buildings unfit for habitation would be strengthened and 
 simplified, and landlords would be required to keep holdings in all 
 respects reasonably fit for human habitation. As to town planning, 
 there was no fear that open spaces and parks would be affected. 
 The measure provided, moreover, that every county council should 
 have a medical officer devoting all his abilities and services to pub- 
 lic health and sanitation ; and underground and cellar dwellings 
 and back-to-back houses would be abolished. 
 
 1 Cf. infra, ch. viii. 
 
 2 This measure " to consolidate the enactments with respect to small holdings and 
 allotments in England and Wales " (7 Edw. 7, ch. 54, August 28, 1907) should be 
 read in conjunction with the various Irish Land Laws and with the Small Land- 
 holders Act for Scotland (i & 2 Geo. 5, ch. 49, December 16, 1911). All these Acts, 
 in one way or another, illustrate social politics, but lack of space has precluded their 
 incorporation in this volume. 
 
266 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Mr. Lyttelton, in behalf of the Opposition, gave general support 
 to the Bill, though he complained that it was largely "legislation 
 by reference," and he did not think the Local Government Board 
 should coerce a county council, or that the provisions as to com- 
 pulsory purchase were sound. Moreover, the Local Government 
 Board should have an increased staff to work the Bill. Two 
 Unionist members for rural constituencies, Mr. Lane-Fox and 
 Mr. Hicks- Beach, respectively, moved and seconded an amendment 
 declining to impose the cost of housing, a natural service, on local 
 rates, but eventually this was rejected by 128 to 20 after closure, 
 and the second reading agreed to. 
 
 The Housing and Town Planning Bill was disposed of in the 
 Commons on August 30 and 31, after various Opposition members 
 had unsuccessfully moved amendments restricting the powers con- 
 ferred on the Local Government Board, altering the proposed 
 land purchase procedure, saving lands held by railway companies 
 and similar undertakings from compulsory purchase, and prevent- 
 ing local authorities from extending their schemes outside their 
 own jurisdiction. A clause requiring local authorities to hold a 
 quinquennial survey and inspection of small dwelling-houses and 
 register the results, carried against the Government in Grand Com- 
 mittee, was debated independently of party lines and struck out 
 by 121 to 95. 
 
 In the House of Lords the Bill was generally welcomed on its 
 second reading on September 14, when Earl Beauchamp explained 
 the measure in detail {Extract 4g). The Earl of Onslow thought 
 there would be too much governmental supervision and insisted 
 upon the dangers of bureaucracy (Extract jo). The fate of the 
 quinquennial survey clause was deplored by the Bishop of Birming- 
 ham {Extract S I) and by the Primate. 
 
 But the Lords, already in conflict with the Commons over the 
 Budget, began to perceive dangers in the Housing and Town Plan- 
 ning Bill, and drastic alterations were proposed that materially 
 weakened the measure. Of the changes effected in Committee 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 267 
 
 Stage, September 22-23, the most important (i) substituted a 
 costlier plan of land purchase borrowed from the Port of London 
 Act ; (2) subjected housing orders to the control of either House ; 
 (3) permitted back-to-back houses if the medical officer of health cer- 
 tified their ventilation satisfactory ; (4) exempted the land of rail- 
 way and other statutory companies from compulsory purchase under 
 the Bill; (5) relieved the County and County Borough Councils 
 from the proposed compulsion by the Local Government Board ; 
 and (6) interfered with the town planning clauses by setting up 
 the machinery of Provisional Orders which might be dealt with 
 and defeated by either House. 
 
 The Bill was further amended by the Lords on Report on 
 October 4, in a manner displeasing to its supporters. Some feel- 
 ing was excited by the attitude of the Duke of Northumberland 
 towards the proposals made to secure the fitness of cottages for 
 habitation and the closing of insanitary dwellings, inasmuch as cer- 
 tain nliners' cottages on his estate at Walbottle, Northumberland, 
 leased to a mining company, had been closed as insanitary by order 
 of the County Bench. " Walbottle " was heard of for some time 
 afterwards at Liberal meetings. The Bill was further amended 
 very considerably on third reading a week later. 
 
 The measure, as it finally received the royal assent on Decem- 
 ber 3, is a very long and technical one, but a number of its most 
 salient provisions are given as Extract ^2. 
 
 The Development Bill, the success of which had been repeatedly 
 linked with that of the Budget,' was introduced on August 26 and 
 reached second reading on September 6. It provided : (i) That 
 grants on loans might be made by the Treasury, aided by an 
 Advisory Board, towards forestry, agriculture, rural industries and 
 transport, harbours, canals, fisheries, and other modes of economic 
 development. The fund would be provided {a) by annual Parlia- 
 mentary grants ; (J)) by five annual grants, each of ;^5oo,ooo 
 
 1 The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to its purposes in his Budget 
 speech on April 29, 1909. Cf. infra, Extract j8, pp. 366-369. 
 
268 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 charged on the Consolidated Fund ; (c) by interest and, in certain 
 cases, profits on grants or loans. (2) It constituted a Road Board 
 of one paid and four unpaid members, which would either itself 
 construct new loans or make grants and loans to the highway 
 authorities for the purpose. Its own roads would primarily be 
 motor roads with no speed limit, and it would have compulsory 
 powers of acquisition not only of land for new roads, but of land 
 for 220 ft. on each side, of which it would get the increment. The 
 expenses would be covered partly by this and by charges on non- 
 motor traffic on the new roads or for private roads through this strip, 
 and partly by the duties on motor spirit and motor cars. Its work 
 was to have reference to the state and prospects of employment. 
 
 Lord Robert Cecil bitterly opposed the second reading (Ex- 
 tract Sj), declaring that the Bill would produce political corrup- 
 tion and that it exhibited megalomania. Mr. David Lloyd George, 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, replied to Lord Robert in a 
 characteristically caustic speech {Extract S4) ; and subsequendy 
 Mr. G. N. Barnes expressed an interesting Labour view of the 
 matter {Extract j^"). Eventually the second reading was carried 
 after closure by 137 to 17, and the necessary financial resolution 
 was also carried after the defeat by 105 to 6 of an amendment 
 limiting the grant of ;£'5oo,ooo to one year. 
 
 Stormy scenes marked all the later stages of the Development 
 Bill in the House of Commons. Conservative discontent with its 
 provisions was obvious. On the Report Stage, on October 7, 
 Unionists unsuccessfully moved amendments (1) to secure greater 
 Parliamentary control over the Development Commission by abol- 
 ishing the annual grant of ^500,000 out of the Consolidated Fund ; 
 (2) to limit the amounts payable in a year to England, Scotland, 
 and Ireland respectively to 80, 11, and g per cent of the total sum 
 advanced ; (3) to secure greater independence for the Commis- 
 sioners ; (4) to restrict the number of the members of the Road 
 Board to five ; (5) to deprive the Board of power to construct 
 new roads. The Bill was then read a third time. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 269 
 
 In the Lords, second reading was passed on October 14, after 
 an excellent summary of the general principles underlying the 
 measure by Earl Carrington, President of the Board of Agricul- 
 ture {Extract j6). Efforts were made to amend the Bill, but the 
 Commons declined to accept any amendments, and the Lords 
 yielded. The Bill received the royal assent on December 3, and 
 is given below as Extract ^'/.'\ 
 
 Extract 48 
 
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE HOUSING AND TOWN 
 PLANNING BILL 
 
 (Mr. John Bums, President of the Local Government Board, 
 Commons, April 2, 1909) 
 
 Mr. Burns ^ : The Bill that we ask the second reading of to- 
 day is the Government's Housing and Town Planning Bill, which 
 was read a second time on May 12 of last year. After the Bill 
 received its second reading, it was committed to the Grand Com- 
 mittee upstairs. This Bill was most favourably received both in this 
 House on the second reading and in the country both before and 
 since, and for twenty-three days it stood upstairs the ordeal of criti- 
 cism and improvement. After the twenty-three days upstairs, the 
 Bill was reported to the House of Commons on December 3 last, 
 but the Government considered, mainly in deference to the general 
 view that was then expressed, and because of the demands made 
 upon its time for other measures that had an equal claim, that it 
 was impracticable to pass such an important Bill last Session ; and 
 the Prime Minister promised that, as the Bill was not passed last 
 year, it should be re-introduced as early as possible in the Session 
 of 1909. This has now been done, and, I submit, in extension of 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 3, col. 733 sqq. 
 
270 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the Prime Minister's promise, that the new Bill which we submit 
 to-day is almost an exact reproduction of last year's Bill, except 
 those Amendments which were added in the Committee, with a few 
 deletions, which were effected on the initiative of the Government 
 and generally approved by the Committee upstairs. . . . 
 
 The main and essential feature of the Bill is that Part III of the 
 Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which enables local 
 authorities to provide new houses for the working classes, and 
 which is now only adoptive, shall be put in force throughout the 
 country. This is an important, a serious and necessary, and, I be- 
 lieve, a practical step that housing reformers have been asking for 
 for some years. 
 
 Beyond that the Bill gives increased facilities for the acquisition 
 of land for housing the working classes on small holdings terms. 
 Such conditions under which land can be acquired for small hold- 
 ings have been so recently before both Houses of Parliament — and 
 have secured, I believe, the cordial assent of both branches of Par- 
 liament ; and it is, at any rate, equally necessary that the acquisi- 
 tion of land for what is equally necessary for the improvement of 
 the country, namely, land for the housing of the working classes, 
 should be under similar conditions — that it is not necessary for 
 me to labour those conditions at any length. 
 
 The third improvement is that the provisions in this Bill enable 
 loans to be obtained through the Public Works Loans Commis- 
 sioners for periods up to eighty years, with the minimum rate of 
 interest possible, and I think desirable. 
 
 The fourth provision is that not only will the new Bill, when it 
 becomes an Act, be better enforced by improved machinery than 
 the existing Acts now are, but existing Acts will be embodied in this 
 Bill ; and at the end of the Session the whole of the Housing Acts, 
 consolidated into one intelligible and practical working measure, 
 will, I trust, enable the housing of the working classes to be secured 
 by machinery that will act more easily, more promptly, and more 
 efficiently, and at less cost, than now prevails. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 2/1 
 
 The fifth point is that this Bill strengthens and simplifies the 
 present law as regards closing orders, and the demolition of in- 
 sanitary property unfit for human habitation. 
 
 The sixth point of the Bill is that it extends, in Clauses 1 4 and 
 15, to houses of a higher rental value than at present, an implied 
 condition in the contract for letting th^t the houses are fit for 
 human habitation. It is not only that we should be content with 
 the present law which says that when a landlord lets a house 
 or tenement to an intending occupant, at the time of entry for 
 occupation the house shall be fit for human habitation. What we 
 want is to maintain that house in a condition fit for human habita- 
 tion so long as human beings reside therein. Small though that 
 point is, if vigorously enforced, which we believe under the ma- 
 chinery of this Bill it will be, that small but necessary point will, 
 I trust, create a revolution in the minor conditions of the house, 
 especially in our large towns and cities. Clause 15 throws upon 
 the landlord the responsibility of keeping the house reasonably fit. 
 Now all- these very objects are secured and achieved by the process 
 of machinery set forth in this Bill. So far as the House is con- 
 cerned this Bill is a distinct advance on the existing law. These pro- 
 posals are moderate, reasonable, practical, and nothing has given 
 the Government greater pleasure than the general way in which 
 they have been accepted, so far as the House is concerned. I 
 cordially commend that portion of the BiU to the House. 
 
 The next portion of the Bill is that portion which deals with town 
 planning. This is a new department in the legislation of this country. 
 I rejgret that it has come so late. No one can go through the East 
 End of London, or to places like Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, 
 and Glasgow, and see the effect on the physique, morale, happi- 
 ness, and comfort of men, women, and children, through lack of 
 some such condition as this one hundred, or at least fifty, years ago, 
 but will come to one definite conclusion, that, late though it is, it 
 is better late than never, and that the House of Commons should 
 not lose this opportunity of giving to communities, especially to 
 
272 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 growing and industrial communities, the opportunity of consciously 
 shaping their own development in a better way than has occurred 
 in the past. I have lately been spending week ends in visiting 
 thirty or forty unemployed works in the East End of London, par- 
 ticularly in close proximity to open spaces, and if Members who 
 do not know the East End of London had been with me, I could 
 have pointed out in a practical way how, even close to places like 
 West Ham Park, Hainault Forest, the western portion of Epping 
 Forest, and Hackney Marshes, and by the River Lea and other 
 places, if we had had this Bill forty or fifty years ago, the amenities 
 of these parks and open spaces could have been enormously added 
 to by maintaining a balance between them and the houses built 
 in their neighbourhood. It is not fair or just to our poor that in 
 many cases you build, as you do, close by a river or a canal, 
 which might be made a pleasurable and healthy amenity by the 
 adoption of a proper system of laying out roadways ; it is not fair, 
 I say, that streets should be put the wrong way on, that roads 
 should be formed at the wrong angle, that they should be placed 
 where the sun rarely reaches, but where the wind does always, or 
 where ventilation is denied them, and where the line of greatest 
 resistance is pursued in neglecting those natural and physical op- 
 portunities which, under the Town Planning Bill, could be profitably 
 exploited for the whole community ^ — to the benefit not only of 
 the present generation, but particularly of children who are cursed, 
 many of them, in their habitations and environment. This portion 
 of the Bill has met with a favourable reception. It has had a litde 
 criticism, but I trust that before June the measure, the town plan- 
 ning portion of it particularly, will be on the Statute Book. 
 
 I come to one or two portions of the measure which have been 
 rather misunderstood or unintentionally misrepresented. If town 
 planning is to be a success, as we all agree it should be, it is 
 essential that the central body should have more control than it 
 now has. I can understand some hon. Members saying that what 
 has prevented town planning in the past has been where special. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 273 
 
 personal, or local interests have been so anxious to satisfy prejudices 
 or selfish objects that it has been impossible for local owners, with 
 a local authority of limited views, sometimes consisting not always 
 of the most disinterested personnel, to come to the agreement that 
 would be arrived at if the central authority intervened. And it is 
 universally admitted on both sides of the House that for this pur- 
 pose the Local Government Board ought to have more power to 
 intervene, first by way of local inquiry, secondly by making sur- 
 veys and investigations, separating the goats from the sheep, and 
 seeing that the community do not suffer because litigious owners 
 or prejudiced councillors happen to be at loggerheads, not about 
 the interests of the locality as a whole, but about some pettifogging 
 local or personal grievance which is very often allowed to stand 
 in the way of a good owner developing his property, or of public- 
 spirited companies doing the right thing — the local authorities be- 
 ing influenced, as alone they ought to be influenced, for the benefit 
 of the community they serve. We think that the Local Government 
 Board, as the central authority, ought to exercise a wider control, 
 and for this control the Department has taken no more power 
 than is essential for the proper purposes of this Bill. 
 
 Some of the powers of this Bill have been misunderstood, others 
 have been exaggerated, and one or two are suspected on minor 
 details. May I say to all who do not agree with me as to the pro- 
 posals of this Bill, whether as to parks or open spaces, roads or 
 other points of detail, that they will find the Local Government 
 Board as amenable and susceptible to reason and advice in the 
 Committee of this House as they were in Grand Committee up- 
 stairs. It would be ridiculous if, on minor points in a Bill like 
 this, we should be suspected of dragging in proposals, as has been 
 represented, to grab commons, to filch open spaces, to appropri- 
 ate parks, and, generally speaking, not to rest content until the 
 houses of West Ham and Poplar are in the middle of Kensington 
 Gardens or in the centre of Wimbledon Common. Yet, that is the 
 kind of representation we receive. As a matter of fact, the people 
 
274 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 who make that kind of suggestion in the newspapers forget that the 
 Local Government Board is pre-eminently a body more concerned 
 in regard to parks and open spaces than any other person or 
 authority could be in this country. First, it has the care of the 
 public health, and no town or city can possess health without open 
 spaces and pleasant environment. Last year alone, the Local Gov- 
 ernment Board, which is suspected in some quarters of having 
 designs to build on every common, on every open space or com- 
 monable piece of land, sanctioned ;^3oo,ooo for the purchase of 
 additional parks and open spaces. When it is suggested that we 
 have fell designs on commons, my answer is : that out of ^230,000 
 spent out of the unemployed fund last winter, ^130,000 was ex- 
 pended in adding to parks and open spaces, and beautifying those 
 which already existed. To suggest that we want to filch commons 
 and run away with parks and open spaces is absurd. What dif- 
 ferences there are between my Department and one or two hon. 
 Members are open to consideration and adjustment. Of course, 
 I do not hope to please every Member whose mind is filled with 
 open spaces, but I do say that there is nothing in these proposals 
 but what one can come to an agreement upon. 
 
 I now come to the third portion of the Bill. That is the portion 
 which deals with the medical officers of health. It is a very im- 
 portant part of the measure. We have sixty-two county councils 
 in the country, and, up to recently, only half of them have had 
 medical officers. I do not think that this country, which for the 
 last hundred years has led the world in public sanitation, should 
 remain longer under the reproach of not having in every county 
 of England and Wales a whole-time medical officer. And we have 
 decided that every county council shall have a whole-time medical 
 officer, devoting all his abilities and services to public health and 
 sanitation. Bearing in mind the special provisions of this Bill, we 
 also say that this in itself, especially when the terms and condi- 
 tions under which the medical officer serves are to be approved by 
 the Local Government Board, should give some satisfaction to the 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 2/5 
 
 members of a useful and honourable profession, which has a right 
 to be protected against, at times, the capricious local interference 
 which prevents them from doing their duty to the body politic as 
 well as they ought to be allowed to do it. . . . 
 
 There are one or two other things to which I must refer before 
 I sit down. The first is with regard to underground dwellings. We 
 are taking steps to abolish underground and cellar dwellings alto- 
 gether. Personal and public opinion in the last few years has 
 moved rapidly, and the proposals of the Bill practically terminate 
 underground and cellar dwellings for human habitation for the 
 future. We are also seeking to obtain power to prohibit back-to- 
 back dwellings. [" Oh."] I notice that one Member of the House 
 says " Oh." That confirms the fact, perhaps, that representations 
 as to back-to-back houses have only been received from one dis- 
 trict. I do not believe that back-to-back houses ought to exist at 
 all. So far as this Bill is concerned no back-to-back houses are to 
 be allowed in future. And we are supported in that proposal, I see, 
 in a little handbill entitled " Fresh Air and Ventilation," published 
 by the National Association for the Prevention of Consumption 
 and Other Forms of Tuberculosis. I find in that leaflet they say 
 that " back-to-back houses and cellar tenements are unfit for human 
 habitation." And that is our view, and no injustice is done to any 
 community or to any owner or to any interest when, if this Bill be 
 passed, we say that no more back-to-back houses shall be allowed 
 in future. If we wanted arguments against back-to-back, houses, 
 I should like, if time permitted, to read one of the most remarkable 
 little books I ever read dealing with the state of the poorer classes 
 in great towns. This little book is the substance of a speech de- 
 livered in the House of Commons by Mr. Robert A. Slaney, a 
 relative of the late Colonel Kenyon-Slaney. If one only had time 
 to read this little book, which was published in 1840, particularly 
 with that part dealing with the consequences and the effects of 
 back-to-back houses, I think we should carry the House with us. 
 We are against back-to-back houses. 
 
276 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Mr. Lupton : That book was written seventy years ago. 
 
 Mr. Burns: Yes, but the same rule applies now. The par- 
 ticular town dealt with in this little book now labours under the 
 disability of back-to-back houses. 
 
 Mr. Lupton : And that town has the second lowest death-rate 
 in the kingdom. 
 
 Mr. Burns : Probably it would have been better if the town 
 had not had back-to-back houses. 
 
 Mr. Speaker : I must ask the hon. Member from Sleaford not 
 to carry on a conversation. This is a debate, not a conversazione. 
 
 Mr. Burns : I can only say that in one town where back-to-back 
 houses prevail we have this remarkable result : Whereas the average 
 age at death of the gentlemen and the professional classes was 44, 
 amongst the tradesmen it was 2 7 , and amongst operative labourers ' 
 and their families it was 19 ; that is,' 44 as against 19. My medical 
 advisers advise me that the back-to-back houses were responsible 
 in the day of this report for a death-rate of 43 per 1000 over the 
 town as a whole, and an infant mortality of 570 per 1000 of chil- 
 dren under five years of age. It is represented to .me on the re^ 
 sponsibility' of Dr. Tatham, Dr. Niven, and Dr. Sykes, and other 
 weU-known medical men, that where all causes are responsible for 
 27 per 1000 of deaths, it is 38, and not 27, in back-to-back houses ; 
 infectious diseases were 4.5 in through-ventilated houses and 8.7 
 in back-to-back houses; consumption stood at 2.8 in through-ven- 
 tilated houses and 5.2 in back-to-back houses. In the ordinary 
 houses occupied by the labouring classes in regard to lung com- 
 plaints the percentage was 6.6 in through-ventilated houses and 
 g.2 in back-to-back houses. Where the children die from diarrhoea 
 it is 1.4 in through-ventilated houses and 3.4 in back-to-back houses. 
 In a town that has recently expressed its desire to be allowed to 
 continue these back-to-back houses, I find this very suggestive com- 
 ment made by one of the best authorities on housing (Mr. Dewsnup) 
 in one of the best books on the subject recently written. He says, 
 speaking of Leeds back-to-back houses : " Newly built the houses 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 2// 
 
 may look attractive, but what will be their condition after years of 
 wear and tear? More than a probability that the conclusion of 
 Manchester will be rejustified." 
 
 England is not so destitute of land upon which to house its poor 
 that they should be housed in working-class tenements without 
 a back yard in which to chop the wood and put the coal, and in 
 which the children can play whilst the mother is able to keep a 
 friendly eye on them through the washhouse window, and at the 
 same time continue to carry on her domestic duties. All this is 
 impossible in back-to-back houses, where the children have only 
 a stuffy room for a playground ; and in the days of rapid traction 
 you have no right to relegate children to play in a small front gar- 
 den, or in the road or street, when the community is rich enough 
 to provide the humblest garden, in the majority of cases, and some 
 measure of a back yard in which the youngsters can play whilst the 
 domestic duties in the house are being carried out. This can be 
 done better in through-ventilated houses with a back yard and a 
 garden than is possible in the case of back-to-back houses. 
 
 We shall probably be told that there are one or two details with 
 regard to town planning that are more arbitrary than they should 
 be, that they will want amending, and that there are other details 
 we shall have to consider. On all these points I am quite con- 
 vinced we shall be able to meet hon. Members when this Bill 
 reaches the proper stage. We are extremely anxious that this Bill 
 should go through the second reading before the Easter holidays, 
 and I have contented myself on this occasion with giving a brief 
 outline of the salient features of this Bill, which has been before 
 the House so long, and which has been so favourably received 
 by the country generally. . . . 
 
 Before this session is out I hope hon. Members in all parts of 
 the House will be gratified with having contributed in the pro- 
 duction of a useful, if a humble, measure affecting the life of the 
 people, the effect of which they will be able to gauge better thirty 
 or forty years hence than at the present moment. . . . 
 
278 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract ^g 
 
 DETAILED. EXPLANATION OF THE HOUSING AND TOWN 
 PLANNING BILL 
 
 (Earl Beauchamp, Lords, September 14, igog) 
 
 Earl Beauchamp^: Your Lordships will see that this Bill is 
 divided practically into three parts. The fourth part we may dis- 
 miss as being supplementary, and, if your Lordships wiU allow 
 me, I will take Parts II and III first because they are not likely 
 to give rise to so much controversy as Part I. 
 
 The first clause of Part III — namely. Clause 68 — enjoins the 
 appointment of a medical officer of health by each county council. 
 In subsection (5) your Lordships will see the very important pro- 
 vision which affects their appointment. They are to be removable 
 by the county council with the consent of the Local Government 
 Board and not otherwise, and they are not to be appointed for a 
 limited period. Those of your Lordships who have practical ex- 
 perience of the administration of the various sanitary provisions in 
 different Acts of Parliament must know the difficulty which fre- 
 quently arises when medical officers of health or sanitary inspectors 
 are expected to deal with property belonging to the members of 
 the body which appoints them. It is, I am sure, within the knowl- 
 edge of everybody who has had anything to do with local govern- 
 ment under those circumstances that it is almost unfair to expect 
 a medical officer of health or a sanitary inspector to report very 
 adversely upon property, however bad it may be, if it is possible 
 within the next twelve months that this adverse report will be 
 succeeded by his dismissal from office. It is an unfair position in 
 which to put a medical officer of health, and this demand that he 
 should be irremovable is one that has been made for a long time 
 by a very large number of people. The next important clause is 
 
 1 Farliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 2, col. 1141 sqq. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 279 
 
 Clause 71, by which every county council is obliged to establish 
 a public health and housing committee to which the council may 
 delegate any of their powers as respects public health and housing 
 as they think' fit, with the exception of raising a rate or borrowing 
 money. Your Lordships will see that that will secure throughout 
 the country the appointment of committees charged with the specific 
 duty of looking after public health, and will also secure the appoint- 
 ment of a medical officer particularly well qualified to assist the 
 committee in their work. 
 
 Then, may I call your attention to Part II of the Bill, which 
 deals with town planning. Now the idea of town planning, or of 
 dealing with it by Statute, is, I am sorry to say, a comparatively 
 new one in this country, although there have been provisions of a 
 somewhat similar kind very much used in other countries and with 
 very good effect. Your Lordships will see that Clause 54 says, 
 " A town planning scheme may be made in accordance with the 
 provisions of this Part of the Act as respects any land which is in 
 course of development or appears likely to be used for building 
 purposes.'' The object of a scheme for town planning is to secure 
 " proper sanitary conditions, amenity, and convenience in connexion 
 with the laying out and use of the land, and of any neighbouring 
 lands." 
 
 Your Lordships will see that subsection (4) gives the Local Gov- 
 ernment Board power to approve of a town planning scheme, and 
 without their approval no such scheme will become effective. It 
 is suggested that these are very extensive powers to give to the 
 Local Government Board. Well, my Lords, it is difficult to say in 
 what other way you could deal with this particular point. I think 
 most people who are concerned with local government are anxious 
 to avoid expense as far as possible, and the insertion of a Provi- 
 sional Order here would not only add greatly to the expense but also 
 considerably delay the putting into force of any of these schemes.^ 
 
 1 An amendment was subsequently added, embodying such Provisional Orders. 
 Cf. infra, p. 303. 
 
28o BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 I should like further to call attention to the proviso in Clause 55, 
 by which if the scheme contains provisions suspending any enact- 
 ment contained in a public general Act, the scheme shall not come 
 into force unless a draft has been laid before each House of Par- 
 liament for a period of not less than forty days, so that under 
 this proviso there is a considerable check put upon the Local 
 Government Board, which will not be able to override any public 
 enactment. 
 
 If your Lordships will turn to Clause 56 you will see that the 
 Local Government Board are anxious to secure as far as possible 
 the co-operation of the local authority and the landowners and other 
 persons interested in the land in preparing these schemes. 
 
 Clause 57 gives the Local Government Board power to enforce 
 a scheme, and I should perhaps remind your Lordships that the 
 idea is not that the Board should do the work unless they are 
 obliged to do it, but that their position should rather be one of 
 supervision and of assistance. 
 
 Clause 58 deals with compensation, and here your Lordships 
 will see that, under subsection (3), where the property is increased 
 in value by the operation of any town planning scheme under cer- 
 tain circumstances, the local authority may recover from any person 
 whose property is so increased the amount of that increase. Con- 
 versely, if the property is injured by one of these town planning 
 schemes, then by subsection (4) the person, will be entitled to re- 
 cover the amount of the injury which he suffers. Clause 61 deals 
 with compulsion, but I do not think that that is a clause to which 
 any of your Lordships are likely to suggest an amendment. 
 
 Now we come to Part I of the Bill, the most important part, 
 dealing with housing. I suppose it is difficult to exaggerate the 
 importance attached by a great many people to this Bill. In the 
 eyes of a great many people housing reform is one of the most 
 important parts of social reform, and, indeed, some think that it 
 lies at the very foundation of that reform. Nobody denies that the 
 problem exists, and this Bill deals with two different departments 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 28 1 
 
 of the same subject. First of all there is the question of new 
 houses, and there is also the question of insanitary houses and the 
 putting of such houses into proper condition. I think we all admit 
 the difficulty there is in rural districts of building new cottages 
 on an economic basis, and that is why one of the clauses in the 
 Bill provides that the terms on which the loan is to be made to 
 a local authority shall be exceptionally favourable. But the main 
 clause of this Part of the Bill is the first, in which Part III of the 
 Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890 is adopted through- 
 out the whole of the country. Up till now Part III of that Act 
 has merely been optional, and a rural district council can only 
 adopt it with the consent of the county council, which has to have 
 regard to various considerations before giving consent. In point 
 of fact it has been found that that part of the Act has been made 
 very little use of indeed. It has only been adopted by nine or ten 
 rural district councils. Part III of the Act of 1890 becomes oper- 
 ative at once throughout the whole country. 
 
 The clause to which I am afraid there may be some objection 
 in this House is Clause 2, which must be read together with the 
 First Schedule. It is the clause which deals with the acquisition 
 of land. Now I may say at once that in this matter the Local 
 Government Board has followed the precedent of the Small Hold- 
 ings and Allotments Act. That is a precedent to which your 
 Lordships have already given your approval, and we hope that 
 you will give your assent to the adoption of a similar procedure 
 in this case. The object which His Majesty's Government have 
 in this matter is really two-fold. In the first place we want to 
 simplify procedure, and, in the second place, to reduce expendi- 
 ture ; and we believe that this method — which I think experience 
 has shown, in connection with the Small Holdings Act, has not 
 worked badly — is one which must really be expected to be of 
 considerable value in regard to this Bill. The necessity of simpli- 
 fying the machinery is prbved by a passage in the Report of the 
 Select Committee, in which they say : 
 
282 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 At present one of the chief obstacles in the way of local authorities 
 who desire to put the Housing Acts in operation is the conflicting nature 
 of the machinery by which land can be compulsorily acquired. Not only 
 does this tend to make a local authority reluctant to take any action at 
 all, but in cases where action has been decided upon it almost neces- 
 sarily increases the expense of their scheme, since local authorities will 
 often be prepared to pay more than the market value of the land required 
 rather than undergo the delay which the resort to compulsory powers now 
 involves. 
 
 This particular clause, when read with the First Schedule, simply 
 follows the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act. 
 
 After Clause 3, to which I have already referred, — a clause 
 which deals with the making of loans by the Public Works Loan 
 Commissioners and the terms on which the loans are to be ob- 
 tained, — there are a number of clauses relating to small matters, 
 such as the expenditure of money for housing purposes in the case 
 of settled land, allowing a local authority to accept a donation of 
 land, and so forth. In Clause i o we come to the clause which gives 
 powers for enforcing the Housing Acts, and your Lordships will 
 see that here the Local Government Board step in. In Clause 10 
 the Local Government Board are empowered, if on due com- 
 plaint, amongst others, from four inhabitants they find that a local 
 authority have failed to exercise their powers, to declare them in 
 default, and to limit the time for carrying out the works required, 
 and in some cases to direct the county council to execute them. 
 Clause II provides that if a local authority fail to perform their 
 duty in carrying out an improvement scheme under Part I of 
 the Act of 1890, or in giving effect to an Order as regards an 
 obstructive building, the Board may make an order requiring the 
 local authority to remedy the default and to do what is requisite. 
 Power is of course necessarily given to the Board to enforce their 
 orders by mandamus. 
 
 Then your Lordships will see that in Clauses 12 and 13 pro- 
 vision is made whereby, under certain circumstances, a county 
 council may step in if, in their opinion, a rural district council 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 283 
 
 have failed to exercise their powers. Clause 14 is a clause which 
 increases the implied condition. Your Lordships know that in the 
 case of houses which are of small value there is an implied con- 
 dition on the landlord to see that they are kept in a proper state 
 of sanitary repair and are fit for human habitation. This clause 
 increases the number of houses to which that implied condition 
 will in future apply. May I say in passing that this clause does 
 no more than carry out what I might almost call a favourite prin- 
 ciple of the Liberal party. We all know of good landlords who 
 keep their houses in a state of sanitary repair, and one of the 
 objects of this Bill is to impose upon bad landlords the obligation 
 which good landlords cheerfully and readily admit and already 
 undertake. 
 
 It is just the same principle as that which operated in the case 
 of the Old Age Pensions Act. We know that all over the country 
 there were a large number of good landlords who already gave 
 old age pensions. Now, under the Old Age Pensions Act, every- 
 body is given an old age pension who is entitled to one, whatever 
 may be the character of his employer. So it is also with the Em- 
 ployers' Liability Acts. A large number of employers throughout 
 the country did, without doubt, compensate their workmen prob- 
 ably even more liberally than any employer is bound to do now 
 under the Acts, and the object of the Acts was simply to force 
 the bad employer to do that which the good employer was doing 
 already. Here in this clause we have the obligation put upon the 
 bad landlord to keep his houses in that state of sanitary repair in 
 which a good landlord is always pleased to see his own property 
 maintained. 
 
 Clause 17 deals with the duty of the local authority as regards 
 the closing of houses which are unfit for human habitation, and 
 here it would, perhaps, be most convenient to deal first of all with 
 the law as it stands at present under the Act of 1890. At the 
 present time it is the duty of the local authority to inspect these 
 houses, but the obligation does not go beyond mere inspection. 
 
284 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Then, if it is considered necessary to close these houses, they are 
 closed by the local authority upon an order made by the magis- 
 trates. The alteration proposed by this Bill is that the inspection 
 should in future be made in the same way as before, but that the 
 local authority should also keep such records as may be prescribed 
 by the Board. That will mean that probably the inspection will be 
 done more carefully than it has been in the past. The second point 
 is that the local authority will be able to make the order without 
 referring to the justices for the power to close, as they have to do 
 at the present time before they can act. It is obvious, I am sure, 
 that this must result in a great simplification of the system of 
 making closing orders, and that it will render it easier for the local 
 authorities to shut up insanitary houses, while it will also increase the 
 amount of inspection. This very important clause — Clause 17 — 
 which deals with existing insanitary houses also prohibits under- 
 ground sleeping rooms. . . . 
 
 Clause 18 allows an order for the demolition of a house to be 
 postponed if the owner undertakes to carry out the work neces- 
 sary to render it fit for human habitation. Then come a number 
 of comparatively unimportant clauses such as those which deal with 
 the vesting of water pipes and the modification of schemes. 
 
 The next important clause, which is likely, I am afraid, to meet 
 with some opposition in your Lordships' House, is one which deals 
 with back-to-back houses. That is Clause 44.' Your Lordships 
 will see that this Bill deals with Scotland, but not with Ireland, 
 the latter country having been dealt with last year under a special 
 Bill. It is, however, the intention of the Local Government Board, 
 if your Lordships pass this Bill, to introduce next year a General 
 Consolidation Bill dealing with the whole subject, which will, I 
 think, be a matter of considerable convenience to all who are con- 
 cerned in the work of local administration. I think your Lordships 
 will agfee that if the Local Government Board were to use the 
 powers given them under this Bill too drastically, there would be 
 1 Clause 43 in the measure as finally enacted. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 285 
 
 so great a danger of reaction that it would be impossible for the 
 Board to proceed so far as they would wish in this direction. I 
 hope, therefore, your Lordships will think that you may fairly trust 
 the Local Government Board not to go too far, or to use the 
 powers conferred upon them unfairly, but to do your best to make 
 this Bill, if you agree to its passage through this House, a real 
 success. I beg leave to move that the Bill be read a second time. 
 
 Extract £o 
 
 DANGERS OF BUREAUCRACY 
 (Earl of Onslow, Lords, September 14, igog) 
 
 The Earl of Onslow * : There is a peculiarity of the Bill which 
 runs through it frOm one end to the other to which I feel bound 
 to draw attention. That is the proposal to put in the hands of a 
 Government Department a number of duties which hitherto have 
 always been left either to the local authority or to Parliament. This 
 is a practice which I am afraid under His Majesty's Government 
 has been slowly and steadily growing. It is not a practice which I 
 for one can look upon with satisfaction. . . . 
 
 I 'know that the right hon. Gentleman who presides over the 
 Local Government Board is a man of great strength of character. 
 He is a man with great confidence in himself, and I am bound to 
 say he inspires that confidence in other people. I have had the 
 honour of the acquaintance of the right hon. Gentleman for a good 
 many years, first upon the London County Council and afterwards 
 in Parliament, and I have always thought he has been actuated by 
 the highest motives and the greatest desire to discharge the duties 
 of his office with perfect fairness and perfect justness to everybody 
 concerned. But, my Lords, the right hon. Gentleman will not 
 always be at the Local Government Board. We hear talk of an 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 2, col. 11 50 sqq. 
 
286 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 impending General Election, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman 
 may find that his attention will have to be more closely confined 
 to Battersea than it has been hitherto, or he might be moved to a 
 higher Department of State, and if he is caught up, upon whom 
 is the mantle of Elijah to fall ? Whatever good opinion I may have 
 of the present President of the Local Government Board, I for 
 one should shrink from entrusting these powers to any and every 
 possible successor of his in that important office. 
 
 We are told that in this repect we ought to take example by 
 what is done on the Continent. We are told that in Germany, 
 Austria, and Holland the local authorities are all required to make 
 town planning schemes. Most of you who have travelled on the 
 Continent would be somewhat loath to see a town laid out even 
 like Vienna or Beriin, with their rings and their rectangular streets. 
 I think travellers visiting some of those cities may look back with 
 affection to the times when we threaded the tortuous labyrinths of 
 Threadneedle Street. Whether that be so or not, at any rate we 
 in this country are not accustomed to be, and do not wish to be, 
 governed by a bureaucracy. Our principles are totally different 
 from those which govern foreign nations. We have our local 
 authorities and our supreme Parliament. I am told there are no 
 fewer than 26,000 local authorities in this country, and I am 
 always filled with amazement and satisfaction when I reflect upon 
 the enormous amount of unpaid labour which citizens of this 
 country are willingly giving in order to look after the affairs of 
 their neighbours. I know it is sometimes said of this House that 
 noble Lords might be more regular in their attendance, and indeed 
 I think I have heard the expression " Wild Peers from the Woods." 
 I do not quite know what it means, but I take it that it refers to 
 those Peers who attend our debates comparatively seldom. Why 
 is that? Is it not because those noble Lords are engaged in the 
 administration of affairs in their own localities ? I venture to think 
 that anything which tends to diminish local patriotism will be a 
 very grievous blow to local institutions generally. 
 
th£ housing and land problem 287 
 Extract £i 
 
 FRIENDLY ECCLESIASTICAL ATTITUDE TOWARD 
 TOWN PLANNING 
 
 [Bishop of Birmingham, Lords, September 14, igog) 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Birmingham ^ • My Lords, I will ask you 
 to listen to me for a few moments on this Bill, but what I have to 
 say is entirely with reference to what concerns our great cities, and 
 not to what concerns the rural districts. I suppose there could be 
 no assembly in which there are so many people qualified to speak 
 on the details of rural affairs, so many people versed in the man- 
 agement of rural affairs, but I suppose there are not quite so many 
 who have an intimate knowledge of the concerns of our great and 
 still rapidly growing cities. We are all of us proud of our own city, 
 and certainly I am very proud of the city in which I live. It is one 
 of the very many which have grown up out of a number of villages 
 in which factories were established, which grew together and have 
 grown and become a vast city, altogether without what one might 
 call any guiding mind or plan or scheme. 
 
 The noble Earl who has just sat down confessed that he became 
 very easily wearied with the monotony and regularity of a city laid 
 out like Vienna, and that a little experience of a German-planned 
 city made him long for the tortuosity with which we are familiar 
 in London. I venture to think that if any one of your Lordships 
 were to set about the task of learning your way about Birmingham, 
 you would indeed feel that tortuosity and complication and absence 
 of plan had been allowed to run to excess. I do not think it would 
 be possible for anyone to make a survey of many of our great 
 cities, even of that in which I live, without feeling that the condi- 
 tion of things was in the highest degree disastrous to social and 
 public welfare. You may pass vast areas in which there is no open 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. j,, col. 1157 sqq. 
 
288 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 space — for your Lordships must know that London stands in re- 
 spect to open spaces, as compared to a great many of our pro- 
 vincial towns, in a position of quite infinite superiority — and this 
 is due, no doubt, to the fact that the city grew up totally without 
 planning. There can be no one acquainted at all with the sanitary 
 condition of the poorer parts of our cities who does not know that 
 reform on a very large scale, and of a very drastic character, is 
 necessary. I venture to say also that no one can be acquainted 
 with the conditions in which the suburbs are still being allowed to 
 grow, and the extraordinary rapidity with which the new suburbs 
 of our cities degenerate into slums, without knowing that a very 
 careful, and, indeed, a deep-rooted and far-reaching plan and method 
 of town planning is quite essential. 
 
 This Bill is designed, I presume, to meet those two particular 
 evils ; it is designed to meet the evils inherent in our slum dwell- 
 ings, the small houses in the poorer parts of our cities, and also 
 to limit, as far as can be limited, the evils due to the total absence 
 of plans with which our cities are still being allowed to grow up. 
 I was heartily glad to hear the noble Earl who has just sat down 
 say what he did as to giving a general welcome to this Bill, though 
 I do not exactly feel sure how much of amendment he intends to 
 propose. At any rate, for my own part I heartily welcome the Bill 
 as being on the whole a thoroughly beneficial measure entirely in 
 the right direction. The noble Earl said what indeed is true, that 
 it has not been our manner to encourage centralised government 
 and bureaucracy. Is it not the case that anyone acquainted with 
 our English life must reahse that there is a very large opportunity 
 for us to limit the go-as-you-please policy which Englishmen 
 delight in without by any means speedily or easily arriving at 
 the point of completely centralised bureaucracy. I do not think 
 it would be possible for anyone who knows the history of the 
 efforts made in the last thirty years to remove the appalling evils 
 with regard to housing, who knows the difficulties which those 
 efforts have met with, or has realised how often those efforts 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 289 
 
 have been unsuccessful, to fail to see that we do need a great 
 deal more of what we call, central control. 
 
 I was glad to hear the noble Earl who introduced the Bill speak 
 of the clause about the appointment of medical officers of health. 
 What the noble Earl said upon this subject touches a point which 
 must be familiar to anyone acquainted with local politics — namely, 
 the extreme need of giving a far greater measure of independence 
 to the medical officer of health. I heartily welcome that particular 
 clause. But there is one other clause with regard to which I should 
 like to say a word. Those who in my neighbourhood are specially 
 interested in this matter are profoundly impressed by the fact that 
 we must rely to a great extent, not only on municipal efforts, but 
 also on the efforts of public-spirited individuals and voluntary so- 
 cieties for the promotion of public utility. Therefore they are 
 very urgent about Clause 61, subsection (b), which, I believe, was 
 threatened in the House of Commons and survived with difficulty, 
 and which would give the Local Government Board the power of 
 interference. The clause provides that if the Local Government 
 Board are satisfied on any representation, after holding a local in- 
 quiry, that a local authority have failed to adopt a scheme proposed 
 by owners of any land in a case where the scheme ought to be 
 adopted, the Board may order the local authority to prepare and 
 submit for the approval of the Board such a town planning scheme 
 and to adopt the scheme, or to consent to the modifications or 'con- 
 ditions so imposed. The persons to whom I refer earnestly hope 
 that His Majesty's Government will adhere to that clause, which 
 gives the Local Government Board power to intervene where it 
 appears that local public bodies have not- been sufficiently willing 
 to assist and co-operate with public-spirited individuals. 
 
 My Lords, there is one clause which was in the Bill, but which 
 is not in the Bill as it now appears, the absence of which some of 
 us deeply deplore. I would earnestly ask this House whether it is 
 not possible to restore, even at this stage, Clause 30.'- Clause 30, 
 
 1 The clause indicated was not restored. 
 
290 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 as it was, instituted a quinquennial survey and register. It made 
 it the duty of every local authority to cause to be made in every 
 parish an inspection survey as regards certain property ; and the 
 things which had to be registered included the addresses of the 
 rated occupier and the beneficial owner. Those of us who have 
 been interested in this matter for some time have cause to attach 
 extraordinary importance to such a register. In part there is already 
 an obligation upon the local authority to make a survey of the prop- 
 erty within their region, but inquiries made by the National Hous- 
 ing Reform Council led to the recognition that this duty was being 
 very widely neglected. It appears there were only sixteen, I think, 
 out of 1 1 2 urban and rural district councils which effectively carried 
 out the requirements of the law. Now I observe that in Clause 1 1 
 as it stands in the Bill there is power given to the Local Govern- 
 ment Board to intervene to cause the local authority to be more effi- 
 cient in the fulfilment of what is already their statutory obligation, 
 but that falls very far short of the proposal in Clause 30 as it did 
 stand in the Bill. An important deputation — introduced, I believe, 
 by the most rev. Primate — laid great stress upon the importance 
 of this survey and register, and I think I am right in saying that 
 the late Prime Minister specially recognised the importance of that 
 point. I should very much like to know from His Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment why it was that that clause was dropped out of the Bill. 
 In part it may be on the plea of expense. It is not for me to esti- 
 - mate what the expense would be ; but I venture to say that even 
 considerable expense would be thoroughly justified in order that 
 we might have this register and know who owns, with the different 
 degrees of ownership, the worst kinds of prQperty to be encountered 
 in parts of our cities. 
 
 It was once my lot in London to have something to do with a 
 society for the buying up of slum property in order to get it into 
 better hands, and my experience of the extraordinary difficulty of 
 ascertaining the name of the owner rooted in my mind the neces- 
 sity of all information with regard to occupation ownership being 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 29 1 
 
 accessible. I very much wondered whether the influences, which I 
 have reason to believe are very strong influences, leading to a de- 
 sire to conceal the ownership of the worst properties, have not had 
 something to do with the resistance to what was Clause 30. There 
 is no consideration which Parliament ought to entertain which makes 
 it in any way desirable or excusable that the real ownership of the 
 worst properties should be a matter difficult to ascertain, and I very 
 sincerely ask His Majesty's Government whether they will afford 
 facilities for the restoration of Clause 30. 
 
 I thank your Lordships for having listened to me, although I 
 know there are very large parts of this Bill with regard to which 
 I have no experience or knowledge to justify me in speaking; but 
 I am quite sure that no one could be acquainted with the actual 
 conditions of our cities without becoming alive to the fact that 
 trenchant and wide reforms are necessarily and primarily required 
 for the welfare of the poorer parts of the population — reforms so 
 trenchant and far-reaching that, human nature being what it is and 
 the interests involved being what they are, no one can hope that 
 they can be carried through without having to encounter resistance 
 and overcome opposition. 
 
 Extract 52 
 
 HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC. ACT, 1909 
 
 (p Edw. 7, ch. 44, in part) 
 
 An Act to amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working 
 Classes, to provide for the making of Town Planning schemes, 
 and to make further provision with respect to the appoint- 
 ment and duties of County Medical Officers of Health, and 
 to provide for the establishment of Public Health and Housing 
 Committees of County Councils. (3rd December 1909) 
 
292 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 
 and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the 
 authority oif the same, as foUows : 
 
 Part I 
 
 Housing of the Working Classes 
 
 I. Former Act 
 
 Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890' 
 (in this Part of this Act referred to as the principal Act), shall, 
 after the commencement of this Act, extend to and take effect in 
 every urban or rural district, or other place for which it has not 
 been adopted, as if it had been so adopted. 
 
 2. Acquisition of Lands 
 
 (i) A local authority may be authorised to purchase land com- 
 pulsorily for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act, by 
 means of an order submitted to the Local Government Board and 
 confirmed by the Board in accordance with the First Schedule to 
 this Act. . . . 
 
 J. Loans 
 
 Where a loan is made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners 
 to a local authority for any purposes of the Housing Acts — 
 (a) The loan shall be made at the minimum rate allowed for 
 
 the time being for loans out of the Local Loans Fund; 
 
 and 
 {V) If the Local -Government Board make a recommendation to 
 
 that effect, the period for which the loan is made by the 
 
 Public Works Loan Commissioners may exceed the period 
 
 1 53 & 54 Vict., ch. 70. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 293 
 
 allowed under the principal Act or under any other Act 
 limiting the period for which the loan may be made, but 
 the period shall not exceed the period recommended by 
 the Local Government Board, nor in any case eighty 
 years ; and 
 (<:) As between loans for different periods, the longer duration 
 of the loan shall not be taken as a reason for fixing a 
 higher rate of interest. 
 [Clauses 4-9 relate to small matters, such as the expenditure of 
 
 money for housing purposes in the case of settled land, allowing a 
 
 local authority to accept a donation of land, etc.] 
 
 10. Enforcement of Housing Acts 
 
 (i) Where a complaint is made to the Local Government 
 Board — • 
 
 (a) as respects any rural district by the council of the county in 
 
 which the district is situate, or by the parish council or 
 
 parish meeting of any parish comprised in the district, 
 
 or by any four inhabitant householders of the district ; or 
 
 (3) as respects any county district, not being a rural district, by 
 
 the council of the county in which the district is situated, 
 
 or by four inhabitant householders of the district ; or 
 
 (it) as respects the area of any other local authority by four 
 
 inhabitant householders of the area ; 
 
 that the local authority have failed to exercise their powers under 
 
 Part II or Part III of the principal Act in cases where those 
 
 powers ought to have been exercised, the Board may cause a public 
 
 local inquiry to be held, and if, after holding such an inquiry, 
 
 the Board are satisfied that there has been such a failure on the 
 
 part of the local authority, the Board may declare the authority to 
 
 be in default, and may make an order directing that authority, 
 
 within a time limited by the order, to carry out such works and do 
 
 such other things as may be mentioned in the order for the purpose 
 
 of remedying the default. . . . 
 
294 BRITISH- SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (s) An order made by the Local Government Board under this 
 section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as 
 may be after it is made. 
 
 (6) Any order made by the Local Government Board under 
 this section may be enforced by mandamus. 
 
 zi. Enforcement within a Limited Time 
 
 (i) Where it appears to the Local Government Board that a 
 local authority have failed to perform their duty under the Housing 
 Acts of carrying out an improvement scheme under Part I of the 
 principal Act, or have failed to give effect to any order as respects 
 an obstructive building, or to a reconstruction scheme, under Part U 
 of that Act, or have failed to cause to be made the inspection of 
 their district required by this Act, the Board may make an order 
 requiring the local authority to remedy the default and to cany 
 out any works or do any other things which are necessary for the 
 purpose under the Housing Acts within a time fixed by the order. 
 
 (2) Any order made by the Local Government Board under this 
 section may be enforced by mandamus. 
 
 [In Clauses 12 and 13 provision is made whereby, under certain 
 circumstances, a county council may step in if, in their opinion, a 
 rural district council have failed to exercise their powers.] 
 
 14.. Contracts by Landlord 
 
 In any contract made after the passing of this Act for letting 
 
 for habitation a house or part of a house at a rent not exceeding — 
 
 {a) in the case of a house situate in the administrative county 
 
 of London, forty pounds ; 
 {p) in the case of a house situate in a borough or urban district 
 
 with a population according to the last census for the 
 
 time being of fifty thousand or upwards, twenty-six 
 
 pounds ; 
 (c) in the case of a house situate elsewhere, sixteen pounds ; 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 295 
 
 there shall be implied a condition that the house is at the com- 
 mencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human 
 habitation, but the condition aforesaid shall not be implied when a 
 house or part of a house is let for a term of not less than three 
 years upon the terms that it be put by the lessee into a condition 
 reasonably fit for occupation, and the lease is not determinable at 
 the option of either party before the expiration of that term. 
 
 15. Obligations of Landlord 
 
 (i) The last foregoing section shall, as respects contracts to 
 which that section applies, take effect as if the condition implied 
 by that section included an undertaking that the house shall, dur- 
 ing the holding, be kept by the landlord in all respects reasonably 
 fit for human habitation. 
 
 (2) The landlord or the local authority, or any person author- 
 ised by him or them in writing, may at reasonable times of the 
 day, on giving twenty-four hours' notice in writing to the tenant 
 or occupier, enter any house, premises, or building to which this 
 section applies for the purpose of viewing the state and condition 
 thereof. 
 
 (3) If it appears to the local authority within the meaning of 
 Part II of the principal Act that the undertaking implied by virtue 
 of this section is not complied with in the case of any house to 
 which it applies, the authority shall, if a closing order is not made 
 with respect to the house, by written notice require the landlord, 
 within a reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days, 
 specified in the notice, to execute such works as the authority shall 
 specify in the notice as being necessary to make the house in all 
 respects reasonably fit for human habitation. 
 
 (4) Within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice the 
 landlord may by written notice to the local authority declare his inten- 
 tion of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a 
 closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect 
 of such house. 
 
296 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (5) If the notice given by the local authority is not complied 
 with, and if the landlord has not given the notice mentioned in the 
 immediately preceding subsection, the authority may, at the expira- 
 tion of the time specified in the notice given by them to the land- 
 lord, do the work required to be done and recover the expenses 
 incurred by them in so doing from the landlord as a civil debt in 
 manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, or, if they 
 think fit, the authority may by order. declare any such expenses to 
 be payable by annual instalments within a period not exceeding 
 that of the interest of the landlord in the house, nor in any case 
 five years, with interest at a rate not exceeding five pounds per 
 cent, per annum, until the whole amount is paid, and any such in- 
 stalments or interest or any part thereof may be recovered from 
 the landlord as a civil debt in manner provided by the Summary 
 Jurisdiction Acts. 
 
 (6) A landlord may appeal to the Local Government Board 
 against any notice requiring him to execute works under this sec- 
 tion, and against any demand for the recovery of expenses from him 
 under this section or order made with respect to those expenses 
 under this section by the authority, by giving notice of appeal to 
 the Board within twenty-one days after the notice is received, or 
 the demand or order is made, as the case may be, and no pro- 
 ceedings shall be taken in respect of such notice requiring works, 
 order, or demand, whilst the appeal is pending. 
 
 (7) In this section the expression " landlord " means any person 
 who lets to a tenant for habitation the house under any contract 
 referred to in this section, and includes his successors in title ; and 
 the expression '" house " includes part of a house. . . . 
 
 [Section 16 amends Acts of 1875 and 1891, extending the power 
 of making byelaws with respect to lodging-houses for the working 
 classes.] 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 297 
 
 ly. Closing of Unfit Dwellings 
 
 (i) It shall be the duty of every local authority within the 
 meaning of Part II of the principal Act to cause to be made 
 from time to time inspection of their district, with a view to 
 ascertain whether any dwelling-house therein is in a state so dan- 
 gerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation, 
 and for that purpose it shall be the duty of the local authority, 
 and of every officer of the local authority, to comply with such 
 regulations and to keep such records as may be prescribed by 
 the Board. 
 
 (2) If, on the representation of the medical officer of health, or 
 of any other officer of the authority, or other information given, any 
 dwelling-house appears to them to be in such a state, it shall be 
 their duty to make an order prohibiting the use of the dwelling- 
 house for human habitation (in this Act referred to as a closing 
 order) until in the judgment of the local authority the dwelling- 
 house is rendered fit for that purpose. 
 
 (3) Notice of a closing order shall be forthwith served on every 
 owner of the dwelling-house in respect of which it is made, and 
 any owner aggrieved by the order niay appeal to the Local Gov-, 
 ernment Board by giving notice of appeal to the Board within 
 fourteen days after the order is served upon him. 
 
 (4) Where a closing order has become operative, the local 
 authority shall serve notice of the order on every occupying 
 tenant of the dwelling-house in respect of which the order is 
 made, and, within such period as is specified in the notice, not 
 being less than fourteen days after the service of the notice, the 
 order shall be obeyed by him, and he and his family shall cease 
 to inhabit the dwelling-house, and in default he shall be liable 
 on summary conviction to be ordered to quit the dwelling-house 
 within such time as may be specified in the order. 
 
 (5) Unless the dwelling-house has been made unfit for habita- 
 tion by the wilful act or default of the tenant or of any person 
 
298 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 for whom as between himself and the owner or landlord he is 
 responsible, the local authority may make to eveiy such tenant 
 such reasonable allowance on account of his expense in removing 
 as may be determined by the local authority with the consent of 
 the owner of the dwelling-house, or, if the owner of the dwelling- 
 house fails to consent to the sum determined by the local author- 
 ity, as may be fixed by a court of summary jurisdiction, and the 
 amount of the said allowance shall be recoverable by the local 
 authority from the owner of the dwelling-house as a civil debt in 
 manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. 
 
 (6) The local authority shall determine any closing order made 
 by them if they are satisfied that the dwelling-house, in respect of 
 which the order has been made, has been rendered fit for human 
 habitation. 
 
 If, on the application of any owner of a dwelling-house, the 
 local authority refuse to determine a closing order, the owner may 
 appeal to the Local Government Board by giving notice of appeal 
 to the Board within fourteen days after the application is refused. 
 
 (7) A room habitually used as a sleeping place, the surface of 
 the floor of which is more than three feet below the surface of the 
 
 •part of the street adjoining or nearest to the room, shall for the 
 purposes of this section be deemed to be a dwelling-house so dan- 
 gerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation, 
 if the room either — 
 
 (a) is not on an average at least seven feet in height from floor 
 
 to ceiling ; or 
 
 (b) does not comply with such regulations as the local authority 
 
 with the consent of the Local Government Board may 
 prescribe for securing the proper ventilation and lighting 
 of such rooms, and the protection thereof against damp- 
 ness, effluvia, or exhalation : Provided that if the local 
 authority, after being required to do so by the Local 
 Government Board, fail to make such regulations, or 
 such regulations as the Board approve, the Board may 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 299 
 
 themselves make them, and the regulations so made 
 
 shall have effect as if they had been made by the local 
 
 authority with the consent of the Board : 
 
 Provided that a closing order made in respect of a room to 
 
 which this subsection applies shall not prevent the room being 
 
 used for purposes other than those of a sleeping place ; and that, if 
 
 the occupier of the room after notice of an order has been served 
 
 upon him fails to comply with the order, an order to comply 
 
 therewith may, on summary conviction, be made against him. 
 
 This subsection shall not come into operation until the first day 
 of July nineteen hundred and ten, and a closing order made in 
 respect of any room to which this subsection applies shall not be 
 treated as a closing order in respect of a dwelling-house for the 
 purposes of the next succeeding section. 
 
 18. Order for Demolition 
 
 (i) Where a closing order in respect of any dwelling-house has 
 remained operative for a period of three months, the local authority 
 shall take into consideration the question of the demolition of the 
 dwelling-house, and shall give every owner of the dwelling-house 
 notice of the time (being some time not less than one month after 
 the service of the notice) and place at which the question will be 
 considered, and any owner of the dwelling-house shall be entitled 
 to be heard when the question is so taken into consideration. 
 
 (2) If upon anyl^such consideration the local authority are of 
 opinion that the dwelling-house has not been rendered fit for 
 human habitation, and that the necessary steps are not being 
 taken with all due diligence to render it so fit, or that the con- 
 tinuance of any building, being or being part of the dwelling- 
 house, is a nuisance or dangerous or injurious to the health of 
 the public or of the inhabitants of the neighbouring dwelling- 
 houses, they shall order the demolition of the building. . . . 
 
 [Clauses 19-35 embody a large number of minor amendments 
 to former laws.] 
 
300 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 36. Inspection of Housing 
 
 Any person authorised in writing stating the particular purpose 
 or purposes for which the entry is authorised, by the local author- 
 ity or the Local Government Board, may at all reasonable times, 
 on giving twenty-four hours' notice to the occupier and to the 
 owner, if the owner is known, of his intention, enter any house, 
 premises, or buildings — 
 
 (a) for the purpose of survey or valuation, in the case of houses, 
 premises, or buildings which the local authority are author- 
 ised to purchase compulsorily under the Housing Acts; and 
 {V) for the purpose of survey and examination, in the case of 
 any dwelling-house in respect of which a closing order or 
 an order for demolition has been made ; or 
 (c) for the purpose of survey and examination, where it appears 
 to the authority or Board that survey or examination 
 is necessary in order to determine whether any powers 
 under the Housing Acts should be exercised in respect 
 of any house, premises, or building. 
 Notice may be given to the occupier for the purposes of this sec- 
 tion by leaving a notice addressed to the occupier, without name 
 or further description, at the house, buildings, or premises. 
 
 3y. Report on Crowded Area 
 
 If it appears to the Local Government Board that owing to 
 density of population, or any other reason, it is expedient to in- 
 quire into the circumstances of any area with a view to deter- 
 mining whether any powers under the Housing Acts should be 
 put into force in that area or not, the Local Government Board 
 may require the local authority to make a report to them contain- 
 ing such particulars as to the population of the district and other 
 matters as they direct, and the local authority shall comply with 
 the requirement of the Local Government Board. . . . 
 
 [Clauses 38-42 are concerned with administrative details.] 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 30I 
 
 43. Prohibition of Back-to-back Houses 
 
 Notwithstanding anything in any local Act or byelaw in force 
 in any borough or district, it shall not be lawful to erect any back- 
 to-back houses intended to be used as dwellings for the working 
 classes, and any such house commenced to be erected after the 
 passing of this Act shall be deemed to be unfit for human habita- 
 tion for the purposes of the provisions of the Housing Acts. 
 Provided that nothing in this section — 
 
 (a) shall prevent the erection or use of a house containing 
 several tenements in which the tenements are placed 
 back to back, if the medical officer of health for the 
 district certifies that the several tenements are so con- 
 structed and arranged as to secure effective ventilation 
 of all habitable rooms in every tenement ; or 
 {h) shall apply to houses abutting on any streets the plans 
 whereof have been approved by the local authority 
 before the first day of May nineteen hundred and 
 nine, in any borough or district in which, at the pass- 
 ing of this Act, any local Act or byelaws are in force 
 permitting the erection of back-to-back houses. 
 [Clause 44 gives power to the Local Government Board to 
 revoke unreasonable byelaws.] 
 
 4.3. Saving of Sites of Ancient Monuments, etc. 
 
 Nothing in the Housing Acts shall authorise the acquisition for 
 the purposes of those Acts of any land which is the site of an 
 ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest, or 
 the compulsory acquisition for the purposes of Part III of the 
 Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, of any land which 
 is the property of any local authority or has been acquired by 
 any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, 
 canal, water, or other public undertaking, or which at the date of 
 the order forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, 
 
302 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any 
 dwelling-house. 
 
 [Clauses 46-53 comprise definitions of technical terms and 
 special provisions as to the application of Part I to Scotland.] 
 
 Part II 
 
 Town Planning 
 
 §4.. Preparation and Approval of Town Planning Scheme 
 
 (i) A town planning scheme may be made in accordance with 
 the provisions of this Part of this Act as respects any land which 
 is in course of development or appears likely to be used for build- 
 ing purposes, with the general object of securing proper sanitary 
 conditions, amenity, and convenience in connexion with the laying 
 out and use of the land, and of any neighbouring lands. 
 
 (2) The Local Government Board may authorise a local author- 
 ity within the meaning of this Part of this Act to prepare such a 
 town planning scheme with reference to any land within or in the 
 neighbourhood of their area, if the authority satisfy the Board that 
 there is a prima facie case for making such a scheme, or may 
 authorise a local authority to adopt, with or without any modifica- 
 tions, any such scheme proposed by all or any of the owners of 
 any land with respect to which the local authority might themselves 
 have been authorised to prepare a scheme. 
 
 (3) Where it is made to appear to the Locjil Government Board 
 that a piece of land already built upon, or a piece of land not likely 
 to be used for building purposes, is so situated with respect to any 
 land likely to be used for building purposes that it ought to be 
 included in any town planning scheme made with respect to the 
 last-mentioned land, the Board may authorise the preparation or 
 adoption of a scheme including .such piece of land as aforesaid, and 
 providing for the demolition or alteration of any buildings thereon 
 so far as may be necessary for carrying the scheme into effect. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 303 
 
 (4) A town planning scheme prepared or adopted by a local au- 
 thority shall not have effect, unless it is approved by order of the 
 Local Government Board, and the Board may refuse to approve 
 any scheme except with such modifications and subject to such 
 conditions as they think fit to impose : 
 
 Provided that, before a town planning scheme is approved by 
 the Local Government Board, notice of their intention to do so 
 shall be published in the London or Edinburgh Gazette, as the 
 case may be, and, if within twenty-one days from the date of such 
 publication any person or authority interested objects in the pre- 
 scribed manner, the draft of the order shall be laid before each 
 House of Pariiament for a period of not less than thirty days dur- 
 ing the session of Parliament, and, if either of those Houses before 
 the expiration of those thirty days presents an address to His 
 Majesty against the draft, or any part thereof, no further proceed- 
 ings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any 
 new draft scheme. 
 
 (5) A town planning scheme, when approved by the Local Gov- 
 ernment Board, shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act. 
 
 (6) A town planning scheme may be varied or revoked by a 
 subsequent scheme prepared or adopted and approved in accord- 
 ance with this Part of this Act, and the Local Government Board, 
 on the application of the responsible authority, or of any other 
 person appearing to them to be interested, may by order revoke a 
 tovsm planning scheme if they think that under the special circum- 
 stances of the case the scheme should be so revoked. 
 
 (7) The expression " land likely to be used for building purposes" 
 shall include any land likely to be used as, or for the purpose of 
 providing, open spaces, roads, streets, parks, pleasure or recreation 
 grounds, or for the purpose of executing any work upon or under 
 the land incidental to a town planning scheme, whether in the 
 nature of a building work or not, and the decision of the Local 
 Government Board, whether land is likely to be used for building 
 purposes or not, shall be final. 
 
304 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 55. Contents of Town Planning Schemes 
 
 (i) The Local Government Board may prescribe a set of general 
 provisions (or separate sets of general provisions adapted for areas 
 of any special character) for carrying out the general objects of 
 town planning schemes, and in particular for dealing with the mat- 
 ters set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act, and the general 
 provisions, or set of general provisions appropriate to the area for 
 which a town planning scheme is made, shall take effect as part of 
 every scheme, except so far as provision is made by the scheme 
 as approved by the Board for the variation or exclusion of any of 
 those provisions. 
 
 (2) Special provisions shall in addition be inserted in every town 
 planning scheme defining in such manner as may be prescribed by 
 regulations under this Part of this Act the area to which the scheme 
 is to apply, and the authority who are to be responsible for enforc- 
 ing the observance of the scheme, and for the execution of any 
 works which under the scheme or this Part of this Act are to be 
 executed by a local authority (in this Part of this Act referred to 
 as the responsible authority), and providing for any matters which 
 may be dealt with by general provisions, and otherwise supplement- 
 ing, excluding, or varying the general provisions, and also for deal- 
 ing with any special circumstances or contingencies for which 
 adequate provision is not made by the general provisions, and for 
 suspending, so far as necessary for the proper carrying out of the 
 scheme, any statutory enactments, byelaws, regulations, or other 
 provisions, under whatever authority made, which are in operation 
 in the area included in the scheme : 
 
 Provided that, where the scheme contains provisions suspending 
 any enactment contained in a public general Act, the scheme shall 
 not come into force unless a draft thereof has been laid before 
 each House of Parliament for a period of not less than forty days 
 during the session of Parliament, and, if either of those Houses 
 before the expiration of those forty days presents an Address to 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 305 
 
 His Majesty against the proposed suspension no further proceed- 
 ings shall be taken on the draft, without prejudice to the making 
 of any new scheme. 
 
 (3) Where land included in a town planning scheme is in the area 
 of more than one local authority, or is in the area of a local authority 
 by whom the scheme was not prepared, the responsible authority 
 may be one of those local authorities, or for certain purposes of 
 the scheme one local authority and for certain purposes another 
 local authority, or a joint body constituted specially for the purpose 
 by the scheme, and all necessary provisions may be made by the 
 scheme for constituting the joint body and giving them the neces- 
 sary powers and duties : 
 
 Provided that, except with the consent of the London County 
 Council, no other local authority shall, as respects any land in the 
 county of London, prepare or be responsible for enforcing the 
 observance of a town planning scheme under this Part of this Act, 
 or for the execution of any works which under the scheme or this 
 Part of this Act are to be executed by a local authority. 
 
 S6. Regulations of the Local Government Board 
 
 (i) The Local Government Board may make regulations for 
 regulating generally the procedure to be adopted with respect to 
 applications for authority to prepare or adopt a town planning 
 scheme, the preparation of the scheme, obtaining the approval of 
 the Board to a scheme so prepared or adopted, and any inquiries, 
 reports, notices, or other matters required in connection with the 
 preparation or adoption or the approval of the scheme or prelimi- 
 nary thereto, or in relation to the carrying out of the scheme or 
 enforcing the observance of the provisions thereof. 
 (2) Provision shall be made by those regulations — 
 
 (a) for securing co-operation on the part of the local authority 
 with the owners and other persons interested in the 
 land proposed to be included in the scheme at every 
 
3o6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 stage of the proceedings, by means of conferences 
 and such other means as may be provided by the 
 regulations ; 
 
 (p) for securing that notice of the proposal to prepare or 
 adopt the scheme should be given at the earliest stage 
 possible to any council interested in the land ; and 
 
 (c) for dealing with the other matters mentioned in the Fifth 
 Schedule to this Act. 
 
 57. Power to enforce Scheme 
 
 (i) The responsible authority may at any time, after giving 
 such notice as may be provided by a town planning scheme and 
 in accordance with the provisions of the scheme — 
 
 (a) remove, pull down, or alter any building or other work in 
 the area included in the scheme which is such as to 
 contravene the scheme, or in the erection or carrying 
 out of which any provision of the scheme has not been 
 complied with ; or 
 {1)) execute any work which it is the duty of any person to 
 execute under the scheme in any case where it appears 
 to the authority that delay in the execution of the work 
 would prejudice the efficient operation of the scheme. 
 
 (2) Any expenses incurred by a responsible authority under 
 this section may be recovered from the persons in default in such 
 manner and subject to such conditions as may be provided by the 
 scheme. 
 
 (3) If any question arises whether any building or work contra- 
 venes a town planning scheme, or whether any provision of a town 
 planning scheme is not complied with in the erection or carrying 
 out of any such building or work, that question shall be referred 
 to the Local Government Board, and shall, unless the parties 
 otherwise agree, be determined by the Board as arbitrators, and 
 the decision of the Board shall be final and conclusive and binding 
 on all persons. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 307 
 
 J 8. Compensation in Respect of Property injuriously affected by 
 Scheme, etc. 
 
 (i) Any person whose property is injuriously affected by the 
 making of a town planning scheme shall, if he makes a claim for 
 the purpose within the time (if any) limited by the scheme, not 
 being less than three months after the date when notice of the 
 approval of the scheme is published in the manner prescribed by 
 regulations made by the Local Government Board, be entitled 
 to obtain compensation in respect thereof from the responsible 
 authority. 
 
 (2) A person shall not be entitled to obtain compensation under 
 this section on account of any building erected on, or contract 
 made or other thing done with respect to, land included in a 
 scheme, after the time at which the application for authority to 
 prepare the scheme was made, or after such other time as the 
 Local Government Board may fix for the purpose : 
 
 Provided that this provision shall not apply as respects any 
 work done before the date of the approval of the scheme for the 
 purpose of finishing a building begun or of carrying out a contract 
 entered into before the application was made. 
 
 (3) Where, by the making of any town planning scheme, any 
 property is increased in value, the responsible authority, if they 
 make a claim for the purpose within the time (if any) limited by 
 the scheme (not being less than three months after the date when 
 notice of the approval of the scheme is first published in the 
 manner prescribed by regulations made by the Local Government 
 Board), shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property 
 is so increased in value one-half of the amount of that increase. 
 
 (4) Any question as to whether any property is injuriously 
 affected or increased in value within the meaning of this section, 
 and as to the amount and manner of pajonent (whether by instal- 
 ments or otherwise) of the sum which is to be paid as compensation 
 under this section or which the responsible authority are entitled to 
 
308 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 recover from a person whose property is increased in value, shall 
 be determined by the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed 
 by the Local Government Board, unless the parties agree on some 
 other method of determination. 
 
 (5) Any amount due under this section as compensation to a 
 person aggrieved from a responsible authority, or to a responsible 
 authority from a person whose property is increased in value, may 
 be recovered summarily as a civil debt. 
 
 (6) Where a town planning scheme is revoked by an order of 
 the Local Government Board under this Act, any person who has 
 incurred expenditure for the purpose of complying with the scheme 
 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with this section 
 in so far as any such expenditure is rendered abortive by reason 
 of the revocation of the scheme. 
 
 Sg. Limitation of Compensation in Certain Cases 
 
 (i) Where property is alleged to be injuriously affected by rea- 
 son of any provisions contained in a town planning scheme, no 
 compensation shall be paid in respect thereof if or so far as the 
 provisions are such as would have been enforceable if they had 
 been contained in byelaws made by the local authority. 
 
 (2) Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by 
 reason of the making of any provisions inserted in a town planning 
 scheme, which, with a view to securing the amenity of the area 
 included in the scheme or any part thereof, prescribe the space 
 about buildings or limit the number of buildings to be erected, or 
 prescribe the height or character of buildings, and which the Local 
 Government Board, having regard to the nature and situation of the 
 land affected by the provisions, consider reasonable for the purpose. 
 
 (3) Where a person is entitled to compensation under this Part 
 of this Act in respect of any matter or thing, and he would be 
 entided to compensation in respect of the same matter or thing 
 under any other enactment, he shall not be entitied to compensation 
 in respect of that matter or thing both under this Act and under 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 309 
 
 that other enactment, and shall not be entitled to any greater 
 compensation under this Act than he would be entitled to under 
 the other enactment. 
 
 60. Acquisition of Land comprised in a Scheme 
 
 (i) The responsible authority may, for the purpose of a town 
 planning scheme, purchase any land comprised in such scheme by 
 agreement, or be authorised to purchase any such land compulsorily 
 in the same manner and subject to the same provisions (including 
 any provision authorising the Local Government Board to give di- 
 rections as to the payment and application of any purchase money 
 or compensation) as a local authority may purchase or be author- 
 ised to purchase land situate in an urban district for the purposes 
 of Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, as 
 amended by sections two and forty-five of this Act. 
 
 (2) Where, land included within the area of a local authority is 
 comprised in a town planning scheme, and the local authority are 
 not the responsible authority, the local authority may purchase or 
 be authorised to purchase that land in the same manner as the 
 responsible authority. 
 
 61. Powers of Local Government Board to make or execute 
 Town Planning Scheme 
 
 (i) If the Local Government Board are satisfied on any repre- 
 sentation, after holding a public local inquiry, that a local authority — 
 (a) have failed to take the requisite steps for having a satisfac- 
 toty town planning scheme prepared and approved in a 
 case where a town planning scheme ought to be made ; or 
 {f) have failed to adopt any scheme proposed by owners of any 
 land in a case where the scheme ought to be adopted ; or 
 (c) have unreasonably refused to consent to any modifications 
 or conditions imposed by the Board ; 
 the Board may, as the case requires, order the local authority to 
 prepare and submit for the approval of the Board such a town 
 
3IO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 planning scheme, or to adopt the scheme, or to consent to the 
 modifications or conditions so inserted : 
 
 Provided that, where the representation is that a local authority 
 have failed to adopt a scheme, the Local Government Board, in 
 lieu of making such an order as aforesaid, may approve the pro- 
 posed scheme, subject to such modifications or conditions, if any, 
 as the Board think fit, and thereupon the scheme shall have effect 
 as if it had been adopted by the local authority and approved by 
 the Board. 
 
 (2) If the Local Government Board are satisfied on any repre- 
 sentation, after holding a local inquiry, that a responsible authority 
 have failed to enforce effectively the observance of a scheme which 
 has been confirmed, or any provisions thereof, or to execute any 
 works which under the scheme or this Part of this Act the authority 
 is required to execute, the Board may order that authority to do all 
 things necessary for enforcing the observance of the scheme or any 
 provisions thereof effectively, or for executing any works which 
 under the scheme or this Part of this Act the authority is required 
 to execute. 
 
 (3) Any order under this section may be enforced by mandamus. 
 [Clauses 62-67 ^^^^ 'with administrative details, amendments to 
 
 former statutes, and application of Part II of this Act to London 
 and to Scotland.] 
 
 Part III 
 
 County Medical Officers, County Public Health and 
 Housing Committee, etc. 
 
 68. County Medical Officers 
 
 (i) Every county council shall appoint a medical officer of health 
 under section seventeen of the Local Government Act, 1888. 
 
 (2) The duties of a medical officer of health of a county shall 
 be such duties as may be prescribed by general order of the Local 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 31 1 
 
 Government Board and such other duties as may be assigned to 
 him by the county council. 
 
 (3) The power of county councils and district councils under 
 the said section to make arrangements with respect to medical 
 officers of health shall cease, without prejudice to any arrangement 
 made previously to the date of the passing of this Act. 
 
 (4) The medical officer of health of a county shall, for the pur- 
 poses of his duties, have the same powers of entry on premises 
 as are conferred on a medical officer of health of a district by or 
 under any enactment. 
 
 (s) A medical officer of health of a county shall be removable 
 by the county council with the consent of the Local Government 
 Board and not otherwise. 
 
 (6) A medical officer of health of a county shall not be ap- 
 pointed for a limited period only : 
 
 Provided that the county council may, with the sanction of the 
 Local Government Board, make any temporary arrangement for 
 the performance of all or any of the duties of the medical officer 
 of health of the county, and any person appointed by virtue of 
 any such arrangement to perform those duties or any of them 
 shall, subject to the terms of his appointment, have all the 
 powers, duties, and liabilities of the medical officer of health 
 of the county. 
 
 (7) A medical officer of health appointed after the passing of 
 this Act under the said section as amended by this section shall 
 not engage in private practice, and shall not hold any other public 
 appointment without the express written consent of the Local 
 Government Board. 
 
 (8) An order under this section prescribing the duties of medical 
 officers of health of a county shall be communicated to the county 
 council and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after 
 it is made, and, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either 
 House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days 
 on which that House has sat next after the order is laid before it 
 
312 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 praying that the order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council 
 may annul the order and it shall thenceforward be void, but without 
 prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. 
 [Clause 69 defines special duties of clerk and medical officer of 
 health of district council; and Clause 70 excepts Scotland and 
 London from certain provisions.] 
 
 •J I. Public Health and Housing Committee of County Council 
 
 (i) Every county council shall establish a pubKc health and 
 housing committee, and all matters relating to the exercise and 
 performance by the council of their powers and duties as respects 
 public health and the housing of the working classes (except the 
 power of raising a rate or borrowing money) shall stand referred 
 to the public health and housing committee, and the council, before 
 exercising any such powers, shall, unless in their opinion the matter 
 is urgent, receive and consider the report of the public health and 
 housing committee with respect to the matter in question, and 
 the council may also delegate to the public health and housing 
 committee, with or without restrictions or conditions as they 
 think fit, any of their powers as respects public health and the 
 housing of the working classes, except the power of raising a rate 
 or borrowing money and except any power of resolving that the 
 powers of a district council in default should be transferred to 
 the council. 
 
 (2) This section shall not apply to Scotland or the London 
 County Council. 
 
 [Clause 72 seeks to promote the formation and extension of 
 building societies.] 
 
 [Part IV of the Act contains several supplemental provisions 
 (Clauses 73-76). Ireland is excluded from the operation of the 
 Act. An important accompanying Schedule contains detailed pro- 
 visions as to the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities.] 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 313 
 
 Fourth Schedule^ 
 
 Matters to be dealt with by General Provisions prescribed 
 by the Local Government Board 
 
 1 . Streets, roads, and other ways, and stopping up, or diversion 
 of existing highways. 
 
 2. Buildings, structures, and erections. 
 
 3. Open spaces, private and public. 
 
 4. The preservation of objects of historical interest or natural 
 beauty. 
 
 5. Sewerage, drainage, and sewage disposal. 
 
 6. Lighting. 
 
 7. Water supply. 
 
 8. Ancillary or consequential works. 
 
 9. Extinction or variation of private rights of way and other 
 easements. 
 
 10. Dealing with or disposal of land acquired by the responsible 
 authority or by a local authority. 
 
 1 1 . Power of entry and inspection. 
 
 12. Power of the responsible authority to remove, alter, or de- 
 molish any obstructive work. 
 
 13. Power of the responsible authority to make agreements with 
 owners, and of owners to make agreements with one another. 
 
 14. Power of the responsible authority or a local authority to 
 accept any money or property for the furtherance of the object of 
 any town planning scheme, and provision for regulating the admin- 
 istration of any such money or property and for the exemption 
 of any assurance with respect to money or property so accepted 
 from enrolment under the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 
 1888.2 
 
 1 5 . Application with the necessary modifications and adaptations 
 of statutory enactments. 
 
 1 Cf. Clause 55. ^ 51 & 52 Vict., ch. 42. 
 
314 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 1 6. Carrying out and supplementing the provisions of this Act 
 for enforcing schemes. 
 
 17. Limitation of time for operation of scheme. 
 
 18. Co-operation of the responsible authority with the owners 
 of land included in the scheme or other persons interested by 
 means of conferences, etc. 
 
 19. Charging on the inheritance of any land the value of which 
 is increased by the operation of a town planning scheme the sum 
 required to be paid in respect of that increase, and for that pur- 
 pose applying, with the necessary adaptations, the provisions of any 
 enactments dealing with charges for improvements of land. 
 
 Extract ^j 
 
 CONSERVATIVE OPPOSITION TO THE DEVELOPMENT BILL 
 
 (Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, September 6, iQog) 
 
 Lord Robert Cecil': . . . The Bill consists of two entirely 
 distinct parts. The road part, which occupies by far the larger 
 number of the Clauses, is, in my view, by far the least important 
 part of the measure. With the general principle of the roads in this 
 country no longer being regarded as a purely local interest I find 
 myself in accord. The tendency of all road legislation has been 
 gradually to extend the area over which the upkeep of those roads 
 is spread, and I do not myself dispute that the time has now arrived 
 when the Imperial Exchequer may fairly be asked to bear some 
 portion of the upkeep of the main roads of the country ; and if 
 this Bill were consistent in any proposal to make grants in aid of 
 road upkeep to the road authorities who have charge of the roads 
 of this country on some fixed and definite principle which would 
 preclude any possibility of local or political favouritism, I should 
 not certainly be opposing that part of the Bill. 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 10, col. 907 sqq. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 315 
 
 But the Bill, in fact, embodies a very different scheme. In the 
 first place, it proposes to constitute a new local authority, which is 
 to interfere with, and in some respects to supersede, the existing 
 local authority in the control of the roads. I think that this Bill 
 involves such very important considerations that I do not wish to 
 occupy time unduly in dealing with smaller criticisms, but certainly 
 it does appear to me that the chaos which is likely to be introduced 
 into local administration by adding yet another local authority to 
 deal with strictly local affairs is a matter which deserves in itself 
 the very serious consideration of this House. But, in addition, this 
 part of the Bill is designed exclusively for the benefit of one sec- 
 tion of the community. . . . 
 
 It is proposed, among other things, to drive through this coun- 
 try great strips of land a quarter of a mile broad for new motor 
 roads on which no speed limit is to be imposed. For that purpose 
 power is to be taken under the Bill to raise a loan, I understand, 
 of no less than ;£'4, 000,000, besides the amount that is to be spent 
 annually on the upkeep and improvement of roads for the purpose 
 of motor traffic. And the land — it is important the House should 
 understand this — is to be acquired by those bureaucratic methods 
 which are so dear to the present Government. They have incorpo- 
 rated in the Schedule what are called small holding terms, which 
 means that no inquiry is to be held as to the desirability of improve- 
 ments to be carried out under the Bill unless the Treasury shall 
 order it, and in any case the land is to be purchased on the greatly 
 modified terms which attend compulsory purchase. I think that, 
 to use a colloquial phrase, is a pretty tall order. 
 
 But when you come to the development part of the scheme, all 
 that is really most moderate and infinitesimal by comparison. . . 
 The proposal is that the Treasury may grant either by way of 
 free grant or by way of loan money not only for the purposes of 
 forestry and developing agriculture — though even in that respect 
 the words are extremely wide, because they include the extension 
 of the principle of the Small Holdings Act and the adoption of any 
 
3l6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 other means which appear calculated to develop agriculture and 
 rural industry — but it is clearly proposed by this Bill that this 
 grant may be made for the reclamation and drainage of land, the 
 general improvement of rural transport, including the making of 
 light railways, the construction and improvement of harbours, the 
 construction and improvement of canals, the developing and im- 
 provement of fisheries, and for " any other purpose calculated to 
 promote the economic development of the United Kingdom.'' It 
 would really puzzle most hon. Members to find a single department 
 of commercial or industrial activity which could not be described 
 by the words " or any other purpose calculated to promote the eco- 
 nomic development of the United Kingdom." [Cheers.J I am not 
 at all surprised that hon. Members below the gangway cheer that 
 statement, because it is part of the Socialist programme. 
 
 I only stop for a moment at Clause 2 to note the words in para- 
 graph (c) of subsection (i) that one of the sources from which the 
 Development Fund is to be replenished and derived is " any profits 
 or proceeds derived from the expenditure of any advance which 
 by the terms on which the advance was made are to be paid to 
 the Treasury," making it abundantly clear that under this Bill not 
 merely unremunerative, unproductive, and unprofitable expenditure 
 for agricultural instruction and the like is contemplated, but works 
 of a profit-bearing nature, like any other works indulged in by a 
 private individual. 
 
 Sir G. Parker : State-trading. 
 
 Lord R. Cecil : Of course, it is State-trading ; clearly that 
 is what it means. 
 
 Clause 3 is almost common form in any Government bill now, 
 and merely provides that the Treasury shall be entitled to direct 
 and draw up regulations to carry out anything they like. 
 
 Then we come to the most remarkable clause of the whole Bill, 
 and that is Clause 4, which provides that " the Board of Agricul- 
 ture and Fisheries" — I thank the President of the Board of Trade 
 for the phrase " Administrative Order" — may without any inquiry 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 317 
 
 or any consideration at all make compulsory acquisition of land 
 throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I really do not 
 believe — • in fact, I am quite sure that such a proposition has na>er 
 been submitted to Parliament! I cannot believe the Government 
 itself realises what that proposition involves. I do not wish to 
 linger over the terms on which the land is to be acquired. They 
 do not seem to me specially unfair. I do not myself see why, 
 for such a purpose, the allowance for compulsory purchase should 
 not be allowed, but I do not really care about that, and the tri- 
 bunal is fair enough as far as compensation is concerned. The 
 acquisition of any land might mean that any railway might be ac- 
 quired under the words of this Clause. There is nothing to pre- 
 vent the complete nationalisation of all the railways and all the 
 land of the country under Clauses 1,2, and 4. I do not suppose 
 for a moment, and I am not suggesting, that is what the Gov- 
 ernment intends — of course not — but that is the framework of 
 their Bill. That is what the Bill gives them power to do under 
 these provisions. 
 
 What are the safeguards that are suggested ? As far as I can 
 see the only two are these: it is suggested that only ^500,000 per 
 year for four years is to be allowed for these purposes. That is 
 the suggested provision of Clause 2 , but when you look at Clause 2 
 it does not contain any such limit at all. The words of the Clause 
 are : " . . . the Development Fund into which shall be paid {a) 
 such moneys as may from time to time be provided by Parliament 
 for the purposes of this part of this Act." That is quite general. 
 Then in subsection (2) of Clause 2 there is the provision, " There 
 shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund in the 
 year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and 
 eleven, and in each of the next succeeding four years, the sum of 
 five hundred thousand pounds." What it comes to is this, that 
 there is an attempt to enact that at least ;^5 00,000 should be spent 
 every year on these purposes, and there is no superior limit what- 
 ever. Any sum which could be obtained from a docile majority of 
 
31 8 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the House of Commons might be allocated to these purposes, so 
 that the suggested limit of ;£'5 00,000 is absolutely non-existent. 
 Then there is the provision of an Advisory Committee, and we are 
 seriously asked to regard that as some safeguard. This Advisory 
 Committee is to be appointed by the particular Government that 
 brought in the Bill, but there is nothing to indicate who they are 
 to be. They may be, as the hon. and learned Member for Louth 
 suggests, Lumley. At any rate, we have very good ground for 
 knowing that the Government are not at all moved by the fact that 
 Advisory Committees, or persons that they appoint to make inquiries 
 and report, report in favour or against a particular thing. . . . 
 
 That is the scheme of the Bill, and it appears to me it lays itself 
 open to two very serious objections. I think it is likely to produce 
 a great waste of public money, and I think it is almost certain to 
 produce a very grave danger of political corruption. We have not 
 the experience they have in foreign countries of the working of 
 such schemes as this. I believe that a scheme of this kind is in 
 operation in some form or another in almost all our Colonies and 
 in several foreign countries. I see, for instance, that a Mr. Wise 
 has published a work on Australia recently, in which he says that 
 one of the most dangerous classes of politicians in that country are 
 the " roads and bridges men," who are described in this way, 
 " Their value to their constituents is apt to be expressed in terms 
 of the public expenditure in their district." 
 
 I do not want to go unnecessarily into that aspect of the ques- 
 tion. Everyone who knows anything of political life in many of 
 our Colonies knows that this power of executing public works in 
 the various constituencies is one of the chief political instruments 
 belonging to the Ministry of the day. I was told the other day, 
 and it is common talk in Canada, that the wavering constituency 
 always voted in the same way as the majority of the country appears 
 to be likely to decide, so that they may obtain a share of loaves 
 and fishes when the Government comes into power. A friend of 
 mine described to me how he saw a large army of workmen engaged 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 319 
 
 in repairing a wall of a public building in one of our Colonies. He 
 aslced how it was so many men appeared to be engaged in so 
 trivial a work. He was rebuked for his simplicity, and told that a 
 General Election was immediately in prospect. It is not only so 
 in our Colonies. I am sure, and I do not wish to exaggerate, they 
 have had a difficult problem to face in a new country, and no one 
 wishes less than I do to exaggerate failings that may have occurred 
 in connection with that very difficult problem. . . . 
 
 With all those examples before us, I do ask the House and hon. 
 Members very seriously to consider how this would work in our 
 own country. Have we any right to suppose that it would work 
 materially better here than in other countries ? Let us take it gen- 
 erally. Is it not almost certain that one of the duties of every 
 Member of Parliament who sat at any rate for a country constitu- 
 ency would be to extort from the Government of the day as much 
 as he could in order to develop the various districts which were 
 represented ? In addition to the demand for the appointrnent of 
 magistrates, would it not be one of the favourite employments not 
 only of Radical, but of Tory Members of Parliament, to try and 
 secure for the locality the largest share or slice of the Development 
 Fund ? It is a very delicate matter to enlarge upon, but there are 
 constituencies already in this country which benefit largely by ex- 
 penditure from public sources, and it would be mere affectation to 
 conceal the fact that those who represent them have perpetually 
 pressed upon the Government the expenditure of public money in 
 their localities in order to please their constituents. One can see 
 that that would be the ordinary course of business under which we 
 should live. Just conceive what might happen at a critical bye- 
 election, when, perhaps, a Member of the Government was seek- 
 ing reelection on promotion. I can well conceive the telegram that 
 would come from the party managers demanding some great ex- 
 penditure on a harbour in, say, a division of Yorkshire, in order 
 to secure the return of the newly-appointed Chancellor of the 
 Duchy. It is quite true that now somewhat similar demands take 
 
320 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 place, but they generally seem to result in abortive projects of 
 legislation. But seriously, does anybody doubt that at a bye-election 
 a great deal of political pressure would be brought to bear upon 
 the Government of the day to spend money out of this Vote ? 
 
 That is not the only thing. I have no doubt myself that when 
 a controversial measure was before the Parliament, and it was 
 important to secure in its support the votes of a particular section 
 of this House, the chiefs of that section would demand from the 
 Government of the day some promise of the expenditure of pub- 
 lic money out of the Development Fund to benefit the part of the 
 Kingdom from which they came. I have not the slightest doubt 
 of that, because it has already occurred. Everybody knows that 
 considerable negotiations have been going on between the Govern- 
 ment and the Irish party in order to obtain from that party sup- 
 port for certain portions of the Finance Bill. The leader of that 
 party, on July 4 last, made a speech at Arklow, reported in the 
 Times' oi July 5, in which, judging from the tone of the speech, 
 he was defending himself against certain critics in Ireland who 
 thought he had been too complacent with the Government in ref- 
 erence to the Finance Bill ; and he set out in considerable detail 
 the terms of tl\e changes which the Government had agreed upon 
 in the Finance Bill, and which about two months later they com- 
 municated to the House' of Commons. In addition to that, this 
 very striking paragraph occurs in the speech : 
 
 Out of the Development Fund it was proposed to create he had reason 
 to know that within the next twelve months money would assuredly be pro- 
 vided for the drainage of the Barrow and the Bann and other rivers which 
 were spreading desolation and ruin by their flooding. Money would also 
 be available which could be used to facilitate the purchase and amalgama- 
 tion of Irish railways under an Irish local authority. 
 
 That has actually been done before the Bill has even been read a 
 second time in the House of Commons. . . . 
 
 I say that that is a conclusive example of the way in which this 
 Development Fund may be — and if the present Chancellor of 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 32 1 
 
 the Exchequer remains in office will be — used, in order to secure 
 political support. We have only to turn to the speech of the Presi- 
 dent of the Board of Trade on Saturday last to see that this is all 
 part of a gigantic scheme to bribe the electorate. 
 . Mr. Lloyd George : Do I understand the Noble Lord really to 
 suggest that there is any pledge by the Government to give money 
 out of this Development Fund for the draining of the Barrow and 
 the Bann, and the nationalisation of Irish railways ? If he or any- 
 body else says so, it is not an accurate statement. Nothing of the 
 kind has been done. » 
 
 Mr. John O'Connor : Is the Noble Lord aware that the Leader 
 of the Opposition in the year 1888 promised ^10,000 for these 
 drainage works ? 
 
 Mr. Speaker : That has no relevancy whatever to the matter 
 under discussion. 
 
 Lord R. Cecil : I certainly suggest that these words occur in 
 the report in the Times of the speech of the hon. and learned 
 Member for Waterford on July 4 at Arklow : " Out of the De- 
 velopment Fund it was proposed to create he had reason to know 
 that within the next months money would assuredly be provided 
 for the draining of the Barrow and the Bann." 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : I know nothing whatever about the state- 
 ment. It may, or may not, be an accurate report. 7\11 I can say, 
 as Minister in charge of the Bill, is that no such promise has been 
 made to anybody. 
 
 Lord R. Cecil : Of course, I fully accept the statement of the 
 right hon. Gentleman that, as far as he is concerned, no such state- 
 ment has been made ; but I do not think he can be quite sure that 
 no such statement has been made on behalf of the Government. 
 There are other Members of the Government besides the right 
 hon. Gentleman. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : Really I think the Noble Lord is a littie 
 unfair. Does he really suggest that any Member of the Govern- 
 ment has given a pledge affecting the Treasury to the extent of — 
 
322 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 I do not know what it would be; I should say it would be an 
 enormous sum — [An Hon. Member : Millions] — without even 
 intimating it to anybody representing the Treasury ? 
 
 Lord R. Cecil : I really have not the slightest idea how this 
 Government does its work. All I can say is that this statement 
 was made publicly more than two months ago ; it was reported in 
 the Times, and no contradiction whatever has been given. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : At the first moment it is brought to my 
 notice, which is this moment, I give it an emphatic contradiction. 
 
 Lord R. ^ecil : It only shows how very unfortunate this legis- 
 lation is, because apparently the hon. and learned Gentleman the 
 Leader of the Irish party, who is a most accurate man, as I am 
 sure every Member of this House knows, has apparently made 
 that statement in the course of his speech. It set out with great 
 accuracy this offer, which, he says, the Government have made. 
 
 However, if the right hon. Gentleman says it is inaccurate, it 
 really makes very little difference to the strength of my argument, 
 because it shows the kind of thing which is expected by this Bill, 
 and the kind of pressure that will be put upon Finance Ministers 
 in the future, whether this particular Finance Minister or not. A 
 Bill of this kind, constructed in this way, is the greatest engine of 
 political corruption which has been attempted to be carried in this 
 House since the days of Fox's India Bill. Hon. Gentlemen oppo- 
 site make a great accusation against a policy which is favoured by 
 several of my hon. and right hon. Friends that it will lead to great 
 corruption of public life. [An Hon. Member : So it will.] Yes, 
 but I say deliberately that the power of corruption under any 
 scheme of Tariff Reform that has ever been suggested by a re- 
 sponsible statesman is as nothing to the power for corruption in 
 this ! This is not confined to municipalities or public authorities. 
 Anybody in the world may receive a grant of public money out of 
 this Development Fund in order, to press forward some local in- 
 dustry. In what possible respect does this differ, except in the 
 wording, from the ordinary system of bounties which prevails in 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 323 
 
 protected countries ? The thing is absolutely on " all fours." There 
 is no distinction whatever. To my mind this Bill is thoroughly un- 
 sound finance. I- believe, however carried out, it will result in a 
 colossal waste of public money. I believe myself — and this is the 
 worst part of it — that it will constitute a very serious danger to 
 national political purity. 
 
 It is advocated upon the ground of developing national pros- 
 perity. I believe that to be a complete misapprehension of the 
 foundation upon which national prosperity rests. I do not believe 
 for a moment you can secure national prosperity in an old country 
 like this by distributing public money in doles to this or that com- 
 mercial interest. That is not what the prosperity of the country 
 depends upon. The prosperity of the country depends upon 
 national character. I can conceive no greater and more dangerous 
 attack upon national character than holding out this bait of gigantic 
 sums of money which may be granted to this or that industry in 
 different parts of the country. A clause of this Bill provides that 
 in considering how the money is to be distributed regard is to be 
 had to the state of employment in the various districts. What does 
 that amount to ? An hon. Member comes and demands from the 
 Finance Minister a grant of public money. The reply is, " You 
 ask for this money, but your scheme is really not worth the assist- 
 ance of the State." " Oh, but," says the hon. Member, " there is 
 a great deal of unemployment in my district, and you are bound 
 to consider that in making this grant." [An Hon. Member: 
 Why not ?] Does anyone doubt how that will end ? It means a 
 grant of public money purely directed to the relief of individuals. 
 It will destroy or seriously injure the character of the inhabitants 
 of this country. Apart from its grotesque finance of taking out 
 of one pocket by taxing what you are going to put into the other 
 pocket by doles, it will destroy the very foundation upon which 
 the prosperity of the country rests and its pride of place — at any 
 rate, of its place of predominance — amongst the civilised Powers 
 of the world. 
 
324 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 5^ 
 
 REPLY TO CONSERVATIVE OPPOSITION TO DEVELOP- 
 MENT BILL 
 
 {Mr. David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Commons, 
 September 6, igog) 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George ^ : This has been a very interesting and a 
 very significant debate. There is one characteristic of the debate 
 which I think has considerable significance, and that is that the 
 attack on the Bill has been confined exclusively to non-agricultural 
 Members. Up to the present we have not had a single Member for 
 an agricultural constituency sitting on the other side of the House 
 attacking the proposals of the Government for the aid of agricul- 
 ture. The Members who have spoken for agriculture represent 
 town constituencies. The Noble Lord opposite [Lord R. Cecil] 
 has spoken for the agricultural community of Marylebone. The 
 Noble Lord [Viscount Morpeth] has spoken for the market gar- 
 deners of Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman the Member 
 for Wimbledon [Mr. Chaplin] approves of the Bill — 
 
 Mr. Chaplin : The objects of the first part of the Bill. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : The right hon. Gentleman said that he 
 approved of the object of the Bill so long as the Bill was not car- 
 ried. The Bill is a first-rate one, but if the Government mean to 
 carry it, it will have his whole-hearted opposition. 
 
 Mr. Chaplin : I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not 
 wish to "misrepresent me. What I really said was that I approved 
 in the main of the objects of the first part of the Bill, but that I 
 disapprove altogether of the machinery by which those objects 
 were to be carried into effect. I added that the Bill was of such 
 importance that I did not think it could be properly examined at 
 this period of the year during a Session like the present, and that 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. lo, col. g6i sqq. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 325 
 
 if any attempt was made to force it through the House without 
 due and proper examination, I should oppose its passage to the 
 best of my ability. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : The right hon. Gentleman will have every 
 opportunity of examining the Bill and of criticising any details to 
 which he may object. 
 
 Mr. Chaplin : When ? 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : The Session is not over by any means. 
 We will afford an opportunity. After the speech of the right hon. 
 Gentleman on the second reading of the Budget I really expected 
 something better from him, but I am grievously disappointed. 
 The Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone [Lord R. Cecil] I 
 expected opposition from. The hon. Baronet the Member for the 
 City [Sir F. Banbury] I also expected opposition from. 
 
 Sir F. Banbury : You will get it. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : They do not agree with anything, not 
 even with each other ; therefore, I did not expect any agreement 
 from them. But the right hon. Gentleman [Mr. Chaplin] on the 
 second reading of the Budget devoted nearly the whole of his 
 speech to passionately pleading that he was the man who dis- 
 covered this idea. He discovered the North Pole ; I only got 
 there after him. He explained at great length how he started 
 from, I think, Dublin with the Tariff Reform Commission on a 
 voyage of discovery and had found it ; he claimed to be the real 
 discoverer, to whom all the credit of the distinction belonged. He 
 having taken that line, I naturally expected his assistance now that 
 I have tried to develop the idea — his idea, his child. I thought 
 that as a fond parent, at any rate, he would have assisted me in 
 protecting his child against the assassins who sit behind him. In- 
 stead of that, he threatens the most virulent opposition under 
 certain conditions, and he does not seem at all anxious that the 
 Bill should be carried. On the contrary, I do not think I should be 
 doing him any injustice if I said that on the whole the right hon. 
 Gentleman would be better pleased if the Bill did not go through 
 
326 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the House of Commons during the present Session of Parliament. 
 I really expected better treatment from him at any rate. 
 
 The Noble Lord [Lord R. Cecil] started his speech by attacking 
 me for not having made a statement in opening the proceedings 
 on the Bill. He said that it was another insult to the House of 
 Commons. [Sir F. Banbury: Hear, hear.] I see that his com- 
 rade ad hoc quite agrees with him. The Noble Lord is rather in 
 the habit of lecturing Ministers in the House of Commons with- 
 out adequate experience. His experience is confined to this single 
 Parliament, but no one would imagine it, either from his gifts or 
 from the rather superior tone which he adopts. Does he know what 
 happened in the last Parliament ? The Education Bill of 1902 was 
 moved by the lifting of the hat of the Minister. On the Licensing 
 Bill of 1904, a highly controversial measure, no Minister spoke 
 until much later in the evening than the hour at which I have risen 
 to-night. In the present case I had already explained the object 
 of the Bill in my Budget speech,^ at much too great length I admit 
 — for about twenty minutes. I circulated a full statement on the 
 first reading. I have simply followed the precedent of the Leader 
 of the Opposition, who is certainly a more distinguished authority 
 than the Noble Lord and who would not insult the House of 
 Commons, in simply waiting for two or three hours until I knew 
 the general line of criticism. 
 
 The Noble Lord has laid down some very remarkable doctrines. 
 He said that whenever rich motorists were taxed it was the work- 
 ing class who paid. That is a very remarkable doctrine. Why not 
 extend it ? Is it not the simplest plan to tax the rich people, if it 
 is the other classes who pay ? The cost of collection would be so 
 much reduced. You would simply send a demand note to these few 
 thousand people and say : " Would you mind paying us ? Of course, 
 it is not you who will pay ; you are simply the agents. You just 
 sign the cheque. The money will all come back to you." It is so 
 much simpler. The rich man with a motor car of 60 horse-power 
 
 1 Cf . infra, p. 361. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 327 
 
 simply signs the cheque ; it is the poor pedestrian on the road, 
 covered with dust, who pays. When the rich millionaire signs 
 the cheque for £4.0 or ^50 it is the little market gardener along 
 the roadside who pays. It is a very simple method of taxation. 
 You just get these few people to sign the cheque — that is the 
 best method of making the whole community pay. That is the 
 doctrine laid down by the Noble Lord, and it may be worth con- 
 sidering. I can quite conceive that some day or other he will be a 
 member of a Socialist Ministry defending a Socialist Budget, de- 
 fending the exclusive taxation of the rich, because it is not they 
 who really pay, but somebody else. That is a very remarkable 
 doctrine to come from him. [An Hon. Member : It did not come 
 from him.J I have just quoted his words. 
 
 As usual, the Noble Lord discovered Socialism here. All I can 
 say is that some of the least Socialistic States in the world have 
 indulged in experiments of this character. Denmark is certainly 
 not a Socialistic State ; on the contrary, it is probably the most 
 individualistic State in Europe. It is a community of peasant pro- 
 prietors. Yet in Denmark they have already engaged in these 
 experiments, for I forget how long exactly, but twenty or thirty 
 years, and with very great success. 
 
 Earl Winterton made a remark which was inaudible in the 
 Press Gallery. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : Yes, but they do not grow turnips in 
 Copenhagen. 
 
 Earl Winterton : The right hon. Gentleman, I think, is rather 
 unfair to me in his answer to my interruption. He said : " Denmark 
 is the most individualistic country in Europe." I say it is one of 
 the most Socialistic. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : The Noble Lord is absolutely wrong. It 
 shows really that when the Noble Lord and his colleagues talk 
 about Socialism they have not the most elementary knowledge of 
 what it means. If he would only look at the dictionary before he 
 interrupts, it would be better. Does he really mean to suggest that 
 
328 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 peasant proprietorship is Socialism ? Four-fifths of the land of 
 Denmark belongs to peasant proprietors. That is the very opposite 
 of Socialism ! Some hon. Members talk without the slightest knowl- 
 edge of the phrases they use — phrases which are used wildly in 
 the streets, and, if I may say so, ignorantly. May I just say to the 
 Noble Lord that in Denmark this has been a substitute for Protec- 
 tion. The one community in Denmark that would not have pro- 
 tection for its industry was the farming community. They did ask 
 for this, and it has been a substitute for Protection. They asked 
 for agricultural education, co-operation, the cheapening and the 
 development of the facilities for transport, aid in cattle and horse 
 breeding, and the Government aid in technical education. That is 
 what they asked for. It has been a complete triumph throughout 
 the w:hole of that country. Not only that, but the communities 
 which demanded and relied upon Protection have not flourished. 
 They have decayed. The farming community who preferred this 
 method of Free Trade prospered year after year, until they have 
 become the most prosperous little farming community in the world. 
 Denmark to-day, a country without any great industries except 
 agriculture — which is Free Trade — a country without any great 
 mineral resources, and a country which not so very long ago was 
 devastated by war, has become the second country in the world so 
 far as wealth is concerned, owing entirely to its intelligent use of 
 Free Trade assistance for agriculture. And this system — [Inter- 
 ruption.] Now, really, hon. Members might give me an opportunity 
 of just stating my case. They have been criticising very freely, 
 and I do not object, but they must allow me to answer. This is 
 the system which has been the making of Denmark. It has not 
 merely made the country prosperous, but it has increased the 
 people's intelligence and made them a stronger and a more self- 
 reliant race. 
 
 Look at the Report of the Scottish Commission which went to 
 Denmark. The one thing they dwelt upon was the intelligence and 
 self-reliance which have been promoted as a result of this system 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 329 
 
 which we have embodied in this Bill — this system which, accord- 
 ing to the Noble Lord in the rather melodramatic peroration with 
 which he concluded his speech, is going to destroy the national 
 character of this countiy, and depose us from our pride of place 
 amongst the civilised Powers of the world ! This is the language 
 of wild, extravagant denunciation. Does it really become the No- 
 ble Lord ? He has lost his sense of proportion altogether in exam- 
 ining the Bill. But it is all entirely due to the fact that he is criti- 
 cising without the slightest knowledge of what has been done in 
 other countries. I am perfectly certain, if he had even spent an 
 half-hour in reading reports, which he could have got from the 
 Library, of responsible Commissioners that examined similar sys- 
 tems in other parts of the world, he would never have given to 
 this House the speech that he has given to it to-day. . . . 
 
 Extract §^ 
 
 LABOUR VIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT BILL 
 
 (Air. G. JV. Barnes, Comtnotis, Sepietnier 6, zgog) 
 
 Mr. Barnes ^ : . . . I believe that this is the first real attempt 
 that has been made to deal with unemployment on the lines of 
 what might be called organic change. Hitherto, unemployment has 
 been dealt with by the provision of relief works, and I am afraid 
 that many of them have been. costly, uneconomic, and wasteful, 
 while some of them may even be said to have been demoralising. 
 This Bill, however, unlike previous efforts to deal with unemploy- 
 ment, deals with it not only in its effect but its cause. It aims at 
 preventing fluctuations and organising industrial activity in such 
 a way as to prevent those fluctuations taking place. In other 
 words, it does not only propose to deal with sores upon the sur- 
 face, but it proposes to prevent new sores breaking out, and for 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 10, col. 984. 
 
330 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 my part I am glad of that, because I am sick and tired of dealing 
 with unemployed workmen as if they were merely pariahs and 
 outcasts, or dealing with them in a mollycoddling sort of way and 
 giving them grants. I am glad that the time will come when we 
 shall deal with the unemployed workmen with the view of absorb- 
 ing them into the civilised community on terms of equality of 
 citizenship. . . . 
 
 Extract ^6 
 
 EXPLANATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT BILL 
 
 {Earl Carrington, President of the Board of Agriculture and 
 Fisheries, Lords, October 14, jgog) 
 
 Earl Carrington ^ : My Lords, in rising to move the second 
 reading of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill 
 perhaps I may be permitted to say that this Bill marks another 
 step forward in the land policy of the Government outlined by 
 the late Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman at the Albert Hall in 1906. 
 As regards agricultural landlords, we consider that the present 
 method of levying income tax is not altogether fair to agricul- 
 tural land, imposed as it was by a Chancellor of the Exchequer of 
 the opposite side of politics to ourselves some sixty years ago, and 
 in which there has been no alteration up to the present time ; but 
 in a few days I hope that we may be able to submit to your Lord- 
 ships some proposals for the relief of agricultural landlords, who 
 really have some causes to complain, and also a scheme by which 
 death duties, which are somewhat heavy, may be paid in land as 
 well as in cash. 
 
 We have done what we could for the farmers of England by the 
 Land Tenure Bill. We have also tried to help by the Small Hold- 
 ings Act the agricultural labourer and the landless man, although 
 we have not been so fortunate in your Lordships' House with the 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Liprds, Fifth Series, vol. 3, col, 1225 sqq. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 331 
 
 Housing Bill, in piloting which, if I may be permitted to say so, 
 my noble friend Lord Beauchamp has appeared to so much ad- 
 vantage. Now the Government are proposing to try to follow the 
 example of other nations by bringing in State assistance to the de- 
 velopment of our great national industry by the Bill now before 
 the House. Some time ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer con- 
 sulted me in regard to the agricultural interest and what he said I 
 may, perhaps, be permitted to repeat in the words that he himself 
 used in the House of Commons. He said there is a certain amount 
 of money — not very much — spent in a spasmodic way in the de- 
 velopment of national industry,, on light railways, on harbours, and 
 indirectly and to a meagre extent for the interest of agriculture, 
 and he said he proposed to gather all these grants into one grant. 
 On the second reading of the Budget my right hon. friend, ac- 
 cording to Hansard, vol. 6, p. 340, used some words which I hope 
 your Lordships will allow me to read, as they are very important. 
 He said, " We are proposing a grant for the purpose of doing 
 that class of work which is now very largely done by the great 
 landowners themselves, and this will come to at least a quarter of 
 a million a year, so that we are relieving the great landowners of 
 at least a quarter of a million a year." 
 
 This is received, I notice, with a certain amount of amusement by 
 some noble Lords opposite, and perhaps it may seem an extraor- 
 dinary proposal to come from a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is 
 credited with somewhat Radical ideas. He is supposed by some 
 people to go too far and by others not to go far enough. I may 
 remind the House that it has been publicly thrown in my right hon. 
 friend's teeth that he is a solicitor and a Welshman. I venture, my 
 Lords, to think that perhaps these two facts go some long way to 
 explain the practical sympathy which my right hon. friend has al- 
 ways shown towards the agricultural interest. As a solicitor he has 
 had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the real difficulties 
 with which agriculturists large and small have to contend, and bom 
 and bred among the hard-working farmers of North Wales, he 
 
332 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 knows from personal experience the passionate attachment to the 
 soil of those among whom he has lived and the courage and in- 
 dustry which not only Welsh farmers but all farmers display in 
 playing their part in the social and industrial life of the country. 
 
 Let me now come at once to the Development BUI. It is not a 
 very long Bill and it is not a very complicated one, whilst there is 
 no previous legislation bound up with it. It is composed of twenty 
 clauses and is divided into two parts. The first six clauses relate 
 to development, and the other clauses relate to road improvement. 
 Let me, as briefly as I can, run through our proposals in Part I. 
 The first clause enables the Treasury to make advances by grants 
 or loans to a Government department or through a Government de- 
 partment to public authorities, universities,, colleges, associations, 
 or companies not trading for profit. The objects of the Bill are to 
 aid and encourage agriculture, which is put first, and then the pro- 
 motion of forestry, reclamation and drainage of land, improvement 
 of rural transport — leaving roads to be dealt with in the second 
 part of the Bill — the construction and improvement of inland 
 navigation and harbours, and the development and improvement 
 of fisheries. It will be seen from the second clause that all grants 
 and advances will be made out of a Development Fund which will 
 be fed in three ways — first, by such money as may be voted by 
 Parliament; secondly, by ^500,000 charged on the Consolidated 
 Fund for five years ; and, thirdly, by the interest on and repay- 
 ment of advanced and miscellaneous receipts. This, my Lords, 
 will be paid into the Development Fund instead of being paid back 
 automatically into the Treasury as is generally the case. 
 
 As regards the Development Fund, I think most of your Lord- 
 ships will agree that the proposal opens a very wide question and 
 that it might become a source of great danger and almost a national 
 danger. If there is one thing which people in public life on both 
 sides of politics insist on, it is the cautious administration of public 
 money. The standard of public life in this country is very high, 
 and it would be a grievous thing if any Bill was brought in on 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 333 
 
 either side of politics which would affect it. That was at once 
 pointed out by two Members of the House of Commons, one on 
 each side, — Mr. Rufus Isaacs on the Liberal side and Lord Robert 
 Cecil on the Conservative side, — and they plainly showed the dan- 
 ger of putting ;^5 00,000 into the absolute control and hands of the 
 Government of the day, whatever that Government might be, as 
 it might end in a scramble for spoils and might be an invitation to 
 almost everybody to press for some share of the grant. 
 
 I think those of your Lordships — and here are a great many — 
 who have had the pleasure of visiting Australia will remember that 
 the great difficulty in the old days there was — I do not know if 
 it is so now — that Members of Parliament were known as roads 
 and bridges Members, and their seats entirely depended on the 
 public works which they could induce the Ministry of the day to 
 commence and continue in their constituencies. Speaking in the 
 name of the Government, I ought to express our gratitude to Lord 
 Robert Cecil for the statesmanlike way in which he showed this 
 possible danger and for the machinery which he put forward to 
 avoid it. That machinery was at once adopted by the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, and is now part and parcel of the Bill. 
 
 To prevent any possible danger of political pressure we propose 
 that the Treasury should appoint five Commissioners, who must 
 be men of independent mind, great capacity, high standing, and 
 high character. They will be appointed by the Treasury for ten 
 years, and two of them will be paid salaries which in the aggregate 
 will not amount to more than ;^3ooo a year — and which will be 
 paid out of the Development Fund. We hope that that money will 
 be sufficient to insure the Government getting the very best and 
 highest class of men for the positions. Three are to form a quorum. 
 With the consent of the Treasury, of course, they can appoint their 
 officers and servants and give certain salaries that they may think 
 fit. The Treasury will refer every application that may be made 
 by a Government department to these Commissioners ; but if the 
 applicants are any other body, as mentioned in Clause i of the Bill, 
 
334 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the Treasury will at once send the application to the Government 
 department which is concerned to report, and then the Government 
 department will refer the scheme to the Development Commis- 
 sioners. Then, of course, whether the scheme is carried through 
 or not will depend on whether it meets with the sanction or refusal 
 of the Treasury. 
 
 The Commissioners — and I hope your Lordships will consider 
 this right — will consider and report at once to the Treasury on 
 every application. They may hold inquiries and appoint advisory 
 committees who may report to them, and they can authorise ap- 
 plicants to obtain land compulsorily, and a single arbitrator will 
 decide the compensation and costs to be paid. I need hardly say 
 that no ten per cent will be given for compulsory purchase of land 
 so that there should be no difficulty or grumbling about who the 
 arbitrator should be. The arbitrator will be appointed in England 
 by the Lord Chief Justice, in Scotland by the Lord President of 
 the Court of Session, and in Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of 
 Ireland. There is an exemption in regard to compulsory acquisi- 
 tion of land in favour of parks, gardens, home farms, and places 
 of historic interest. . . . 
 
 Extract 57 
 
 DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 
 ACT, 1909 
 
 (p Edw. 7, ch. 4f, in pari) 
 
 An Act to promote the Economic Development of the United 
 Kingdom and the Improvement of Roads therein. 
 
 (3rd December 1909) 
 
 Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and 
 
 with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 
 
 and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the 
 
 authority of the same, as follows: ; 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 335 
 
 Part I 
 
 Development 
 
 I. Payments 
 
 (i) The Treasury may, upon the recommendation of the 
 Development Commissioners appointed under this Act, make ad- 
 vances to a Government department, or through a Government 
 department to a public authority, university, college, school, or 
 institution, or an association of persons or company not trading 
 for profit, either by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly 
 in one way and partly in the other, and upon such terms and 
 subject to such conditions as they may think fit, for any of the 
 following purposes : 
 
 {a) Aiding and developing agriculture and rural industries by 
 promoting scientific research, instruction and experiments 
 in the science, methods and practice of agriculture (in- 
 cluding the provision of farm-institutes), the organisation 
 of co-operation, instruction in marketing produce, and 
 the extension of the provision of small holdings ; and by 
 the adoption of any other means which appear calculated 
 to develop agriculture and rural industries ; 
 {b) Forestry (including (i) the conducting of inquiries, experi- 
 ments, and research for the purpose of promoting forestry 
 and the teaching of methods of afforestation ; (2) the 
 purchase and planting of land found after inquiry to be 
 suitable for afforestation) ; 
 (c) The reclamation and drainage of land ; 
 (//) The general improvement of rural transport (including the 
 making of light railways but not including the construc- 
 tion or improvement of roads) ; 
 (e) The construction and improvement of harbours ; 
 (/) The construction and improvement of inland navigations ; 
 {g) The development and improvement of fisheries ; 
 
33.6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 and for any other purpose calculated to promote the economic 
 development of the United Kingdom. 
 
 (2) All applications for advances under this Part of this Act 
 shall be made to the Treasury in accordance with regulations 
 made by the Treasury. 
 
 (3) No advance shall be made for any purpose which might be 
 carried out under the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allot- 
 ments Act, 1908,^ upon any terms or conditions different from 
 those contained in that statute except for some special reason 
 which shall be stated in the annual report of the Development 
 Commissioners. 
 
 2. Establishment of Development Fund 
 
 (i) All advances, whether by way of grant or by way of loan, 
 made under this Part of this Act shall be made out of a fund, 
 called the development fund; into which shall be paid — 
 
 (a) Such moneys as may from time to time be provided by 
 Parliament for the purposes of this Part of this Act; 
 
 {!)) The sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this 
 section ; and 
 
 ((t) Any sums received by the Treasury by way of interest on 
 or repayment of any advance made by way of loan under 
 this Part of this Act, and any profits or proceeds derived 
 from the expenditure of any advance which by the terms 
 on which the advance was made are to be paid to the 
 Treasury. 
 
 (2) There shall be charged on and issued out of the Consoli- 
 dated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, in the year ending 
 the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and eleven, and in 
 each of the next succeeding four years, the sum of five hundred 
 thousand pounds. 
 
 (3) The Treasury may accept any gifts made to them for all or 
 any of the purposes for which advances may be made under this 
 
 1 8 Edw. 7, ch. 36. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 337 
 
 Part of this Act and, subject to the terms of gift, apply them for 
 the purposes of this Part of this Act in accordance with regulations 
 made by the Treasury. 
 
 (4) The Treasury shall cause an account to be prepared and 
 transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examina- 
 tion, on or before the thirtieth day of September in every year, 
 showing the receipts into and issues out of the development fund 
 in the financial year ended on the thirty-first day of March pre- 
 ceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall certify and 
 report upon the same, and such account and report shall be laid 
 before Parliament by the Treasury on or before the thirty-first day 
 of January in the following year if Parliament be then sitting, and, 
 if not sitting, then within one week after Parliament shall be next 
 assembled. 
 
 (5) Payments out of and into the development fund, and all 
 other matters relating to the fund and the moneys standing to the 
 credit of the fund, shall be made and regulated in such manner as 
 the Treasury may by minute to be laid before Parliament direct. 
 
 (6) The Treasury may from time to time invest any moneys 
 standing to the credit of the development fund in any securities in 
 which trustees are by law authorised to invest trust funds. 
 
 J. Development Commissioners 
 
 (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act it shall be lawful 
 for His Majesty by warrant under the sign manual to appoint five ' 
 Commissioners, to be styled the Development Commissioners, of 
 whom one to be appointed by His Majesty shall be chairman. 
 
 (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the term of office 
 of a Commissioner shall be ten years. One Commissioner shall 
 retire every second year,^ but a retiring Commissioner may be re- 
 appointed. The order in which the Commissioners first appointed 
 are to retire shall be determined by His Majesty. On a casual 
 
 1 Eight, by amendment of 1910. 10 Edw. 7, ch. 7. 
 
 2 After the first two years, one Commissioner shall retire every year. Ibid. 
 
338 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation, or inca- 
 pacity of a Commissioner, or otherwise, the person appointed by 
 His Majesty to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the 
 Commissioner in whose place he was appointed would have retired, 
 and shall then retire. 
 
 (3) There shall be paid to not more than two of the Commis- 
 sioners such salaries, not exceeding in the aggregate three thousand 
 pounds in each year, as the Treasury may direct. 
 
 (4) The Commissioners may act by three ^ of their number and 
 notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and, subject to the 
 approval of the Treasury, may regulate their own procedure. 
 
 (5) The Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury, 
 appoint and employ such officers and servants for the purposes of 
 this Part of this Act as they think necessary, and may remove any 
 officer or servant so appointed and employed, and there shall be paid 
 to such officers and servants such salaries or remuneration as the 
 Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine. 
 
 (6) The salaries of the Commissioners and the salaries or 
 remuneration of their officers and servants, and any expenses 
 incurred by the Commissioners in the execution of their duties 
 under this Part of this Act, to such amount as may be sanctioned 
 by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of the development fund. 
 
 4. Powers and Duties of Commissioners 
 
 (i) Every application for an advance under this Part of this 
 Act, whether by way of grant or by way of loan, by any body 
 qualified to receive an advance under this Part of this Act, shall, 
 if the applicant is a Government department, be referred by the 
 Treasury to the Development Commissioners, and, if the appli- 
 cant is any other body or persons, shall be sent by the Treas- 
 ury to the Government department concerned, to be by them 
 referred together with their report thereon to the Development 
 Commissioners. 
 
 1 Four. 10 Edw. 7, ch. 7. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 339 
 
 (2) The Commissioners shall consider and report to the Treas- 
 ury on every application so referred to them, and may for that 
 purpose, if necessary, hold inquiries either by themselves, or by 
 any of their officers, or any other person appointed for the purpose. 
 
 (3) The Commissioners may also appoint advisory committees, 
 and may submit to any such advisory committee for their advice 
 any application referred to them. 
 
 (4) The Commissioners may also frame schemes with respect to 
 any of the matters for which advances may be made under this Part 
 of this Act with a view to their adoption by a Government depart- 
 ment or other body or persons to whom an advance may be made. 
 
 (5) Before making any recommendation for an advance for the 
 purpose of the improvement of rural transport, the Commissioners 
 shall consult with the Road Board. 
 
 (6) The Commissioners shall make to the Treasury an annual 
 report of their proceedings, and such report shall be laid annually 
 before Parliament by the Treasury. 
 
 J". Power to acquire Land 
 
 (1) Where an advance is made under this Part of this Act for 
 any purpose which involves the acquisition of land, the depart- 
 ment, body, or persons to whom the advance is made, may acquire 
 and hold land for the purpose, and, where they are unable to 
 acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they 
 consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commis- 
 sioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land com- 
 pulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this 
 Act, and the Commissioners shall have power to make such order. 
 
 (2) No land shall be authorised by an order under this section 
 to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the order, forms 
 part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or forms part of the 
 home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, 
 or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any 
 dwelling-house, or which at that date is the property of any local 
 
340 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 authority, or has been acquired by any corporation or company 
 for the purposes of a railway, doclc, canal, water, or other public 
 undertaking, or is the site of an ancient monument or other object 
 of archaeological interest. 
 
 (3) The Commissioners, in making an order for the compulsory 
 purchase of land, shall have regard to the extent of land held or 
 occupied in the locality by any owner or tenant and to the con- 
 venience of other property belonging to or occupied by the same 
 owner or tenant, and shall, so far as practicable, avoid taking an 
 undue or inconvenient quantity of land from any one owner or 
 tenant, and for that purpose where part only of a holding is taken 
 shall take into consideration the size and character of the existing 
 agricultural buildings not proposed to be taken which are used in 
 connexion with the holding and the quantity and nature of the 
 land available for occupation therewith, and shall also so far as 
 practicable avoid displacing any considerable number of agricultural 
 labourers or others employed on or about the land. 
 
 6. Definition 
 
 For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression " agri- 
 culture and rural industries " includes agriculture, horticulture, 
 dairying, the breeding of horses, cattle, and other live stock and 
 poultry, the cultivation of bees, home and cottage industries, the 
 cultivation and preparation of flax, the cultivation and manufac- 
 ture of tobacco, and any industries immediately connected with 
 and subservient to any of the said matters. 
 
 Part II 
 
 Road Improvement 
 
 7. Constitution of Road Board 
 
 (1) For the purposes of improving the facilities for road traffic 
 in the United Kingdom and of the administration of the road im- 
 provement grant provided under any Act passed in the present 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 341 
 
 or any future session of Parliament, there shall be constituted 
 in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury a board, to 
 be called the Road Board, consisting of such number of persons 
 appointed by the Treasury as the Treasury may determine. 
 
 (2) The Road Board shall be a body corporate with a common 
 seal, with power to hold land without licence in mortmain. 
 
 (3) The Road Board may pay the chairman or vice-chairman 
 of the Board such salary as the Board, with the consent of the 
 Treasury, may determine. 
 
 (4) The Road Board may appoint such officers and servants for 
 the purposes of their powers and duties under this Part of this 
 Act as the Board may, with the sanction of the Treasury, deter- 
 mine, and there shall be paid to such officers and servants out of 
 the road improvement grant such salaries or remuneration as the 
 Treasury may determine. 
 
 8. Powers of Road Board 
 
 (1) The Road Board shall have power, with the approval of 
 the Treasury — 
 
 (a) to make advances to county councils and other highway 
 authorities in respect of the construction of new roads 
 or the improvement of existing roads ; 
 (p) to construct and maintain any new roads ; 
 which appear to the Board to be required for facilitating road 
 traffic. 
 
 (2) Where advances have been made to highway authorities in 
 respect of the construction of new roads, the Road Board may, 
 where they think it desirable, also contribute towards the cost of 
 maintenance of such new roads. 
 
 (3) The sums expended by the Road Board out of income on 
 the construction of new roads or the acquisition of land, or in 
 respect of any loan raised for any such purpose, shall not in any 
 year exceed one-third of the estimated receipts of the Road Board 
 for that year. 
 
342 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (4) An advance to a highway authority may be either by way 
 of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the 
 other, and shall be upon such terms and subject to such conditions 
 as the Board think fit. 
 
 (5) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression 
 " improvement of roads " includes the widening of any road, the 
 cutting off the comers of any road where land is required to be 
 purchased for that purpose, the levelling of roads, the treatment 
 of a road for mitigating the nuisance of dust, and the doing of any 
 other work in respect of roads beyond ordinary repairs essential 
 to placing a road in a proper state of repair ; and the expression 
 " roads " includes bridges, viaducts, and subways. 
 
 g. Roads constructed by Road Board- 
 
 (i) Every road constructed by the Road Board under the pro- 
 visions of this Part of this Act shall be a public highway, and the 
 enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such 
 roads accordingly, except that every such road shall be maintain- 
 able by and at the cost of the Road Board, and, for the purpose 
 of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of or 
 dealing with any such road, the Board shall have the same powers 
 (except the power of levying a rate) and be subject to the same 
 duties as a county council have and are subject to as respects 
 main roads, and may further exercise any powers vested in a 
 county council for the purposes of the maintenance and repair 
 of bridges, and the Road Board shall have the same powers as a 
 county council for the preventing and removing of obstructions : 
 Provided that — 
 
 {a) Communications between a road or path and a road con- 
 structed by the Road Board shall be made in manner 
 to be approved by the Road Board ; and 
 {V) The Road Board and any highway authority in whose 
 district any part of any such road is situate may con- 
 tract for the undertaking by such authority of the 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 343 
 
 maintenance and repair of the part of such road in 
 their district; and, for the purposes of such under- 
 taking, the highway authority shall have the same 
 powers and be subject to the same duties and liabili- 
 ties as if the road were a road vested in the highway 
 authority. 
 (2) Before the Treasury approve of the construction of a new 
 road by the Road Board, they shall consult with the Local Gov- 
 ernment Board and shall satisfy themselves that notice of the 
 intention to construct the road has been sent by the Road Board 
 to every highway authority in the area of which any part of the 
 proposed road will be situate, and shall consider any objections 
 to the proposed road which they may receive from any such 
 authority. 
 
 10, Construction of New Roads by Highway Authorities 
 
 (i) Where the Road Board make an advance to a highway 
 authority in respect of the construction of a new road, the Board 
 may authorise the authority to construct the road, and where so 
 authorised the highway authority shall have power to construct 
 the road and to do all such acts as may be necessary for the pur- 
 pose, and any expenses of the authority, so far as not defrayed 
 out of the advance, shall be defrayed as expenses incurred by the 
 authority in exercise of their powers as highway authority, and the 
 enactments relating to such expenses, including the provisions as 
 to borrowing, shall apply accordingly. 
 
 (2) Where the highway authority to whom the advance is made 
 are a county council, the new road, when constructed, shall be a 
 main road and in any other case shall be a highway repairable by 
 the inhabitants at large : 
 
 Provided that the maintenance of any such road within the 
 administrative county of London shall devolve upon the local 
 authority responsible for the maintenance of streets and roads 
 in whose district the same is situate. 
 
344 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 II. Acquisition of Land 
 
 (i) Where the Treasury have approved a proposal by the Road 
 Board to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the 
 Board may acquire land for the purpose, and may, in addition, 
 acquire land on either side of the proposed road within two hun- 
 dred and twenty yards from the middle of the proposed road. 
 
 (2) The Road Board may acquire, erect, and furnish such offices 
 and other buildings as they may require, and may acquire land for 
 the purpose. 
 
 (3) Where a highway authority are authorised to construct a 
 new road under this Part of this Act, or an advance is made to 
 such an authority in respect of the improvement of an existing 
 road, the authority may acquire land for the purpose of ■ such 
 construction or improvement. 
 
 (4) For the purpose of the purchase of land by agreement under 
 this Part of this Act by the Road Board or a highway authority the 
 Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Part of this Act, 
 except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and 
 taking of land otherwise than by agreement, and section one hundred 
 and seventy-eight of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply as if 
 the Road Board and the highway authority were referred to therein. 
 
 (5) Where the Road Board or any highway authority are unable 
 to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they 
 consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commis- 
 sioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land com- 
 pulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this 
 Act, and the Commissioners shall have power to make such an 
 order : Provided that the provisions of Part I of this Act, pro- 
 hibiting the compulsory acquisition of the classes of land men- 
 tioned in subsection (3) ^ of section five of this Act shall apply 
 to the acquisition by the Road Board of land on either side of 
 a road proposed to be constructed by the Board. 
 
 1 Subsection (2) is meant. The mistake was corrected by 10 Edw. 7, ch. 7. 
 
THE HOUSING AND LAND PROBLEM 345 
 
 (6) The Road Board shall have full power, with the approval 
 of the Treasury, to sell, lease, and manage any land acquired by 
 them under this Part of this Act and not required for the new 
 road, and any receipts derived from any such land, so far as they 
 are applied for the purposes of the construction of new roads, 
 shall not be treated as part of the expenditure of the Road Board 
 on new roads for the purpose of the provisions of this Act limiting 
 the amount of expenditure of the Road Board on new roads. 
 
 12. Expenses and Receipts of Road Board 
 
 (i) All expenses of the Road Board under this Part of this 
 Act, including the salary of the chairman or vice-chairman and 
 the salaries and the remuneration of officers and servants, to such 
 amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed 
 out of the road improvement grant. 
 
 (2) The Treasury shall cause an account to be prepared and 
 transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for exami- 
 nation, showing the receipts into and issues out of the road im- 
 provement grant in the financial year ending the thirty-first day 
 of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General 
 shall certify and report upon the same, and such account and 
 report shall be laid before Parliament by the Treasury. 
 
 (3) Any sums received by the Road Board under this Part of 
 this Act shall, subject to regulations made by the Treasury, be 
 carried to the account to which the road improvement grant is 
 required to be carried under the Act under which the grant is 
 provided, and shall be treated as part of that grant. 
 
 J J. Power to borrow 
 
 (i) The Road Board may, with the approval of and subject to 
 regulations made by the Treasury, borrow on the security of the 
 road improvement grant for the purpose of meeting any expendi- 
 ture which appears to the Treasury to be of such a nature that 
 
346 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 it ought to be spread over a term of years, so however that the 
 total amount required for the payment of interest on and the re- 
 payment of money so borrowed shall not exceed in any year the 
 sum of two hundred thousand pounds. 
 
 (2) If and so far as the road improvement grant is insufficient 
 to meet the amount required for the payment of interest on and 
 the repayment of principal in any year, that amount shall be 
 charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the 
 growing produce thereof, but any sums so paid out of the Con- 
 solidated Fund shall be made good out of the road improvement 
 grant. 
 
 14. Annual Report to Parliament 
 
 The Road Board shall make to the Treasury an annual report 
 of their proceedings, and such report shall be laid annually before 
 Parliament by the Treasury. 
 
 [Clauses 15-20, and an accompanying Schedule, deal with ad- 
 ministrative details, definitions, and certain exceptions having force 
 in London, Scotland, and Ireland.] 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 
 
 [To make proper provision for old age pensions and general 
 elementary education and labour exchanges and town planning and 
 rural development, to say nothing of the new machinery set up 
 by the whole series of social measures enacted since 1505, placed 
 an additional strain upon a treasury already burdened with what 
 seemed to most Englishmen an absolutely necessary, albeit a huge, 
 expenditure for naval construction and maintenance. The Liberal 
 Government, frequently accused of anti-imperialistic leanings and 
 of a " Little England " policy, could not see its way clear to lessen- 
 ing military expenditure, and yet had pronounced in favour of a 
 far-reaching system of national insurance ^ as soon as the requisite 
 funds should be forthcoming. 
 
 But whence would the requisite funds come ? The tariff reformers 
 among the Unionists, who had been ably led by Mr. Joseph Cham- 
 berlain, had supported an increased militarism and an extended 
 colonialism and had advocated social reform, and had promised to 
 pay for these things by means of the large revenues that would be 
 derived from a high protective tariff. The failure of Mr. Chamber- 
 lain's followers was due in large part to their inability to convince 
 their fellow-Conservatives that a revolution in fiscal affairs would 
 be desirable. And now the Liberal Government were committed 
 to a policy of social transformation even more definitely than Mr. 
 Chamberlain, while at the same time they were far more unitedly 
 and certainly opposed to a protective tariff than Mr. Chamberlain's 
 Conservative opponents had been. The Liberal Government could 
 
 J Cf. supra, pp. 45 sqq., 199 sgq., and infra, ch. x, 
 
348 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 not add to the financial burdens of the state at the price of aban- 
 doning their traditional free-trade principles. Yet they would add 
 to those financial burdens. 
 
 It was at this point, that Mr. Lloyd George, as Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, came forward with proposals for a radical application 
 of direct taxation — graduated income tax, super-tax, tax on the 
 unearned increment, and tax on undeveloped property — and for a 
 readjustment of the indirect taxes, such as licensing duties, with a 
 view to equalising the financial burdens among the various classes 
 in the community. The land taxes, intended at once as an attack 
 upon the nobles' monopoly of land and as a means of placing addi- 
 tional funds at the disposal of the government for purposes of social 
 amelioration, would be metaphorically the stone for the killing of 
 two birds at once. It would be the Liberal, Radical, and Labour 
 way out of the dilemma of increasing expenditures and maintain- 
 ing Great Britain's position as a free-trade country. The enemies 
 of Mr. Lloyd George suggested that it was likewise Socialistic. 
 
 On April 29, 1909,- Mr. Lloyd George delivered his momentous 
 Budget Speech, which, on account of its clear presentment of the 
 principles underlying the new proposals, its concise statement of 
 the major details, and the obvious connection between its finances 
 and subsequent projects for social legislation, is given below, in 
 part, as Extract 58. 
 
 It took the Press and the public some time to comprehend the 
 details of the new Budget, but it was eulogised by Liberals as 
 " democratic " and as a triumph of free-trade finance, while it was 
 at once attacked by Unionist organs as Socialistic, as " an elec- 
 tioneering prospectus," as taxing the rich for the benefit of the 
 poor, and as tending to diminish and drive away capital and there- 
 fore to create more unemployment than it was likely to relieve. 
 Several special classes assailed it: the financial interests in Lon- 
 don 'were decidedly adverse; the views of the real estate market 
 were very unfavourable ; the landlords were decidedly opposed ; the 
 tobacco trade and the motor industry resented their new burdens ; 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 349 
 
 the brewers and distillers were loud in their condemnation ; Irish 
 feeling was hostile to the licensing provisions of the Budget. 
 
 The general principles of the Budget were debated in the House 
 of Commons, May 3-5 ; but in view of the vast length of the 
 later discussions, it would be unnecessary, were it practicable, to 
 give a full abstract of the proceedings. Some idea of the progress 
 of the debate and of the arguments advanced fro and con may be 
 gathered from the "Annual Register." ^ 
 
 Mr. Arthur J. Balfour led the Opposition attack with a speech 
 which passed over many features of the Ministerial proposals ; its 
 main points were an objection to the abolition of the old Sinking 
 Fund, a criticism of the property taxes as likely to encourage 
 evasion and the sending of capital abroad, and of the taxation of 
 undeveloped land as likely to injure market gardening, an argument 
 that unearned increment arose with other forms of property besides 
 land, and an emphatic denunciation of the proposed taxation of 
 the liquor trade as vindictive. The Budget proposals, he declared, 
 had given a severe shock to confidence and credit. He was answered 
 by the Postmaster-General, and then Mr. John Redmond, the Irish 
 leader, declared that the Budget was admirable and courageous 
 from the British point of view, but, looking at it from an exclu- 
 sively Irish standpoint, the whisky tax would more than counter- 
 balance the advantage to Ireland of old age pensions, and the tax 
 on tobacco was cruel. What had Ireland to do with Dreadnoughts ? 
 He condemned, amongst other items, the increased stamp duties 
 on land transfers ; but would gladly see issue taken with the Lords 
 on the proposed social reforms which the Nationalists approved. 
 Mr. G. N. Barnes, with some reserves as to details, welcomed the 
 Budget on behalf of the Labour party, and subsequently Mr. Winston 
 Churchill defended the Government programme, declaring inciden- 
 tally that the Opposition were debarred from criticism by their con- 
 stant questions tending to indefinite expenditure on national defence 
 and their attempts to expand the old age pension scheme. The 
 
 1 Annual Register, 1909, pp. loi sqq. 
 
3SO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Budget was a vindication of free-trade finance. He was followed 
 by Mr. Pretyman, wlio was answered by the Attorney-General; 
 and, after other speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made 
 an effective and temperate defence of his plans. Mr. Balfour, he 
 said, had left three-fourths of the Budget uncriticised ; Ireland was 
 asked in this Budget for considerably less than her normal con- 
 tribution to taxation, and should remember her share in old age 
 pensions. The Development Grant would benefit landlords by giv- 
 ing light railways, and next year there might be a relief of local 
 rates. German Conservatives and Protectionists favoured a tax 
 on unearned increment, which had existed for years as a local tax 
 in German towns, and the Housing of the Working Classes Com- 
 mission had recommended a tax on undeveloped land near towns. 
 He assured the House that the Government was anxious to do 
 what was right and fair. Mr. Chaplin assailed the Budget as the 
 first step in the Socialist war against property ; Mr. Philip Snowden, 
 an avowed Socialist, declared that he desired to make the rich 
 poorer in order to make the poor richer ; the Budget was the 
 beginning of democratic government ; to take only 20 per cent 
 was " compounding a felony." Mr. Asquith remarked that both 
 parties had taken common ground on old age pensions and the 
 navy scheme. The indirect taxes imposed compared favourably 
 with the taxes on coal, sugar, and tea, and he defended the income 
 tax proposals, noting especially that not a word had been said 
 against the super-tax. The tax on unearned increment, due to social 
 causes, dealt with a normal and progressive increase, would only be 
 paid when the value was realised, and might relieve congestion in 
 such places as Glasgow, where 120,000 people were living in one- 
 room tenements. In regard to estate duties, they would listen with 
 an open mind to criticism of the scale. As to the liquor duties, the 
 brewers would make good any losses at the consumers' expense. 
 Whither was capital to fiy ? Wherever it went it would be con- 
 fronted by a Finance Minister not less necessitous than the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer. The Opposition had shown restiveness 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 351 
 
 when asked for their alternative plan, but they might fairly be 
 asked to give some general indication of it. In 1903 there was 
 an alternative adumbrated — taxes on meat, corn, and dairy prod- 
 uce. The Morning Post had just suggested a " better way " — 
 import duties on all foreign articles except rav^ materials. If that 
 was the Opposition proposal, the Government would be happy to 
 meet them. Meantime, they recommended the Budget for accept- 
 ance as providing adequately for prospective as well as present 
 needs, without deviation from free trade. Mr. Austen Chamber- 
 lain replied that silence as to details did not imply approval, that the 
 Budget was cutting down the resources for war. The taxation was 
 not for revenue only, and was not apportioned according to ability 
 to pay. The liquor taxes were clapped on a declining trade. The 
 death duties would eat into the capital available for the develop- 
 ment of the country. He severely criticised the super-tax in its 
 relation to other taxes ; the increased stamp duties on land trans- 
 fers ; the proposal to tax reversions — which were part of the con- 
 sideration for the lease ; the tax on unearned increment — since it 
 was difficult to distinguish between " earned " and " unearned " ; 
 the tax on undeveloped land, as promoting speculative building 
 and destroying recreation grounds ; and in conclusion, wondered 
 why the Government kept up the farce of quarrelling with their 
 Socialist allies. Mr. Masterman wound up for the Government, 
 remarking on the absurdity of identifying Socialism with the views 
 of Mr. Henry George. The debate was closured by 308 to 201. 
 
 On May 15, 1909, a letter to the Prime Minister was published, 
 signed by leading London financial firms or their representatives, 
 including Messrs. Rothschilds, Barings, Antony Gibbs & Sons, 
 J. S. Morgan & Co., Huth & Co., C. J. Hambro & Sons, Brown, 
 Shipley & Co., Fruehling & Goschen, Lord Avebury, Sir Felix 
 Schuster, Sir Thomas Sutherland, and others. While declaring 
 that they were prepared to bear their full share of increased taxa- 
 tiorj, which they recognised as necessary, they expressed alarm at 
 the increasing disproportion of the burden placed on a small class. 
 
352 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 They held that the increase of the death duties (which, they stated, 
 were usually paid out of capital) and of the income tax, coupled 
 with the super-tax, would injure commerce and industry ; that the 
 prosperity of all classes had been greatly due to the indisputable 
 safety for capital forded by Great Britain, and that the taxes in 
 question would discourage private enterprise and thrift, thus event- 
 ually diminishing employment and reducing wages. 
 
 All these arguments and many more were advanced against the 
 Finance Bill, embodying the provisions of the Budget, during the 
 four days' debate which preceded its second reading in the Com- 
 mons on June 1 1 . An amendment, moved by Mr. Austen Cham- 
 berlain, involving its rejection, was negatived by 366 to 209. 
 Sixty-two Nationalists voted in the minority. 
 
 Outside Parliament the storm against the Bill had meanwhile 
 been gathering strength. The Earl of Rosebery publicly described^ 
 the Budget as a social and political revolution to be effected with- 
 out the participation of the people ; the country, he added, must 
 begin to see that there were vast flaws in the Constitution. The 
 Times added a charge — often repeated afterwards — that the 
 Budget, coupled with the Town Planning Bill,^ was subjecting 
 Great Britain to bureaucratic rule. But the most influential protest 
 was made by a crowded meeting of business men, held at the 
 Cannon Street Hotel on June 23. It was described by Lord Ave- 
 bury as not political, but financial and economic. 
 
 On the same day a " Budget League " was formed by the Liberal 
 members of the House of Commons to conduct a vigorous cam- 
 paign in its favour in the constituencies, at a meeting held at the 
 House of Commons. Mr. Haldane presided, Mr. Winston Churchill 
 spoke, and it was made clear that no pressure would be put on any 
 Liberal opponents of parts of the Budget. At the same time, it was 
 clearly pointed out that the House of Lords would probably veto 
 the Finance Bill, and that the question of the Budget would there- 
 fore be inextricably bound up with the question of the Lords' veto. 
 1 The London Times, June 22, 1909. 2 Cf. supra, ch. vii. 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 353 
 
 As one member expressed it, the inevitably approaching election 
 would raise the question of the Lords, the land, and liquor. 
 
 By midsummer, the true import of the Government's proposals 
 was quite thoroughly understood ; and agitation was prevalent 
 throughout the country. On July 25, a great Budget demonstra- 
 tion took place in Hyde Park, London ; a procession marched 
 thither from the Embankment, and speeches were delivered from 
 twelve platforms. That of the Labour party attracted the largest 
 crowd, and the resolution passed at the other eleven was passed 
 here in a more strongly worded version. Opinions differed as to 
 the significance of the proceedings ; the Conservative Times said 
 that they were " skilfully engineered " ; the Liberal Westminster 
 Gazette that an unusually large proportion of the audience was 
 acutely interested ; according to , some estimates, the numbers 
 reached 250,000. Much had been said of the injury done to build- 
 ing by the Budget ; yet the building trades' federation was spe- 
 cially conspicuous in the Park. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George's chief defence of his Budget before a pop- 
 ular audience was made at the Edinburgh Castle, Limehouse, on 
 July 30, before an audience of 4000. The financial interests, he 
 said, had demanded further expenditure on the navy ; but while 
 the workmen in Derbyshire, Cleveland and Dumfries had shown 
 themselves willing to pay, there was a howl from Belgravia. The 
 rich said they objected mainly to paying for old age pensions ; why 
 then had they promised them ? It now appeared they had meant 
 workmen to pay for their own pensions. The Budget was raising 
 money to provide against poverty, unemployment, and sickness ; 
 for widows and orphans, and for the development of our own land. 
 The land taxes, especially, were being attacked with ferocity. But 
 land near the London docks, formerly rented at £2 or ^3 an acre, 
 had sold at ;^6ooo or ;^8ooo an acre. A piece of land at Golder's 
 Green, near Hampstead, had risen in value from ;^i6o to ;^2ioo 
 through the making of the tube railway. The Duke of Northum- 
 berland had asked ;^9oo an acre for a piece of land wanted for 
 
354 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 a school and rented at 30s. an acre. A bit of land in Scotland 
 wanted for a torpedo range — and affording "' an opportunity for 
 patriotism " — was rated at ;^i i 2 s. a year and sold to the nation 
 for £11,22^,. After denouncing as "insolence" a comparison 
 made in the debates of the landlord's increment with that of a 
 doctor in a growing town, he gave the case of Mr. Gorringe, whose 
 lease (in Buckingham Palace Road) had been renewed by the Duke 
 of Westminster, the terms being the increase of the ground rent 
 to £\ooa a year, a fine (" a fine, mind you ") of ;£'so,ooo, and the 
 building of huge and costly premises according to plans submitted 
 to the Duke. Such a case " is not business, it is blackmail." He 
 denounced at some length the owners of mining royalties who would 
 not " spare a copper " for the miners' pensions, and declared that 
 landowning was a stewardship ; if landlords ceased to discharge their 
 traditional duties, the conditions of landholding must be reconsid- 
 ered. The landlords said they were anxious for the small holders, 
 but they had condemned their exemption. As one of the children 
 of the people, he had made up his mind in framing the Budget that 
 no cupboard should be bared, no lot should be harder to bear. 
 
 This speech was reprinted and widely circulated ; but its refer- 
 ence to the " Gorringe case " was severely criticised, and what was 
 referred to as its demagogic tone gave widespread offence. Sir 
 Edward Carson declared in the Times that it marked " the be- 
 ginning of the end of the rights of property"; the Times said that 
 Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Churchill were trying to form a new 
 party. Mr. Lloyd George's, closing phrases provoked the rejoinder 
 that many " cupboards would be bared " by the reduction of em- 
 ployment on the part of the great landowners, and the Duke of 
 Portland and others laid stress on this point. This, however, served 
 only to bring the landlords into greater disfavour. 
 
 Lord Lansdowne, the leader of the Conservatives in the Upper 
 House, denounced the Budget in a public speech on August 9 
 as a hotch-potch of proposals involving a taxation of capital un- 
 precedented in England, and compared- Mr. Lloyd George to the 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 35 5 
 
 " robber-gull " which lives by stealing fish from other gulls, and 
 intimated that the House of Lords would refer the Finance Bill 
 to the people. 
 
 Mr. Winston Churchill, on the other hand, speaking at a Budget 
 League demonstration at Leicester on September 4, made fun of 
 the Dukes' opposition to the Budget and laid stress on the urgency 
 of social reform. On the one side was the gap between rich and 
 poor, the divorce of the people from the land, the lack of discipline 
 and training for the young, boy labour, physical degeneration, the 
 " jumble of an obsolete poor law," the liquor traffic, unemployment, 
 the absence of a minimum standard of life among the workers, 
 and the increase of vulgar, joyless luxury; on the other, the "moral, 
 spiritual, civic, scientific forces " which the Budget would reinforce. 
 The tax-gatherer would now ask, not, what have you got, but how 
 did you get it ? ^ The differentiation in treatment of wealth implied 
 a constant relation between acquired wealth and service previously 
 rendered. Where no service had been done, but rather disservice, 
 the State should make a difference in taxation. He welcomed the 
 struggle as likely to " smash " the Lords' veto. 
 
 Quite as illuminating as the popular speeches of Mr. Lloyd 
 George, Lord Lansdowne, and Mr. Churchill, was the speech of 
 Lord Rosebery " to business men of Glasgow opposed to many 
 of the principles of the Budget" on September 10. Before de- 
 livering it, he resigned the Presidency of the Liberal League ; and 
 thenceforth was considered definitely to have broken with the Lib- 
 eral party. In his opening sentences Lord Rosebery referred to 
 his independent position and then dwelt on the immediate economic 
 dangers set up by the Budget, which he described as " a revolution 
 without a popular mandate." He concentrated his attack on the 
 land taxes and death duties, arguing that the former might be ex- 
 panded and their principles extended to other form^ of property, 
 but he admitted that he should like to see the State settle "" a new 
 
 1 This phrase, Uke Mr. Lloyd George's " baring cupboards," was often quoted 
 during the subsequent electoral campaign by opponents of the Budget. ' 
 
356 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 yeomanry " on the land arid give towns power to cope with the re- 
 striction of their growth due to the high price of land. He dwelt 
 on the landlord's prospective burdens, which fell not only on dukes, 
 " a poor but honest class," but on friendly societies and workmen's 
 insurance companies. The death duties now took " great chunks 
 of capital " ; " scores of millions " were lying idle in banks owing 
 to apprehensions of the Ministerial policy ; the Budget was inquisi- 
 torial, tyrannical, and Socialistic. He laid great stress on the exten- 
 sion of taxation on gifts inter vivos, asked what had become of 
 retrenchment, and thought " many heedless persons " would prefer 
 the alternative of tariff reform. He himself declined to offer an 
 alternative, but suggested retrenchment on the Civil Service and 
 on expenditure on Ireland. He hoped the House of Lords would 
 not decide on its action till the Budget was in a final shape ; he 
 thought that Ministers wished it thrown out, because they dared 
 the Lords to do so. But its great danger was Socialism ; any form 
 of Protection was an evil, but Socialism was "the end of all" — 
 the negation of faith, of family, of property, of monarchy, of the 
 Empire. He himself must go a different road — that of public econ- 
 omy, of strengthening character, of preserving confidence — the 
 road by which the English had built up their strength and dominion. 
 
 Meanwhile, Committee and Report Stages of the Finance Bill 
 had been successfully passed in the House of Commons ; and on 
 November 2, the debate on third reading was opened by another 
 attempt of Mr. Austen Chamberlain to secure its rejection. A large 
 number of interesting and important speeches were delivered on this 
 occasion, the one by Mr. Philip Snowden being given below in 
 Extract jg as a clear exposition on the part of an avowed Socialist 
 of the relations between Socialism and the Budget. At length, on 
 November 5, Mr. Chamberlain's amendment was rejected by 379 
 votes to 1 49, and the Bill was passed up to the House of Lords. 
 
 In the House of Lords, the fateful debate began on Novem- 
 ber 23 before a great crowd, including the King of Portugal. The 
 Earl of Crewe, in behalf of the Government, moved the second 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 357 
 
 reading without a speech. The Marquess of Lansdowne replied 
 with a resolution, " that this House is not justified in giving its con- 
 sent to this Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of 
 the country." Throughout the ensuing debate, the opponents of 
 the Finance Bill, who constituted a large majority of the House, 
 divided their attention between attacks upon the financial proposals 
 and apologies for their forthcoming veto of a money bill and its 
 reference to the people, whilst the minority — supporters of the 
 Government — undertook to defend the principles of the Budget 
 and to insinuate that such a veto on the part of the Lords would 
 react eventually against the independence of their own House. 
 From a large number of interesting speeches, delivered at this 
 critical time, several extracts have been selected to illustrate various 
 points of view. The Bishop of Bristol expressed an ecclesiastic's 
 opposition to the Bill {Extract 60) ; Lord Sheffield expressed a 
 Liberal lord's opinion of ecclesiastical opposition {Extract 61). 
 How bitter was the feeling of many Conservatives against Mr. 
 Churchill, and more particularly against Mr. Lloyd George, ap- 
 peared in the speech of Lord Willoughby de Broke {Extract 62). 
 Lord Revelstoke spoke against the Bill as the representative of 
 the financial traditions of the Barings {Extract 63). The Bishop 
 of Birmingham, in remarkable contrast with the Bishop of Bristol, 
 defended the Budget proposals as urgently required for social needs 
 {Extract 64). Lord Ribblesdale, though supporting the Bill, could 
 not refrain from attacking Mr. Lloyd George {Extract df). An ex- 
 treme view of the havoc that might be done to the English Consti- 
 tution by the adoption of the Budget was offered by the Duke of 
 Marlborough {Extract 66). The Earl of Rosebery, always a delight- 
 ful speaker, bewailed the lamentable Budget, but urged the Lords 
 not to precipitate a constitutional conflict with the Commons, and de- 
 clared that he could not vote either way {Extract 6f). The attitude 
 of the Liberal Government toward the Conservative majority in the 
 House of Lords was well stated by Lord Morley of Blackburn on 
 November 29 {Extract 68), and by the Earl of Crewe, in closing 
 
358 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 debate the following day {Extract 6g). The Bill was defeated by 
 350 votes to 75, little excitement being manifested. Three bishops 
 and the Archbishop of York supported the Bill; the Bishop of 
 Lincoln voted against it. 
 
 The country took the rejection very quietly. But the Ministry 
 was not slow in replying. The day after the rejection of the Bud- 
 get by the Lords, the Commons reassembled, and Mr. Asquith, 
 who was enthusiastically received by the Liberals and the Labour- 
 ites, gave notice that he would move on the morrow a resolution 
 " That the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass into 
 law the financial provision made by the House for the Service of 
 the year is a breach of the Constitution and a usurpation of the 
 rights of the Commons." The next day, in a House crowded in 
 every part, Mr. Asquith declared that " the House would be un- 
 worthy of its past and of those traditions of which it is the cus- 
 todian and trustee " if it allowed any time to pass without showing 
 that it would not brook this usurpation. In forcible language he 
 dwelt upon the financial disorder created, and laid the whole re- 
 sponsibility on the Peers. He ridiculed the suggestion of a new 
 Budget which the Lords could approve and announced that there 
 would be a dissolution as early as possible, that the new House 
 would assemble at such a time as would make it possible to pro- 
 vide " both retrospectively and prospectively " for the needs of the 
 financial year ; and, should the Government be returned, its first 
 duty would be to reimpose all the taxes and duties of the Finance 
 Bill and to validate all past collections. Meanwhile the duties at 
 the rates sanctioned might be deposited with the proper officials. 
 He then dealt with the constitutional question, insisting that the 
 Constitution was a matter of precedent and declaring that "the 
 power of the purse " which had been used against the usurpation 
 of the Crown would now be used against that of the Lords. He 
 ridiculed the contention that the Bill was not a Finance Bill and 
 declared that the right of the Lords to refer the Commons to the 
 people was " the hoUowest political cant." The real question was 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 359 
 
 whether, when the Liberals were in power, the House of Lords 
 should be omnipotent. The Ministry had not provoked the chal- 
 lenge, but welcomed it; they believed that the iirst prindples of 
 representative government were at stake, and would ask the House 
 and the electorate to declare that the organ and voice of the free 
 people of the country was to be found in the elected representatives 
 of the people. 
 
 Mr. Balfour, replying for the Conservatives, ridiculed the reso- 
 lution as an abstract motion, regretted its misrepresentation of 
 constitutional history, and declared that such action by the Lords 
 must be rare. He defended their right, enlarged on the need of a 
 Second Chamber with substantial powers, and maintained that the 
 Lords had not exceeded their functions. They had done their duty, 
 and done it fearlessly. 
 
 Mr. A. Henderson, the Labour leader, gave the resolution hearty 
 support on behalf of his party ; and, after other remarks, the reso- 
 lution was carried 349 to 134. The division was taken earlier than 
 members had expected, or the Liberal majority would have been 
 nearer 250. 
 
 Parliament was prorogued on December 3, 1909, and subse- 
 quently dissolved. And the country was called upon to determine 
 indirectly what should be the fate of the Budget, of the House of 
 Lords, and perhaps of social reform. 
 
 The National Liberal Federation denounced the Lords' action, 
 and demanded the veto as its necessary sequel ; the Parliamentary 
 Committee of the Trade Union Congress denounced the House 
 of Lords as a menace to political freedom, declared for the Unem- 
 ployed Workmen Bill,- old age pensions at sixty, and the removal 
 of the pauper disqualification, poor law reform on the lines of the 
 Minority Report,^ free education from the primary school to the 
 university. State payment of members and returning officers' ex- 
 penses, the holding of general elections on one day, amendment of 
 the Corrupt Practices Act, adult suffrage, redistribution of seats, 
 
 1 Cf. supra, p. 190. 
 
360 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the abolition of plural voting and university representation, and 
 the establishment of an eight hours' day. It urged Trade Union- 
 ists and other wage earners to work for the maintenance of the 
 supremacy of the Commons and the abolition of the House of 
 Lords. The Independent Labour Party, while agreeing in these 
 aims, maintained its detachment from Liberalism. 
 
 There was little real development in the political situation be- 
 tween the close of the session in December, 1909, and the decision 
 of the electors in the last fortnight of January, igio. The contro- 
 versy centred around the future of the House of Lords, the merits 
 of the Budget, Tariff Reform, and social betterment. Mr. Lloyd 
 George on January i stated that " the root trouble of our social 
 system was the precariousness of living," and foreshadowed in- 
 surance against unemployment. Two. days later, Mr. Asquith de- 
 fended at length what his Government had done on the " outlying 
 territory " of the unemployment problem by old age pensions and 
 labour exchanges, and recommended the Budget as affording a com- 
 plete and effectual alternative to Tariff Reform. The Unionists, 
 on their side, exalted the Empire, the Navy, and Tariff Reform, 
 condemned the Budget and the attacks on the House of Lords, 
 and declared that any loss of power by the Lords might lead to 
 Irish Home Rule. 
 
 The final results of the elections of January, 1 9 1 o, were : Liber- 
 als, 274; Unionists, 272 (of whom 43 were Liberal Unionists); 
 Labour party, 41 ; Nationalists, 7 1 ; Independent Nationalists, 11. 
 Thus the Liberals could have a majority only by the aid of the Irish 
 Nationalist as well as of the Labour party. The Nationalists, in the 
 main, were hostile to the Budget, but finally agreed to support it in 
 the hope that the Government would fulfil their pledge of abolishing 
 the Lords' veto and so remove the great obstacle to Home Rule. 
 
 On February 21, the new Parliament was formally opened. 
 After some time spent in discussing the Veto Resolutions,^ consid- 
 eration of the Finance Bill of 1909 was renewed on April 18. The 
 1 Cf. infra, ch. ix. 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 361 
 
 measure was practically unaltered, save a few concessions to Ire- 
 land. The debate naturally traversed very familiar ground, so that 
 its review is hardly necessary. It passed a second reading on 
 April 25 and third reading two days later. The Lords accepted 
 the verdict of the countty as gracefully as possible, and the 
 much-discussed Lloyd George Budget received the royal assent on 
 April 29, 19 10. 
 
 A few illustrative provisions of this Finance (1909-10) Act, 1 9 1 o, 
 constitute Extract 70. It should be borne in mind, however, that 
 these provisions are qualified by a vast number of exceptions and ex- 
 planations too 'long and too involved to incorporate in this volume.] 
 
 Extract ^8 
 
 THE BUDGET SPEECH OF 1909 
 
 {Mr. David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Commons, 
 April 2g, igog) 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George ^ • . . . I come to the consideration of the 
 social problems which are urgently pressing for solution — problems 
 affecting the lives of the people. The solution of all these questions 
 involves finance. What the Government have to ask themselves is 
 this : Can the whole subject of further social reform be postponed 
 until the increasing demands made upon the National Exchequer 
 by the growth of armaments has ceased ? Not merely can it be 
 postponed, but ought it to be postponed t Is there the slightest 
 hope that if we deferred consideration of the matter, we are likely 
 within a generation to find any more favourable moment for at- 
 tending to it ? And we have to ask ourselves this further question : 
 If we put off dealing with these social sores, are the evils which 
 arise from them not likely to grow and to fester, until finally the 
 loss which the country sustains will be infinitely greater than 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 472 sqq. 
 
362 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 anything it would have to bear in paying the cost of an imme- 
 diate remedy. There are hundreds of thousands of men, women, 
 and children in this country now enduring hardships for which the 
 sternest judge would not hold them responsible ; hardships entirely 
 due to circumstances over which they have not the slightest com- 
 mand ; the fluctuations and changes of trade — even of fashions ; 
 ill-health and the premature breakdown or death of the bread- 
 winner. Owing to events of this kind, all of them beyond human 
 control — at least beyond the control of the victims — thousands, 
 and I am not sure I should be wrong if I said millions, are precipi- 
 tated into a condition of acute distress and poverty. How many 
 people there are of this kind in this wealthy land the figures of old 
 age pensions' have thrown a very unpleasant light upon. Is it fair, 
 is it just, is it humane, is it honourable, is it safe to subject such a 
 multitude of our poor fellow-countrymen and countrywomen to 
 continued endurance of these miseries until nations have learnt 
 enough wisdom not to squander their resources on these huge 
 machines for the destruction of human life ? 
 
 I have no doubt as to the answer which will be given to that 
 question by a nation as rich in humanity as it is in store. Last year, 
 whilst we were discussing the Old Age Pensions Bill, all parties in 
 this House recognised fully and freely that once we had started on 
 these lines the case for extension was irresistible. The Leader of 
 the Opposition, in what I venture to regard as probably the most 
 notable speeches he has delivered in this Parliament — I refer to 
 his speech on the third reading of the Old Age Pensions Bill and 
 the speech he delivered the other day on the question of unem- 
 ployment — recognised quite boldly that whichever party was in 
 power provision would have to be made in some shape or other 
 for those who are out of work through no fault of their own and 
 those who are incapacitated for work owing to physical causes for 
 which they are not responsible. And there was at least one exten- 
 sion of the Old Age Pensions Act which received the unanimous 
 assent of the House and which the Government were pressed to 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 363 
 
 give not merely a Parliamentary but a Statutory pledge to execute. 
 I refer to the proposal to extend the pension to the meritorious 
 pauper. . . . 
 
 But still, all those who have given any thought and study to 
 this question must realise that the inclusion of the septuagenarian 
 pauper is but a very small part of the problem which awaits solu- 
 tion — a problem of human suffering which does not become any 
 easier of solution by postponement. On the contrary, the longer 
 we defer the task of grappling with it the more tangled and the 
 more desperate it becomes. We are pledged, definitely pledged, by 
 speeches from the Prime Minister given both in the House and 
 outside, to supplementing our old age pensions proposals. . . . 
 
 What are the dominating causes of poverty amongst the indus- 
 trial classes ? For the moment I do not refer to the poverty which 
 is brought about by a man's own fault. I am only alluding to 
 causes over which he has no control. Old age, premature break- 
 down in health and strength, the death of the breadwinner, and 
 unemployment due either to the decay of industries and season- 
 able demands, or the fluctuations or depressions in trade. The 
 distress caused by any or either of these causes is much more 
 deserving of immediate attention than the case of a healthy and 
 vigorous man of 65 years of age, who is able to pursue his daily 
 vocation, and to earn without undue strain an income which is 
 quite considerable enough to provide him and his wife with a 
 comfortable subsistence. 
 
 When Bismarck was strengthening the foundations of the new 
 German Empire one of the very first tasks he undertook was the 
 organisation of a scheme which insured the German workmen and 
 their families against the worst evils which ensue from these com- 
 mon accidents of life. And a superb scheme it is. It has saved an 
 incalculable amount of human misery to hundreds of thousands 
 and possibly millions of people who never deserved it. 
 
 Wherever I went in Germany, north or south, and whomever I 
 met, whether it was an employer or a workman, a Conservative 
 
364 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 or a Liberal, a Socialist or a Trade Union leader — men of all 
 ranks, sections and creeds of one accord joined in lauding the bene- 
 fits which have been conferred upon Germany by this beneficent 
 policy. Several wanted extensions, but there was not one who 
 wanted to go back. The employers admitted that at first they did 
 not quite like the new burdens it cast upon them, but they now 
 fully realised the advantages which even they derived from the ex- 
 penditure, for it had raised the standard of the workman through- 
 out Germany. By removing that element of anxiety and worry 
 from their lives it had improved their efficiency. Benefits which in 
 the aggregate amounted to forty millions a year were being dis- 
 tributed under this plan. When I was there the Government were 
 contemplating an enlargement of its operation which would extend 
 its benefits to clerks and to the widows and orphans of the indus- 
 trial population. They anticipated that when complete the total 
 cost of the scheme would be fifty-three millions a year. . . . 
 
 In this country we have already provided for the aged over 
 seventy. We. have made pretty complete provision for accidents. 
 All we have now left to do in order to put ourselves on a level 
 with Germany — I hope our competition with Germany will not 
 be in armaments alone — is to make some further provision for 
 the sick, for the invalided, for widows and orphans. In a well- 
 thought-out scheme, involving contributions from the classes di- 
 rectiy concerned, the proportion borne by the State need not, in 
 my judgment, be a very heavy one, and is well within the compass 
 of our financial capacity without undue strain upon the resources 
 of the country. 
 
 The Government are also pledged to deal on a comprehensive 
 scale with the problem of unemployment. The pledges given by 
 the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government are specific and 
 repeated. I do not wish to encourage any false hopes^ Nothing 
 that a Government can do, at any rate with the present organisa- 
 tion of society, can prevent the fluctuations and the changes in 
 trade and industry which produce unemployment. A trade decays, 
 
THE ELOYD GEORGE BUDGET 365 
 
 and the men who are engaged in it are thrown out of work. We 
 have had an illustration within the last few days, to which Lord 
 Rosebery has so opportunely called our attention, in the privation 
 suffered by the horse cabdriver, owing to the substitution of me- 
 chanical for horse traction. That is only one case out of many 
 constantly happening in every country. Then there are the fluctu- 
 ations of business which at one moment fill a workshop with orders 
 which even overtime cannot cope with, and at another moment 
 leave the same workshops with rusting machinery for lack of some- 
 thing to do. Trade has its currents, and its tides, and its storms, 
 and its calms, like the sea, which seem to be almost just as little 
 under human control, or, at any rate, just as little under the con- 
 trol of the victims of these changes, and to say that you can estab- 
 lish by any system an absolute equilibrium in the trade and concerns 
 of the country is to make a promise which no man of intelligence 
 would ever undertake to honour. You might as well promise to 
 flatten out the Atlantic Ocean. But still, it is poor seamanship 
 that puts out to sea without recognising its restlessness, and the 
 changefulness of the weather, and the perils and suffering thus 
 produced. These perils of trade depression come at regular inter- 
 vals, and every time they arrive they bring with them an enormous 
 amount of distress. It is the business of statesmanship to recog- 
 nise that fact and to address itself with courage and resolution to 
 provide against it. . . . 
 
 Insurance against Unemployment 
 
 Any insurance scheme . . . must necessarily require contribu- 
 tions from those engaged in the insured trades both as employers 
 and employed ; but we recognise the necessity of meeting these 
 contributions by a State grant and guarantee. We cannot, of 
 course, attempt to pass the necessary Bill to establish unemploy- 
 ment insurance during the present Session. But the postponement 
 will not involve any real delay, for the establishment of labour ex- 
 changes is a necessary preliminary to the work of insurance, and 
 
366 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 this will occupy time which may also be advantageously employed 
 in consulting the various interests upon the details of the scheme 
 and in co-ordinating its financial provisions with the machinery of 
 invalidity and other forms of insurance. 
 
 Development Scheme 
 
 So much for the provision which we hope to be able to make 
 for those who, under the changing conditions which are inevitable in 
 trade and commerce, are temporarily thrown out of employment. 
 We do not put this forward as a complete or an adequate remedy 
 for all the evils of unemployment, and we do not contend that 
 when this insurance scheme has been set up and financed the 
 State has thereby done all in its power to help towards solving the 
 problem. After all, it is infinitely better, in the interests both of 
 the community and of the unemployed themselves, that the latter 
 should be engaged on remunerative work, than that they should 
 be drawing an allowance from the most skilfully-contrived system 
 of insurance. This country is small — I suppose it is the smallest 
 great country in the world — but we have by no means exhausted 
 its possibilities for healthy and productive emploj^nent. It is no 
 part of the function of a Government to create work ; but it is an 
 essential part of its business to see that the people are equipped 
 to make the best of their own country, are permitted to make the 
 best of their own country, and, if necessary, are helped to make 
 the best of their own country. [Cheers.] ... A State can and 
 ought to take a longer view and a wider view of its investments 
 than individuals. The resettlement of deserted and impoverished 
 parts of its own territories may not bring to its coffers a direct re- 
 turn which would reimburse it fully for its expenditure ; but the 
 indirect enrichment of its resources more than compensates it for 
 any apparent and immediate loss. The individual can rarely afford 
 to wait, a State can ; the individual must judge of the success of 
 his enterprise by the testimony given for it by his bank book ; a 
 State keeps many ledgers, not all in ink, and when we wish to 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 367 
 
 judge of the advantage derived by a country from a costly experi- 
 ment we must examine all those books before we venture to pro- 
 nounce judgment. . . . 
 
 Afforestation 
 
 This brings me straight to the question of afforestation. There 
 is a very general agreement that some steps should be taken in 
 the' direction, I will not say of afforesting, but of reafforesting the 
 waste lands of this country. Here, again, we are far behind every 
 other civilised country in the world. I have figures here on this 
 point which are very interesting. In Germany, for instance, out of 
 a total area of 133,000,000 acres, 34,000,000, or nearly 26 per 
 cent, are wooded; in France, out of 130,000,000 acres, 17 per 
 cent ; even in a small and densely-populated country such as 
 Belgium 1,260,000 acres are wooded, or 17 per cent, out of a total 
 area of 7,280,000 acres. Again, in the Netherlands and Denmark, 
 out of total areas of 8,000,000 and 9,500,000 acres respectively, 
 over 600,000 acres, or between 7 and 8 per cent, are wooded. In 
 the United Kingdom, on the other hand, out of 77,000,000 acres, 
 only 3,000,000, or 4 per cent, are under wood. ' 
 
 Sir Herbert Maxwell, who has made a study of this question for 
 a good many years, and whose moderation of statement is beyond 
 challenge, estimates that, in 1906, ";^8,ooo,ooo were paid annually 
 in salaries for the administration, formation and preservation of 
 German Forests, representing the maintenance of about 200,000 
 families or about 1,000,000 souls," and that, "in working up the 
 raw material yielded by the forests, wages were earned annually to 
 the amount of ;^3o,ooo,ooo sterling, maintaining about 600,000 
 families, or 3,000,000 souls." 
 
 Anyone who will take the trouble to search out the Census 
 Returns will find out that the number of people directly employed 
 in forest work in this country is only 16,000. And yet the soil and 
 the climate of this countiy are just as well adapted for the growth 
 of marketable trees as that of the States of Germany. . . . 
 
368 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Encouragement of Agriculture 
 
 . . . We are not getting out of the land anything like what it is 
 capable of endowing us with. Of the enormous quantity of agricul- 
 tural and dairy produce and fruit, and of the timber which is im- 
 ported into this country, a considerable portion could be raised on 
 our own lands. There hon. Members opposite and ourselves will 
 agree. The only difference is as to the remedy. , In our opinion, 
 the remedy which they suggest would make food costlier and more 
 inaccessible for the people ; the remedies which we propose, on the 
 other hand, would make food more abundant, better, and cheaper. 
 What is it we propose .'' — and, let the Committee observe, I am 
 only dealing with that part of the problem which affects finance. 
 
 National Development Grant 
 
 I will tell the House therefore, briefly, what I propose doing in 
 regard to this and all kindred matters I have dwelt upon. There 
 is a certain amount of money ^^ not very much — spent in this 
 country in a spasmodic kind of way on what I call the work of 
 national development — in light railways, in harbours, in indirect 
 but very meagre assistance to agriculture. I propose to gather all 
 these grants together into one Development Grant, and to put in 
 this year an additional sum of ;^2 00,000. Legislation will have to 
 be introduced, and I will then explain the methods of administra- 
 tion and the objects in greater detail, but the grant will be utilised 
 in the promoting of schemes which have for their purpose the 
 development of the resources of the country. It will include such 
 objects as the institution of schools of forestry, the purchase and 
 preparation of land for afforestation, the setting up of a number 
 of experimental forests on a large scale, expenditure upon scientific 
 research in the interests of agriculture, experimental farms, the im- 
 provement of stock — as to which there have been a great many 
 demands from people engaged in agriculture, the equipment of 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 369 
 
 agencies for disseminating agricultural instruction, the encourage- 
 ment and promotion of co-operation, the improvement of rural 
 transport so as to make markets more accessible, the facilitation 
 of all well-considered schemes and measures for attracting labour 
 back to the land by small holdings or reclamation of wastes. Every 
 acre of land brought into cultivation, every acre of cultivated land 
 brought into a higher state of cultivation, means more labour of a 
 healthy and productive character. It means more abundant food 
 — cheaper and better food for the people. . . . 
 
 Principles of Taxation 
 
 Now what are the principles upon which I intend to proceed in 
 getting . . . taxes ? The first principal on which I base my finan- 
 cial proposals is this — that taxation which I suggest should be im- 
 posed, while yielding in the present year not more than sufficient 
 to meet this year's requirements, should be of such a character 
 that it will produce enough revenue in the second year to cover 
 the whole of our estimated liabilities for that year. And, more- 
 over, that it will be of such an expansive character as to grow 
 with the growing demand of the social programme which I have 
 sketched without involving the necessity for imposing fresh taxa- 
 tion in addition to what I am asking Parliament to sanction at the 
 present time. The second principle on which I base my proposals 
 is that the taxes should be of such a character as not to inflict any 
 injury on that trade or commerce which constitutes the sources of 
 our wealth. 
 
 My third principle is this, that all classes of the community in 
 this financial emergency ought to be called upon to contribute. 
 I have never been able to accept the theory which I have seen 
 advanced that you ought to draw a hard-and-fast line at definite 
 incomes and say that no person under a certain figure should be 
 expected to contribute a penny towards the burden of the good 
 government of the country. In my judgment all should be called 
 
370 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 upon to bear their share. No voluntary association, religious or 
 philanthropic or provident, has ever been run on the principle of 
 exempting any section of its membership from subscription. They 
 all contribute, even ' to the widow's mite. It is considered not 
 merely the duty, but the privilege and pride of all to share in the 
 common burden, and the sacrifice is as widely distributed as is 
 the responsibility and the profit. At the same time, when you 
 come to consider whether the bulk of the taxation is to be raised 
 by direct or indirect means, I must point out at this stage — I shall 
 have a little more to say on this subject later on — that the indus- 
 trial classes, in my judgment, upon a close examination of their 
 contributions to local and Imperial finance, are paying more in 
 proportion to their incomes than those who are better off. Their 
 proportion to local finances especially is heavier, because, although 
 nominally the rates are not paid by them, as everyone knows, they 
 are really. For that reason the burden at the present moment of 
 new taxation bears much more heavily in proportion to their income 
 on that class than it does upon the wealthier and better-to-do classes. 
 
 New Taxation — Motor Cars 
 
 I now come — and I trust that the Committee will not think 
 that I have delayed too long — to the most interesting and the 
 most difficult part of my task, the explanation of the various pro- 
 posals for fresh taxation which I have to lay before them. I think 
 it will be to the convenience of the Committee if I deal first with 
 motor cars. . . . 
 
 I propose to substitute ... a new and increased scale, with 
 graduations, which will come into force next January for the whole 
 of the United Kingdom, and I have decided to base the scale on 
 the power of the cars and not on the weight. The horse-power 
 will be determined in accordance with regulations made by the 
 Treasury, and in the case of petrol cars with reference to the bore 
 of the cylinders. . . . 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 371 
 
 It will be seen that the tax rises rapidly when we get to cars 
 over 40 horse-power — a provision with which I think the Com- 
 mittee will not quarrel. Doctors' cars I propose to charge at one- 
 half these rates. Motor cycles I would charge at the uniform rate 
 
 of ;^I. . . . 
 
 One of the chief reasons for imposing additional taxation on 
 motor cars is the fact that the increase in their numbers necessi- 
 tates a reorganisation of our main-road system, and it will be 
 obvious that, were I to confine taxation to a mere re-adjustment 
 of the scale of licence duties, the burden would be imposed with 
 absolutely no relation to the extent that the^fcar might use the 
 roads. Some cars are out four or five hours a day all the year 
 round, others are used but rarely, and I believe that, were I to 
 obtain anything like adequate contribution from motor cars entirely 
 by direct taxation, I might hinder to some extent the development 
 of the motor industry by discouraging persons from keeping a 
 motor, or an additional motor, should they only want it for occa- 
 sional use. I, therefore, propose to put a tax of 3d. per gallon on 
 aU petrol used for motor vehicles. . . . 
 
 Direct Taxation 
 
 Now I come to my direct taxation. It must be obvious that in 
 meeting a large deficit of this kind I should be exceedingly unwise 
 if I were to trust to speculative or fancy taxes. I therefore pro- 
 pose, first of all, to raise more money out of the income tax and 
 estate duties. Income tax in this country only begins when the 
 margin of necessity has been crossed and the domain of comfort 
 and even of gentility has been reached. A man who enjoys an 
 income of over £■>, a week need not stint himself or his family of 
 reasonable food or of clothes and shelter. There may be an excep- 
 tion in the case of a man with a family, whose gentility is part of 
 his stock in trade or the uniform of his craft. Then, I agree, often 
 things go hard. 
 
372 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Then when you come to estate duties, what a man bequeaths, 
 after all, represents what is left after he has provided for all his 
 own wants in life. Beyond a certain figure it also represents all 
 that is essential to keep his family in the necessaries of life. The 
 figure which the experience of seventy years has sanctified as being 
 that which divides sufficiency from gentility is ^150 to ;^i6o a 
 year. A capital sum that would, if invested in safe securities, provide 
 anything over that sum ought to be placed in a different category 
 from any sum which is below that figure. 
 
 There is one observation which is common to income tax and 
 the death duties, more especially with the higher scales. What is 
 it that has enabled the fortunate possessors of these incomes and 
 these fortunes to amass the wealth they enjoy or bequeath ? The 
 security insured for property by the agency of the State, the guar- 
 anteed immunity from the risks and destruction of war, insured 
 by our /natural advantages and our defensive forces. This is an 
 essential elerhent even now in the credit of the country ; and, in 
 the past, it means that we were accumulating great wealth in this 
 land, when the industrial enterprises of less fortunately situated 
 countries were not merely at a standstill, but their resources were 
 being ravaged and destroyed by the havoc of war. What, more, 
 is accountable for this growth of wealth ? The spread of intelli- 
 gence amongst .the masses of the people, the improvements in 
 sanitation and in the general condition of the people. These have 
 all contributed towards the efficiency of the people, even as wealth- 
 producing machines. Take, for instance, such legislation as the 
 Education Acts and the Public Health Acts ; they have cost much 
 money, but they have made infinitely more. That is true of all 
 legislation which improves the conditions of life of the people. An 
 educated, well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed people invariably leads 
 to the growth of a numerous well-to-do class. If property were to 
 grudge a substantial contribution towards proposals which insure 
 the security which is one of the essential conditions of its existence, 
 or towards keeping from poverty and privation the old people 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 373 
 
 whose lives of industry and toil have either created that wealth 
 or made it productive, then property would be not only shabby 
 but short-sighted. 
 
 Income Tax 
 
 . . . Notwithstanding the relief given by the Finance Act of 1907, 
 the burden of the income tax upon earnings is still disproportion- 
 ately heavy. While, therefore, I propose to raise the general rate 
 at which the tax is calculated, I propose that the rates upon earned 
 income in the case of persons whose total income does not exceed 
 ;^3ooo should remain as at present, namely, gd. in the pound up 
 to ;^2ooo, and is. in the pound between ;^2ooo and ^3000. 
 In respect of all other incomes now liable to the is. rate I propose 
 to raise the rate from is. to is. 2d. 
 
 Abatement on Children 
 
 In the case of incomes not exceeding ;£^soo, the pressure of the 
 tax, notwithstanding the abatements at present allowed, is sorely 
 felt by taxpayers who have growing families to support, and al- 
 though a comparatively trifling additional burthen will be imposed 
 upon them by the increased rate, since the aggregate income of 
 this class is to the extent of at least four-fifths exclusively earned 
 income, I think that even upon the present basis they have a strong 
 claim to further relief. . . . And I propose that for all incomes 
 under ;£^s°°> ^ addition to the existing abatements, there shall 
 be allowed from the income in respect of which the tax is paid a 
 special abatement of ;^io for every child under the age of 16 
 years. . . . 
 
 Income (super) tax 
 
 The imposition of a super-tax, however, upon large incomes on 
 the lines suggested by the Select Committee of 1906 is a practi- 
 cable proposition, and it is upon this basis that I intend to proceed. 
 
374 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Such a super-tax might take the form of ... a uniform tax not 
 upon the total income, but upon the amount only by which the 
 income exceeded a certain fixed amount which would naturally, 
 but need not necessarily, be the amount of the minimum income 
 which attracts the tax. We might begin, say, at ;£'3ooo, and levy 
 the new tax upon all income in excess of ;^3ooo, or at ^5000, 
 and levy the tax upon income in excess of ;^5ooo. In the former 
 case some 25,000 assessments would be required, in the latter 
 only 10,000' — from the point of view of administration a very 
 strong argument in favour of the adoption of the higher figure, at 
 any rate in the first instance. . . . Therefore I propose to limit 
 the tax to incomes exceeding ;f5ooo, and to levy it upon the 
 amount by which such incomes exceed ;£^3ooo, and at the rate of 
 6d. in the pound upon the amount of such excess. An income of 
 ;^5ooi will thus pay in super-tax 6d. in the pound on ;^2ooi. . . . 
 Assessments to the new tax will be based upon the Returns of 
 total income from all sources, which will be required from persons 
 assessable. The machinery will be, in the main, independent of 
 the machinery of the existing income tax, but the assessments will 
 be made by the special Commissioners appointed under the Income 
 Tax Acts, and assessable income will be determined according to 
 the rules laid down in the income tax schedules. . . . 
 
 My last proposal relating to the income tax is the restriction of 
 the exemptions and abatements to persons resident in the United 
 Kingdom. . . . 
 
 Death Duties 
 
 The proposals I have to make with regard to the death duties 
 are of a very simple character. The great reconstruction of these 
 duties in 1894, which will always be associated with the name of 
 Sir William Harcourt, has given us a scheme of taxation which is 
 at once logical and self-consistent as a system, and a revenue- 
 producing machine of very high efficiency. Apart, therefore, from 
 one or two minor changes in the law, which experience has shown 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 375 
 
 to be desirable, I intend to confine my attention to adjusting the 
 rates with a view to increasing the yield without altering the basis 
 on which the duties are levied. . . . 
 
 Stamp Duties 
 
 Under the head of stamp duties I propose to increase the duty 
 upon conveyances on sale from los. to 20s. per cent, an exemption 
 from the increased rate being made in favour of conveyances of 
 stock or marketable securities which, by reason of the greater fre- 
 quency with which they change hands, in comparison with other 
 kinds of property, bear a disproportionate burthen under the present 
 uniform scale. The greater part of the additional revenue under 
 this head will be derived from transfers of real property. . . . 
 
 Licences 
 
 [A new, and, on the whole, higher, scale of licencing duties 
 advocated.] 
 
 Taxation of Land 
 
 . . . The first conviction that is borne in upon the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer who examines land as a subject for taxation is 
 this : that in order to do justice he must draw a broad distinction 
 between land whose value is purely agricultural in its character and 
 composition, and land which has a special value attached to it, owing 
 either to the fact of its covering marketable mineral deposits or be- 
 cause of its proximity to any concentration of people. Agricultural 
 land has not, during the past twenty or thirty years, appreciated in 
 value in this country. In some parts it has probably gone down. 
 I know parts of the country where the value has gone up. But 
 there has been an enormous increase in the value of urban land 
 and of mineral property. And a still more important and relevant 
 consideration in examining the respective merits of these two or 
 three classes of claimants to taxation is this : the growth in the 
 yalue, more especially of urban sites, is due to no expenditure of 
 
376 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 capital or thought on the part of the ground owner, but entirely 
 owing to the energy and the enterprise of the community. . . . 
 Still worse, the urban landowner is freed in practice from the 
 ordinary social obligations which are acknowledged by every 
 agricultural landowner towards those whose labour makes their 
 wealth. . . . The rural landowner has the obligation to provide 
 buildings and keep them in repair. The urban landowner, as a 
 rule, has neither of these two obligations. There is that essential 
 difference between the two. The urban landlord and the mineral 
 royalty owner are invariably rack-renters. They extort the highest 
 and the heaviest ground rent or royalty they can obtain on the 
 sternest commercial principles. They are never restrained by that 
 sense of personal relationship with their tenants which exercises 
 such a beneficent and moderating influence upon the very same 
 landlord in his dealings with his agricultural tenants. And the dis- 
 tinction is not confined merely to the rent. Take the conditions of 
 the tenancy. I am not here to defend many of the terms which 
 are included in many an agricultural agreement for tenancy. I 
 think many of them are oppressive, irritating, and stupid. But 
 compared with the conditions imposed upon either a colliery owner 
 or upon a town lessee they are the very climax of generosity. Take 
 this case — and it is not by any means irrelevant to the proposals 
 which I shall have to submit to the Committee later on. What 
 agricultural landlord in this country would ever think of letting his 
 farm for a term of years on condition, first of all, that the tenant 
 should pay the most extortionate rent that he could possibly secure 
 in the market, three, or four, or even five times the real value of 
 the soil ; that the tenant should then be compelled to build a house 
 of a certain size and at a certain cost, and in a certain way, and 
 that at the end of the term he, or rather his representatives, should 
 hand that house over in good tenantable repair free from encum- 
 brances to the representatives of the ground owner who has not 
 spent a penny upon constructing it, and who has received during 
 the whole term of lease the highest rent which he could possibly 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 377 
 
 screw in respect of the site ? Why, there is not a landlord in Great 
 Britain who would ever dream of imposing such outrageous con- 
 ditions upon his tenant. And yet these are the conditions which 
 are imposed .every day in respect of urban sites ; imposed upon 
 tradesmen who have no choice in the matter ; imposed upon pro- 
 fessional men and business men who have got to live somewhere 
 within reasonable distance of their offices ; imposed even on work- 
 men building a house for themselves, paying for it by monthly 
 instalments out of their wages for thirty years purely in order to 
 be within reasonable distance of the factory or mine or workshop 
 at which they are earning a living. . . . 
 
 My present proposals are proposals both for taxation and for 
 valuation. Although very moderate in character, they will produce 
 an appreciable revenue in the present year and more in future 
 years. The proposals are three in number. 
 
 Unearned Increment 
 
 First, it is proposed to levy a tax on the increment of value 
 accruing to land from the enterprise of the community or the 
 landowner's neighbours. . . . The valuations upon the difference 
 between which the tax will be chargeable will be valuations of the 
 land itself — apart from buildings and other improvements — and 
 of this difference, the strictly unearned increment, we propose to 
 take one-fifth, or 20 per cent, for the State. . . . 
 
 Duty on Undeveloped Land 
 
 The second proposal relating to land is the imposition of a 
 tax on the capital value of all land which is not used to the best 
 advantage. The owner of valuable land which is required or likely 
 in the near future to be required for building purposes, who con- 
 tents himself with an income therefrom wholly incommensurate 
 with the capital value of the land in the hope of recouping himself 
 ultimately in the shape of an increased price, is in a similar position 
 to the investor in securities who re-invests the greater part of his 
 
378 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 dividends ; but while the latter is required to pay income tax both 
 upon the portion of the dividends enjoyed and also upon the portion 
 re-invested, the former escapes taxation upon his accumulating capi- 
 tal altogether, and this, although the latter by his self-denial is increas- 
 ing the wealth of the community, while the former, by withholding 
 from the market land which is required for housing or industry, is 
 creating a speculative inflation of values which is socially mischievous. 
 
 We propose to redress this anomaly by charging an annual duty 
 of Jd. in the pound on the capital value of undeveloped land. The 
 same principle applies to ungotten minerals, which we propose 
 similarly to tax at ^d. in the pound, calculated upon the price 
 which the mining rights might be expected to realise if sold in 
 open market at the date of valuation. The tax on undeveloped 
 land will be charged upon unbuilt-on land only, and ... all land 
 having a purely agricultural value will be exempt. 
 
 Further exemptions will be made in favour of gardens and 
 pleasure grounds not exceeding an acre in extent, and parks, 
 gardens, and open spaces which are open to the public as of right, 
 or to which reasonable access is granted to the public, where that 
 access is recognised by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as 
 contributing to the amenity of the locality. Where undeveloped 
 land forms part of a settled estate, provision will be made to enable 
 a limited owner who has not the full enjoyment of the land to 
 charge the duty upon the corpus of the property. The valuation 
 upon which the tax will be charged will be the value of land as a 
 cleared site. . . . 
 
 Reversion Duty 
 
 My third proposal under the head of land is a lo per cent 
 reversion duty upon any benefit accruing to a lessor from the 
 determination of a lease, the value of the benefit to be taken to 
 be the amount (if any) by which the total value of the land at the 
 time the lease falls in exceeds the value of the consideration for 
 the grant of the lease, due regard being had, however, for the case 
 of the reversioner whose interest is less than a freehold, . . , 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 379 
 
 Valuation of Real Property 
 
 These proposals necessarily involve a complete reconstruction 
 of the method of valuing property. The existing taxes upon real 
 property are levied upon the annual value of such property as 
 a whole without distinguishing between the value which resides 
 in the land itself and that which has been added to it by the 
 enterprise of the owner in erecting buildings or effecting other 
 improvements. . . . 
 
 Indirect Taxation 
 
 I am not going at this late hour to enter into any discussion 
 of the principles which ought to guide a Finance Minister in the 
 imposition of indirect taxation. But one thing I am sure will be 
 accepted by every Member of this House, and that is that we 
 ought at any rate to avoid taxes on the necessaries of life. I re- 
 ferred some time ago, in the course of a discussion in this House, 
 to the old age pension officers' reports. There was one thing in 
 those reports which S'truck me very forcibly, and that was that 
 they all reported that the poorer the people they had to deal with, 
 the more was their food confined to bread and tea, and of the 
 price of that tea, which of course was of .the poores't quality, half 
 goes to the tax gatherer. That is always the worst of indirect taxa- 
 tion on the people. The poorer they are the more heavily the tax 
 falls upon them. Tea and sugar are necessaries of life, and I think 
 that the rich man who would wish to spare his own pocket at the 
 expense of the bare pockets of the poor is a very shabby rich man 
 indeed, and therefore I am sure that I carry with me the assent 
 of even the classes upon whom I am putting very heavy burdens, 
 that when we come to indirect taxes, at any rate those two essen- 
 tials of life ought to be exempt. 
 
 There are three other possible sources — beer, spirits, and to- 
 bacco. . . . [No increase on beer, but an estimated amount of 
 ;^i,6oo,ooo to be raised by increased taxes on spirits.] . . , 
 
38o BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Increase of Tobacco Duty 
 
 I have still nearly two millions more to find, and for this I must 
 turn to tobacco — from a fiscal point of view, a much healthier 
 source of revenue. The present rate of duty on unmanufactured 
 tobacco containing lo per cent or more of moisture is 3 s. a pound, 
 with equivalent additions to the rates for cigars, cigarettes, and 
 manufactured tobacco. . . . 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 I have to thank the House for the very great indulgence which 
 they -have extended to me and for the patience with which they 
 have listened to me. My task has been an extraordinarily difficult 
 one. It has been as disagreeable a task as could well have been 
 allotted to any Minister of the Crown. But there is one element 
 of- supreme satisfaction in it. That is to be found in contemplating 
 the objects for which these new imposts have been created. The 
 money thus raised is to be expended first of all in insuring the 
 inviolability of our shores. It has also been raised in order not 
 merely to relieve but to prevent unmerited distress within those 
 shores. It is essential- that we should make every necessary pro- 
 vision for the defence of our country. But surely it is equally 
 imperative that we should make it a country even better worth de- 
 fending for all and by all. And it is the fact that this expenditure 
 is for both those purposes that alone could justify the Government. 
 I am told that no Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever been called 
 on to impose such heavy taxes in a time of peace. This, Mr. Em- 
 mott, is a War Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable 
 warfare against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and 
 believing that before this generation has passed away we shall have 
 advanced a great step towards that good time when poverty and 
 wretchedness and human degradation which always follow in its 
 camp will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves 
 which once infested its forests, 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 38^ 
 
 Extract 5^ 
 
 A SOCIALIST'S VIEW OF THE BUDGET 
 
 (Mr. Philip Snowden, Commons, November 2, fQog) 
 
 Mr. Snowden ^ : . . . I have followed, as far as I have been 
 able, the speeches and arguments advanced in the country in oppo- 
 sition to these proposals, and, so far as I can judge, there have 
 been not many objections but only one objection to this Bill, and 
 that one has been that the Bill is Socialism, or, in the words of 
 Lord Rosebery, it " is the end of all things — religion, property, 
 and family life." . . . Now, I shall confine my remarks to dealing 
 with the objection that this Budget Bill is Socialism. I may begin by 
 attempting to define what we, who profess to be Socialists, mean 
 by Socialism. The Attorney-General was right in saying that So- 
 cialism means State action, but that is not exactly the definition of 
 Socialism which was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader 
 of the Opposition at Birmingham about twelve months ago. If I 
 may be permitted I will read the right hon. Gentleman's words, 
 because they admirably serve my purpose. The Leader of the 
 Opposition — speaking, I believe, at the opening of that curious 
 anachronism, a Tory labour club, about twelve months ago, a club 
 which I believe has since found its way into the Bankruptcy Court 
 — gave this as his definition of Socialism : 
 
 It seems to me there is no difficulty or ambiguity about the subject at 
 all. Socialism has one meaning, and one meaning only. Socialism means, 
 and can mean nothing else, that the community or the State is to take all 
 the means of production into its own hands, that private enterprise and 
 private property are to come to an end, and all that private enterprise and 
 private property carry with them. That is Socialism, and nothing else is 
 Socialism. Social reform — 
 
 and I ask here the attention of the House to the distinction which 
 the right hon. Gentleman attempted to draw between Socialism 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 12, col 1681 sqq. 
 
382 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 and Social Reform — I shall, later on, endeavour to show that 
 there is really no distinction where the right hon. Gentleman at- 
 tempts to establish it. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to draw 
 a distinction between Socialism and Social Reform, and he says : 
 
 Social reform is when the State, based upon private enterprise, recog- 
 nising that the best productive results can only be obtained by respect of 
 private property and encouraging private enterprise, asks them to con- 
 tribute towards great national, social, and public objects. That is social 
 reform. 
 
 I accepted the statement made by the Attorney-General that 
 Socialism is State action. But it is something more than that. It 
 is State ownership of the means of producing and distributing 
 wealth. There may be State action which is not connected with 
 the ownership, control, and management of industry. We as Social- 
 ists recognise that. We recognise, too, the existence of conditions 
 which everybody deplores, and we recognise further that the cause 
 of those conditions is to be found in the monopoly of the means 
 of production and distribution — at any rate in the monopoly of 
 land and capital. Our purpose is to substitute for private owner- 
 ship of land and capital public ownership and control of both. But 
 that is not a thing which can be accomplished at once. We realise 
 that. Meanwhile we are anxious to do something towards bringing 
 it about. The right hon. Gentleman defines Socialism as the State 
 ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth. May 
 I say I do not accept that ? The definition by Socialists of Socialism 
 is not the State ownership of land and capital. That is only a con- 
 dition of Socialism or a means of Socialism. Socialism means that 
 all socially created wealth shall be owned by the community, and 
 that its distribution shall be directed by the community for the good 
 of the community. The national ownership of land and capital is 
 a necessary condition to attaining a state of things like that. We 
 recognise that we cannot reach our goal under the present system 
 and at once, and we are anxious, therefore, in the meantime, to 
 divert as much as we can, and as rapidly as we can, socially created 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 383 
 
 wealth for the purpose of dealing with industrial and social evils 
 which are the result of the private ownership of land and capital. 
 Therefore, although the taxation of socially created wealth may not 
 be Socialism in itself, it is a step towards Socialism, and therefore, 
 in so far as this Budget taxes socially created wealth for social pur- 
 poses, it is Socialistic. But it is not Socialism. 
 
 Now I come to the point whether there is anything" new or novel 
 in the proposals of this Budget. The Attorney-General, no doubt, 
 described certain proposals as being novel, but I have not been 
 able to discover any novelty whatever in any one of the proposals 
 of the Finance Bill. To my mind there is nothing new in it. It 
 is too late in the day to begin to talk about the beginning of So- 
 cialism ; as a matter of fact we are well on the road to Socialism, 
 and all the legislation of the nineteenth century has been nothing 
 more or less than an effort on the part of this House to deal with 
 the evils resulting from the private ownership lof land and capital. 
 Throughout the whole of the nineteenth century we have been 
 moving in our legislation towards Socialism — first of all by con- 
 stantly increasing legal restrictions in the free and individual use 
 of land and capital. Our public health legislation is an illustration 
 of that. If you require further illustration there is the Factory 
 legislation. There is no difference whatever in the economic effect 
 upon private, monopoly of the Workmen's Compensation Act and 
 the factory legislation and public health legislation, and the direct 
 taxation upon the profits on monopoly which has been acted upon 
 by all parties in the State. 
 
 The second way in which we are moving towards Socialism has 
 been the gradual supplementing of private voluntary charities by 
 public organisations for dealing with the poorest parts of our popu- 
 lation. That is accepted by the party opposite and, indeed, by every 
 party in the House, and the Old Age Pensions Act is an illustration 
 of that. Then we have been trying to raise the condition of the 
 . poorest part of the population by such measures as the Education 
 Act. What makes a measure of that kind all the more Socialistic 
 
384 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 is that to a very great extent it is provided for by taxation on 
 socially created wealth. 
 
 The third way in which we have moved towards Socialism is on 
 the lines of the proposals of this Bill by constantly increasing the 
 taxation on rent, interest, and profits for the purpose of dealing 
 with the results of the private ownership of land. Your Income 
 Tax is an illustration of that. 
 
 The fourth way, and the most Socialistic of all, is the gradual 
 supplanting of private enterprise and private institutions by pub- 
 lic initiative and public organisations. You have that illustrated 
 in our magnificent and highly successful municipal and State 
 undertakings. 
 
 Now, one of the four ways in which we have been moving 
 towards Socialism is by increasing taxation upon rent, interest, and 
 profits, which are recognised even by the right hon. Gentleman 
 himself as being Sopialistically created. Is there anything novel in 
 any one of these things ? What are Land Taxes ? Land taxation 
 simply proposes to tax socially created wealth for social purposes. 
 That is nothing new. It is one of the difficulties of attempting to 
 apply a principle partially. If you attempt so to apply a principle, 
 you are certain to create an apparent injustice. I have a certain 
 amount of sympathy with those who urge that it is not fair to dis- 
 criminate between social increment on land and social increment in 
 other forms. That is an objection which cannot be urged against 
 Socialism. It can be urged only against hon. Gentlemen opposite 
 who do draw a distinct line about land and capital. We do not 
 make any such distinction, and it must be recognised that we are 
 not in a position to put our ideas in a Finance Bill. We have to 
 take what we can get, but if we had the power of saying in what 
 way the revenue of the country is to be raised, I am quite certain 
 no Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer would distinguish between 
 social increment of land and social increment in regard to the taxes 
 which would ordinarily fall upon the community. 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 385 
 
 We support the land taxation proposals, not because we think 
 they do everything or go far enough — we support them because 
 they are as much as we can get at present, but when a Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer comes forward to propose and apply taxation of 
 unearned increment to any other form of property, he will find that 
 we shall be quite as hearty in our support as we are in the sup- 
 port which we have given to the Land Taxes in the Budget. In 
 regard to the Income Tax proposals, I remember the right hon. 
 Gentleman himself in Committee when we began to discuss the 
 Income Tax part of the Bill expressed his relief that at, last we 
 were coming to legitimate finance. What is Income Tax .' It is 
 the taxation of socially created wealth, and the fact that the Gov- 
 ernment are imposing in this Finance BiU a Super-tax is nothing 
 new. It is only a further graduation of the Income Tax. The 
 graduation below ;£'7oo was, of course, adopted in order very 
 roughly to make a man contribute more because of his greater 
 capacity, and the Super-tax is nothing more than an extension of 
 this principle. . . . 
 
 There is nothing new or novel in the proposals of this Bill. The 
 Income Tax is not novel, the Land Taxes are not novel, the Estate 
 Duties are certainly not novel. It is Socialistic in part, but it is not 
 Socialistic in other parts. I have already referred to the Tobacco 
 Duty. That is not Socialistic because the Tobacco Tax is indirect 
 taxation, it is not taxation on social wealth, and it is taking from 
 a very needy class of the community a great deal more than they 
 can afford to pay. 
 
 We do not expect to have, of course, a measure which is con- 
 sistently Socialistic from men who are not Socialists. For a long 
 time to come we expect that the legislation which will be intro- 
 duced even by a Goverrmient anxious to promote reform will be 
 of an inconsistent character. It will be Socialistic partly and anti- 
 Socialistic in its other parts. This Budget is neither complete So- 
 cialism nor is it revolution. Why, it is such a slight movement of 
 
386 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the wheel as to be hardly perceptible, and I will tell hon. Mem- 
 bers above the gangway what it is : It is a preventive of revolu- 
 tion. What the right hon. Gentleman calls social reform is only 
 a preventive of revolution. Do hon. Members above the gangway 
 think that such a state of things as exists in this country to-day 
 can be indefinitely prolonged ? We have had forty years of ele- 
 mentary education. The masses of the people have been taught 
 to read. Reading has made them think, has made them feel more 
 acutely. They are not going to be content forever to be hewers 
 of wood and drawers of water. The unemployed are not going to 
 continue to walk the streets of our great cities and see their de- 
 spair and poverty mocked by the evidences before their eyes of 
 ostentatious wealth. Something is going to be done by this Par- 
 liament to remove these great inequalities of poverty and wealth, 
 ignorance and culture, want and luxury, and we welcome this Bill 
 because it is a very moderate beginning to deal with questions like 
 that. We welcome the proposals to which I have referred, because 
 they begin to apply, in a small way, proposals which we on these 
 benches have been asserting for many years. We shall support 
 the third reading of this Bill. 
 
 I have only one word more to say. I want to refer to the alter- 
 native which was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who 
 moved the rejection of the Bill. I said at the beginning of my 
 remarks that we who are Socialists are opposed to Tariff Reform. 
 We are sometimes told by hon. Members that we are inconsistent 
 in being Trade Unionists for the protection of our trades and in 
 opposing a duty on articles coming from foreign countries. There 
 is nothing inconsistent in that. I will tell why we are opposed to 
 Protection in the way of import duties. So long as you have a 
 monopoly of land and of capital any import duty can only have 
 one result, and that result is to increase the rent of the landlord or 
 to increase the property of the capitalist. It cannot possibly bene- 
 fit the workman. Where you have competition in emplo3mient there 
 is always a tendency for wages to be forced down, and competition 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 387 
 
 will prevent the wages rising, and noi|pystem of reform, as long 
 as you have a monopoly of land and capital, can, under such a 
 system, be depended upon to benefit the working classes. 
 
 An hon. Member talked of taxing the foreigner. There have 
 been in the last two or three months elections in Germany ; those 
 elections have been fought almost exclusively upon the question 
 of taxation. The Socialists to a man in Germany are opposed to 
 taxation on imports. They are Free Traders, and they are op- 
 posed to Protection because of their painful experience of it. May 
 I put this question, and possibly some Member who follows me 
 may deal with it ? If it is possible to raise a revenue by taxing 
 the foreigner, why did not Germany during this year adopt the 
 practice of taxing the foreigner ? It required to raise something 
 like ^26,000,000 of taxation, and every penny of it has been 
 raised by internal taxation. No, if I cared to give candid advice 
 and useful information to hon. Members above the gangway in 
 view of the propaganda work which it will be necessary to do 
 during an election campaign, I .would say to them, " Do not talk 
 to the workingmen of this country nonsense like that. You are 
 depreciating their intelligence, you are insulting them, you are not 
 playing the game of politics to your own advantage." I know the 
 working people of this country, I belong to them, I have lived with 
 them, and I know their capacity of thinking. I know their capacity 
 of reason, and why I have faith in them is because of it. I think 
 if you appeal to that intelligence it will respond. For these reasons 
 we are going to support the third reading of this Bill, which will 
 leave this House in two or three days backed up by an over- 
 whelming vote. What will happen in another place I do not know, 
 but if the worst comes to the worst, and if it be necessary that we 
 should go to the country on this question, I can assure the Gov- 
 ernment that those who sit on these benches and the party which 
 we represent outside will not be amongst the least of the earnest 
 and enthusiastic supporters of that part of the Bill which I com- 
 mend to the House. 
 
388 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 60 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL OPPOSITION TO THE BUDGET 
 
 (Bishop of Bristol, Lords, November 23, igog) 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Bristol "^ : . . . I have been told that a 
 Bishop should not take part in this debate, because the question is 
 one of mere party strife. If it were, I should certainly not think of 
 taking any part in it. But it is very much more than that. We are 
 told that the fortunes of this House, and the fortunes of the nation 
 and of the people depend upon the issue. If that be so, there is no 
 body of men in this House more called upon to take part in a 
 debate of this kind — if the fortunes of the House depend upon the 
 issue of this debate — than the occupants of the Episcopal Benches. 
 For we are the only representatives of the ancient constitutional 
 method of entry into this House, namely, that of careful selection 
 on the part of the Sovereign and of all the people to a certain 
 office involving a seat in the House of Lords. Careful selection by 
 the King goes on still, and by all the people, because the appointed 
 representative of all the people is the Prime Minister. We, there- 
 fore, are the only body which keep up the ancient practice. Further 
 than that, we represent a very much older tenure than that of the 
 oldest physical hereditary Peer in this House. The earliest tenure 
 that I can trace of physical heredity is 754 years old, and admirably 
 that Earldom is filled to-day. But there are three persons actually 
 sitting on these Benches now whose tenure is 550 years older than 
 that, and there are no fewer than ten other members on these 
 Benches whose tenure is from 450 to 550 years older than the old- 
 est of the physical hereditary Peers, we having a spiritual heredity. 
 I maintain, therefore, that if there is any question of the honour 
 of this House, from these Benches at least some words should 
 come in support of this House. ... 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 767-768. 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 389 
 
 . . . All of your Lordships know a great deal about the condition 
 of the poorest classes in society, from what you call the lowest to 
 what may be called the highest in the social scale. As a matter of 
 fact it is not the business of any one of your Lordships, except those 
 of us here on these [Episcopal] Benches, to know, and to know inti- 
 mately, not the conditions only, but the persons of all classes in the 
 social scale in our respective dioceses ; and I claim that there are no 
 men sitting in this House who know so completely, from one end 
 of the social scale to the other, the conditions, the needs, the wants, 
 and the demands of every class of the community as we do. We 
 are obliged to know, especially those of us who represent a great 
 city, as I do, the terrible conditions of the very poor. We are 
 obliged to know the great want of iemployment that affects men 
 vsfho can do excellent work. We are obliged to know the conditions 
 of the artisan, of the shopkeeper, and of the professional classes, 
 and even higher than that. Many of us have to know the condition 
 of the very great capitalists who perhaps farm a little for their own 
 amusement, but who have the whole of their income to spend ; and 
 we know, and know intimately, some large landowners who, far 
 from having the whole of their income to spend, have a very narrow 
 margin indeed. All this we have to know intimately as our official 
 business ; and although the noble and learned Lord took credit to 
 the Government for having passed certain ameliorating measures, 
 I suppose it was this House that passed them. And it will always 
 be so — when direct measures for the benefit of the very poor 
 are brought forward, this House will give them no niggardly 
 support. . . . 
 
 ... I see the ultimate result of these proposals now brought be- 
 fore us : a dull monotonous level of poverty without any redeeming 
 points at all. We all of us know the familiar joke with regard to 
 persons on a certain island who had to employ one another. They 
 had no money to pay each other, and the old joke was that they 
 could live only by taking in each other's washing. But, my Lords, 
 there is another and a very serious point. Some twenty of us on 
 
390 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 these Benches have the privilege of reading prayers in your Lord- 
 ships' House, and the culminating point in the special Prayer for 
 Parliament which so many of your Lordships heard this evening 
 is this : the result of your deliberations is to be " the uniting and 
 knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the 
 realm in true Christian love and charity one towards the other." 
 
 That is to be the culminating effect of the deliberations and the 
 legislation of this House. Some of us are accustomed, when we 
 are considering a proposal, to ask ourselves what is the exact argu- 
 ment which the author of the proposal thinks most cognate to it, 
 and thinks best as a means of urging it upon the attention of the 
 people. Now, my Lords, we know who is the official author of this 
 Bill. Not to say a word abouf his Parliamentary utterances, I only 
 ask your Lordships to consider his speeches out of Parliament, and 
 particularly one delivered near my old charge when I was in Step- 
 ney — made in certain language and with evident motive. If the 
 intention of this Bill is to be judged, as I maintain it may fairly be 
 judged, by the expressions of its author in pressing it upon public 
 attention, well, there is nothing in the world for this House to do 
 but to pass the Amendment of the noble Marquess [rejecting the 
 Bill]. . . . 
 
 Extract 6i 
 
 A LIBERAL LORD'S OPINION OF ECCLESIASTICAL 
 OPPOSITION 
 
 {Lord Sheffield, Lords, November 22, igog) 
 
 Lord Sheffield ^ : My Lords, I was not quite able to follow 
 the argument of the right rev. Prelate, though I followed his con- 
 clusion that he meant to vote for throwing out the Budget. The 
 right rev. Prelate not only claimed an antiquated tenure, but said 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 770 sqq. 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 
 
 391 
 
 he descended from a spiritual tenure, and not from an earthly one. 
 He also made the declaration that he and his brother Prelates knew 
 more about the conditions of all classes of the community, cared 
 more about them, and generally had a more earnest desire to bene- 
 fit them than anyone else. It seems disrespectful to put anything 
 like a note of interrogation to any of his statements. . . . 
 
 If I could examine the history- of the right rev. Bench and note 
 their attitude towards the innumerable cases of progressive legisla- 
 tion urged upon Parliament during the last one hundred years — if 
 they knew all this, they dissembled their love very successfully. I am 
 glad, however, that there is a desire to act upon the words in the 
 prayer spoken of by the right rev. Prelate, and to work for the 
 whole nation. I only wish the right rev. Prelate would remember 
 some other weighty and valuable words in that prayer — "to put 
 aside all partial affection." 
 
 I think if there is one thing we need more than another, it is that 
 we should clear ourselves from association with class, from profes- 
 sions, from all those things that prevent us from having that high 
 light which is so important if we want to deal with intellectual and 
 social problems. And I cannot help thinking that the right rev. 
 Prelate did not seem to bring quite that high light into the matter 
 in considering how he proposed to ameliorate the condition of the 
 poor which he said, from his knowledge of Bristol and Stepney, it 
 was his desire to do. We have had to-night from all three speakers, 
 who have spoken from the Opposition side, a great deal of abuse 
 of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know it is a good maxim 
 " when you have no case, abuse the plaintiff's attorney." And it 
 seems to me that that is very much the way this Budget is being 
 treated. I think anyone would be very sorry to have to defend all 
 the speeches of his friends or political associates at any time. We 
 could get plenty of stones to throw at each other, and I expect we 
 shall have an ample supply of these missiles furnished to us from 
 both sides in a very short time. 
 
392 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 62 
 
 AN ATTACK UPON THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL 
 
 {Lord Willoughby de Broke, Lords, November 22, igog) 
 
 Lord Willoughby de Broks ^ : . . . The Government can- 
 not remain in office except by the consent of the Socialists and the 
 extreme Radicals ; and this proposal about the unearned increment 
 they believe, will, in a very short time, be applied to all forms of 
 property. All this sort of thing is bound eventually to filter down 
 to the working classes of this country. The form of taxation recom- 
 mended by the Radical party will very soon resolve itself into this 
 sort of thing with regard to unearned increment. When any citizen 
 happens, in vulgar parlance, to " make a hit" by his own energy or 
 thrift or good luck, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will step in, 
 and having labelled him a " blackmailer " or a "swindler," he will not 
 put an end to the transaction, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 will then go shares in the plunder. Yes, but what for ? To provide 
 a revenue for Old Age Pensions or something of that sort would 
 be the reply. But I think you will find it will eventually be applied 
 to advancing the schemes of this or that body, whether Socialists 
 or somebody else, probably equally as bad, whom it may be desir- 
 able to placate in order to keep the Government in office as long as 
 they possibly can. There is no doubt that the workingmen of this 
 country are beginning to have a very uncomfortable feeling that the 
 rhetoric of Mr. Lloyd George and the vulgarity of the President of 
 the Board of Trade will not fill many empty stomachs or replenish 
 many bare cupboards during the coming winter. And they will not 
 see the advantage of paying a whole horde of officials to pry into the 
 public life of everybody in this country, and who will be paid from 
 money taken from the beer and the spirits and the tobacco con- 
 sumed by the workingmen. I may mention that the taxation on 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 780-7S1. 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 393 
 
 champagne is not increased at all. The luxuries of the rich men 
 contribute hardly anything towards the taxation of this country. . . . 
 
 Then we are told that we are violating and overriding the will 
 of the people. All this talk about the voice of the people is cant. 
 It is real cant of the purest description. It is an utterly meaningless 
 phrase, and is merely part of the stock-in-trade of the agitator and 
 of the demagogue. The will of the people is not expressed on this 
 subject at this moment in the House of Commons. Representative 
 government in this country is at an absurd discount, and the talk 
 about representative government and free institutions has now re- 
 sulted in this sort of thing : that we are the only Government in 
 the whole of the civilised world that is not being dominated and 
 controlled by a small section of Socialists. With regard to the 
 will of the people, I, for one, have not the slightest anxiety about 
 referring this Budget to the people. 
 
 What most moderate men are asking us to do is to save them 
 from being jockeyed and bullied and bluffed by the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade into accept- 
 ing a Budget and a policy for which there was not the slightest 
 mandate at the last General Election. If your Lordships embrace 
 this policy, then I can only say, " Heaven help England." The late 
 Mr. Bromley-Davenport wrote an extremely amusing parody upon 
 " Locksley Hall " which- has been described by a ripe critic of liter- 
 ature as one of the finest things in the English language. I hope 
 it will not be considered out of place if I quote something from it. 
 He was endeavouring to foreshadow, with Tennyson, the state of 
 the country at some future date, when he wrote these lines : 
 
 For I looked into its pages, and I read the Book of Fate, 
 
 And saw foxhunting abolished by an order from the State ; 
 
 Saw the landlords yield their acres after centuries of wrongs, 
 
 Cotton lords turn country gentlemen in patriotic throngs ; 
 
 Queen, religion, State abandoned, and the flags of party furled 
 
 In the Government of Cobden and the dotage of the world. 
 
 Then shall exiled common sense espouse some other country's cause, 
 
 And the rogues shall thrive in England, bonneting the slumbering laws. 
 
394 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 6j 
 
 A FINANCIER'S VIEW OF THE BUDGET 
 (Lord Revelstoke, Lords, November 22, igog') 
 
 Lord Revelstoke^: ... It has been my lot to have been 
 brought up in the midst of financial and commercial operations, in 
 the conduct and consideration of which I have endeavoured to follow 
 the traditions and to be guided by the experience of many genera- 
 tions of financiers in my own family, whose success in life has been 
 due to their intimate connection with banking and commerce, and 
 whose prosperity, or the reverse, has for many years been bound 
 up with the financial position of the City of London, the home 
 and centre of that great system of " credit " upon which so much 
 depends. . . . 
 
 Here is a Budget which, designed to meet expenditure for great 
 social reforms, places an accumulated burden of higher Income Tax, 
 Super-tax, Death Duties, Land Tax, Stamp Duties, all on one par- 
 ticular class. And surely, my Lords, in this matter of heaping taxa- 
 tion upon the few, a double error is committed. Not only is there 
 a penalising of capital, with its consequent ill effects upon the whole 
 community ; but the force of public opinion — the greatest, if not the 
 only check upon extravagant expenditure. — is weakened, and it is 
 weakened at the moment when it is most urgently required. . . . 
 
 It has been said, and said many times within recent months, that 
 capital is leaving this country to a very serious extent, and I have 
 to testify, from my own practical knowledge, that this is true. . . . 
 
 This is a new doctrine to be preached by a British Administra- 
 tion. It misrepresents the position of capital as it is understood 
 by all impartial observers removed from the clamour of party poli- 
 tics. It ignores the extent to which the prosperity of this nation has 
 been due to its great capital resources, its heritage of financial su- 
 premacy, its unshaken credit. The extreme difficulty of adequately 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 794 sqq. 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 395 
 
 conveying to the originators of this Bill a sense of the harm which 
 it has already occasioned, and is likely to still further occasion, lies 
 largely in the very fact that it seems well-nigh impossible to bring 
 home to those responsible a real sense of what is involved in 
 " unshaken credit.'' As I have read the speeches of the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, I can almost hear him ask, like another person 
 better known in history, and, like him, without waiting for an answer, 
 not " What is truth ? " but " What is credit ? " My Lords, I can 
 give him that answer — I can give him the answer he would receive 
 from the sober community among whom I have passed my days. 
 They would tell him — and they are men whose occupations do 
 not lead them to make speeches, but who have read, and read with 
 dismay, the reckless and unconsidered utterances of even the most 
 responsible members of His Majesty's Government. Those of 
 whom I speak, my Lords, are men whose experience and char- 
 acter, whose probity and judgment, have contributed not a little 
 to make this England of ours what she has been — and what she 
 should remain — the Bank and the workshop of the world. They 
 would tell him, my Lords, that they define " credit " as " confi- 
 dence." Confidence in financial prudence, confidence in ability to 
 pay, confidence in financial equity and stability, confidence in the 
 sanctity of property. Can .we say, my Lords, that our confidence 
 in any of these would not be shaken by the passing of the measure 
 which is now before your Lordships' House ? 
 
 Extract 64 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL SUPPORT OF THE BUDGET 
 
 (Bishop of Birmingham, Lords, Novem-ber 22, iQog) 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Birmingham ^ : . . . It is impossible 
 to live in our great cities without becoming conscious of the fact 
 that for the great body of the workers our country is not a good 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 799 sqq. 
 
396 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 place to live in at the present moment. As I have shown your 
 Lordships, there is a great, vast, and growing demand for money 
 for public expenditure. How is that money which is required to 
 be obtained ? The question is whether in this Budget there is an 
 unjust and oppressive treatment of particular classes, especially of 
 the landed classes and of those who are engaged in the liquor 
 trade. I do not know whether that is the case. With regard to 
 the matter which has been, I suppose, most commented on of all 
 the land taxes — that is, the tax upon the unearned increment on 
 land in and about towns — those of us who have been taught the 
 political economy of John Stuart Mill have been expecting to see 
 this tax in England for a great many years. . . . 
 
 ... It was said in the course of this debate before dinner that 
 the Budget is Socialism. Of course you can use the terms Con- 
 servatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in such a way as to make 
 them apply to almost everything you like. Socialism is a term 
 which I think it is best to employ as a quite distinctive term, rep- 
 resenting a quite distinctive view, and a view which no doubt is 
 gaining in its hold especially on the working classes throughout 
 Europe. I do not hold with the Socialistic theory myself, but I 
 know what it means. It means the abolition of private capital, not 
 private property, and the socialisation ■ of the sources and instru- 
 ments of production and distribution. In the sense in which Col- 
 lectivists use the word Socialism this Budget is not in any way 
 Socialistic. It does not propose in any kind of way, or point to, 
 the transfer to the community of the sources and instruments of 
 production and distribution, although it might be said that it moves 
 towards it. I venture to think that the most reactionary Budget, 
 the Budget which moves most sharply in the opposite direction, 
 would be the Budget which would be most likely to lead rapidly to 
 Socialism by stirring up the already moving minds of the people to 
 rebellion and revolt against the injustice of our present conditions. . . . 
 
 The Budget is only one more instance of the gradual growth 
 towards a more proper distribution of the constantly increasing 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 397 
 
 burdens of public expenditure, broadening out from precedent to 
 precedent, and I cannot but feel that your Lordships will indeed 
 not be acting wisely if you treat this Budget as if it could be ac- 
 cused of containing either revolutionary or unjust principles. 
 
 Extract 6£ 
 
 A CONCILIATORY SPEECH ON THE BUDGET 
 
 {Lord mbblesdale, Lords, November 23, igog) 
 
 Lord Ribblesdale ^ : . . . My Lords, we have all been very 
 much upset — I have myself ■ — ■ by the speeches of the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, but I have been able to get over them, and I 
 have no doubt noble Lords opposite have also. But there is one 
 thing I will say for Mr. Lloyd George, and that is that he has 
 stuck to his form throughout. If you take Limehouse as his Ossa, 
 he backed it up with Pelion in the shape of Newcastle. I rather 
 respect him for that, because there is no sort of doubt that, if any 
 speaker starts on a half-pantaloon and half-highwayman style it is 
 almost too much to ask him, all of a sudden, to turn around and 
 revert to the manner of our classical models, such as the late Mr. 
 Gladstone, the late Lord Goschen, and the present Lord St. Aldwyn. 
 But whatever may have been the infelicity of the style which has 
 recommended the Budget, I am bound to say that the first attacks 
 on it were somewhat infelicitous, too, and it is an infelicity which 
 we have all, somehow or another, learned to connect with the word 
 " Duke." Personally I think Dukes are charming people, but I am 
 bound to say that I have read a good many speeches of Dukes 
 from time to time, and they have stuck to their form too. Their 
 speeches remind me of Tennyson's line, " Tears, Idle Tears," and 
 I cannot help thinking that no one will be very seriously affected 
 by the sobs of quite well-to-do folk. . . . 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 810. 
 
398 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 66 
 
 AN EXTREME CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF THE BUDGET 
 {The Duke of Marlborough, Lords, November 23, igog) 
 
 The Duke of Marlborough ^ : . . . The relations of this 
 House with the Lower House, which the Government propose to 
 disturb, are in themselves a monument to the political sagacity 
 of the British people. Their adjustment has been perfected by 
 the genius of great men. That subtle and delicate equipoise has 
 been preserved practically unchanged during centuries by the state- 
 craft of leading men in either House, so that to-day it bears some- 
 thing of that mysterious sanctity which time alone can give. It is 
 as with the Abbey within whose shadow we deliberate. Inspired 
 architects planned its noble outline, its solid walls, its flowing but- 
 tresses, and its dominating towers. Zealous masons laboured to 
 transmute the architectual vision into the reality of solid stone. 
 But not all the splendour of the initial conception nor the patient 
 services of its builders could have sufficed to win for the Abbey 
 the place which it holds in our hearts to-day. Time has touched it 
 with his finger, and to his ineffable touch it owes its ultimate con- 
 secration. So I say it is with the relations between the two Houses 
 of Parlianient in the vital matter of finance. They too have been 
 slowly upreared in the passage of the centuries. They too have 
 been hallowed by tradition. Yet to-day the Government, acting 
 through the Lower House, are prepared to lay rude and irreverent 
 hands upon a political fabric which has won the admiration of the 
 civilised world. This magnificent monument, this unique expres- 
 sion of the temperament of our people, is to be shattered at the 
 bidding of a demagogue from Wales, and may I respectfully add, 
 by the threat of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. 
 
 The Lord Chancellor : I made no threat. 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 84 1-2, 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 399 
 
 The Duke of Marlborough : Neither the words of the noble 
 and learned Lord on the Woolsack, nor the silence of the noble 
 Earl, Lord Crewe, — a self-constituted mute at the obsequies of 
 the British Constitution, — • nor the remarks of the noble Earl on 
 the Cross Benches have in any way shaken my confidence that 
 the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, 
 ought to receive our united and unanimous support. 
 
 Extract (5/ 
 
 LORD ROSEBERY ON THE BUDGET 
 (The Eari of Rosebety, Lords, November 24, iQog) 
 
 The Earl of Rosebery ^ ■ My Lords, I earnestly wish that 
 the most rev. Primate to whose weighty words we have just listened 
 with so much attention would throw the aegis of his doctrine of 
 silence over myself, who am quite as dissociated from Party as any 
 Prelate that sits upon the Bench behind him, and perhaps more, I 
 think, than some. I wish it because I never rose to address your 
 Lordships with more reluctance than on the present occasion — 
 partly from my sense of the awful gravity of the situation, by far 
 the greatest that has occurred in my lifetime or the lifetime of any 
 man who has been born since 1832 ; partly from a sense of the 
 personal difficulties that I feel in dealing with this question. . . . 
 
 My Lords, I am, as I have amply proved, hostile to the Budget. 
 I cannot, I think, be more hostile to the Budget than I am, but I 
 am not willing to link the fortunes of the Second Chamber with 
 opposition to the Budget. I find no fault with the Resolution of 
 the noble Marquess, if he thought it right to have a Resolution at 
 all, and I do not suppose that he had much choice in the matter. 
 No doubt the impetus of his own forces carried him forward 
 whether he wished it or not, and of course it may be fair to argue, 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 942 sqq. 
 
400 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 as has been argued, that it is not a Resolution for the rejection of 
 the Bill, but a method for bringing about an appeal to the people 
 for their assent or negative to the Budget. There is nothing I 
 should rejoice at so much as any reference of that kind if there 
 were any constitutional means of obtaining it without mixing it up 
 with other issues foreign to it, and which may greatly impair the 
 directness and validity of the decision. If, for example, you had 
 the referendum in this country — and I for my part believe that 
 you will never arrive at a final solution of the question of the ad- 
 justment of differences between the two Houses without some form 
 of referendum — I would gladly vote that it should be applied on 
 this occasion. . . . 
 
 My Lords, I think you are playing for too heavy a stake on this 
 occasion. I think that you are risking in your opposition to what 
 I agree with you in thinking is an iniquitous and dangerous meas- 
 ure, the very existence of a Second Chamber. I do not pretend to 
 be very greatly alarmed at the menaces which have been addressed 
 to us on this and on other occasions. The House of Lords has 
 lived on menaces ever since I can recollect, and yet it seems to be 
 in a tolerably thriving condition still. But I ask you to remember 
 this. The menaces which were addressed to this House in old 
 days were addressed by statesmen who had at heart the balance 
 of the constitutional forces in this country. The menaces addressed 
 to you now come from a wholly different school of opinion, who 
 wish for a single Chamber and who set no value on the controlling 
 and revising forces of a Second Chamber — a school of opinion 
 which, if you like it and do not dread the word, is eminently revo- 
 lutionary in essence, if not in fact. I ask you to bear in mind that 
 fact when you weigh the consequences of the vote which you are 
 to give to-morrow night. " Hang consequences," said my noble 
 friend Lord Camperdown last night, " let them take care of them- 
 selves." That is a noble utterance — a Balaklava utterance. Noth- 
 ing more intrepid could be said. But the truest courage in these 
 matters weighs the consequences, not to the individual, but to the 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 40 1 
 
 State, and thinks not once, but twice or thrice before it gives a 
 vote which may involve such enormous constitutional consequences. 
 . . . Remember, that in hanging up or in rejecting the Budget the 
 House of Lords is doing exactly what its enemies wish it to do. 
 Now, I believe that in life it is a pretty safe maxim to ascertain 
 what it is your enemy wishes you to do, and to do something very 
 much unlike it. I confess I have no doubt when I read the speeches 
 delivered in various parts of the country, speeches unusual and un- 
 precedented in my time as regards speeches by Cabinet Ministers, 
 that they are meant to stir up and incite the House of Lords to do 
 exactly the thing which the House of Lords meditates doing. 
 
 I confess that policy does not appeal to me. I should like a less 
 heroic policy, which I think would have answered much better the 
 majority of this House, but which I fear it is too late to ask the 
 House to adopt, although I believe it to be the winning policy for 
 those who are opposed to the Budget. I should have liked to see 
 the House of Lords pass this Finance Bill, not because I have a 
 good opinion of it, but because I have such an excessively bad 
 opinion of it. . . . I believe that if you gave the country an ex- 
 perience of the Budget in operation, you would achieve a victory 
 when you next approach the polls which would surprise yourselves 
 and would give you the power of revising the finance of this coun- 
 try by methods more in consonance with your own principles and 
 your own common-sense. We should then have an anti-Socialist 
 Government, a luxury which I cannot say we possess now. We 
 should have a reformed Second Chamber, not merely in the way 
 of purging it to some extent, and arriving at the choicest part of 
 it by delegation and election, but>,also by renovating it by means 
 of those external elements that must necessarily give strength to a 
 Second Chamber — all that would have been achieved in the best 
 and, in the non-Party sense, the most conservative interests of this 
 United Kingdom. Unfortunately, that is not the line that the 
 House is going to take. I am sorry — with all my heart I am 
 sorry — that I cannot give a vote against the Budget on this 
 
402 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 occasion. My interest in this matter is mainly that of the Second 
 Chamber, and I cannot stake all my hopes of its future utility and 
 reform on the precarious and tumultuous chances, involved as they 
 will be with many other irrelevant and scarcely honest issues — the 
 tumultuous hazards of a General Election. 
 
 Extract 68 
 
 LORD MORLEY ON THE BUDGET 
 
 ( Viscount Morley of Blackburn, Secretary of State for India, Lords, 
 November sg, igog) 
 
 Lord Morley ':...! particularly, for my part, object to the 
 referendum. Why ? Because, it weakens what is the most impor- 
 tant thing for this country to maintain — the sense of responsibil- 
 ity in the House of Commons. If you tell the House of Commons 
 that they are liable to have a given conclusion of their own sub- 
 mitted to other people — whether they be members of this House 
 or people in the country — you weaken their own personal indi- 
 vidual and collective responsibility. . . . 
 
 By this Amendment you are subjecting the Budget to what is 
 called, in the jargon to which I have referred, ^plebiscite. If there 
 is any one matter which cannot be usefully or wisely submitted to 
 a plebiscite, it is a Budget. It is one of those things on which you 
 cannot say Yes or No. How can any one say Yes or No to this 
 Budget ? Noble Lords here do not like the Budget, but the Budget 
 contains any number of provisions, qualifications, intricacies ; it is 
 a complex of things to which yoil cannot give a plain Yes or No, 
 which is the point of a plebiscite. . . . 
 
 Now another point. It is argued that you will vote for this 
 Amendment because you want to arrest Socialism. I ahi, and 
 always have been, a pretty strong individualist. But just let us 
 look at these Socialist allegations and the assumption that by 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 1137 sqq. 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 403 
 
 rejecting this Bill and passing your Amendment you are putting a 
 spoke into the wheel of Socialism. The people of this country are 
 either of the predatory species or they are not ; they are either 
 in favour of predatory destructive Socialism or they are not. If 
 they are, it is quite certain that the success of this Parliamentary 
 operation of your Lordships will not set up any dam or rampart 
 or barrier against the great destructive flood such as would then 
 arise. Anyone who tells you that by passing this Amendment you 
 are obstructing Socialism is as foolish as were the courtiers of 
 King Canute. But I do not believe, and I am quite sure all your 
 Lordships do not believe, that our countrymen are a predatory 
 species. No Englishman can think so. 
 
 If you will forgive a passing personal reference, it was my 
 fortune to be — I only mention it to show that I am not talking 
 of the working people of this country with a Utopian head in the 
 clouds — for twelve years a Member for what was in those days 
 one of the largest constituencies in England. It was an enormous 
 constituency, and my return was always due to the skilled artisans, 
 mainly workers in the famous Elswick factory — skilled and admi- 
 rable artisans. It is true that at the end of twelve years they turned 
 me out, but I had plenty of time — and I am not entirely without 
 the faculty of observation — to satisfy myself that the skilled arti- 
 sans of this country, aye, and many more than they, are not men 
 wearing the Phrygian cap. No, they are not " Reds." . . . 
 
 There will, no doubt, be foolish proposals made by the pitiful 
 , and sympathetic, whether politicians or philanthropists outside poli- 
 tics — there will be proposals made, if you like, full of charlatanry 
 and full of quackery. But, anyhow, it is inevitable to anybody who 
 has followed the course of movements of a Socialistic kind in 
 France and other countries that you should have these experiments 
 tried. My own hope, my own conviction, is that at the end of 
 these experiments there will be left behind a fertile and fertilising 
 residue of good. Mill, whose name has been so often quoted in 
 these debates on fiscal matters, said at the very end of his life he 
 
404 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 was averse to Socialism, and in a certain production of his, where 
 he described the possible dangers of Socialism, He said, " If So- 
 cialism with all its dangers was the only alternative to the horrors 
 of our present system, I would be a Socialist." 
 
 The noble Viscount, Lord Milner, said the other day that he 
 would be very sorry to be a member of a dummy House of Lords, 
 and I suppose anyone who sits in an assembly, however new a 
 comer he may be, would be very sorry to sit in a dummy assembly. 
 He would rather absent himself altogether. But there is something 
 worse than a dummy House of Lords, and that is a dummy House 
 of Commons. What else does this operation which you are going 
 to consummate to-morrow night mean than reducing the House 
 of Commons to a dummy ? They discussed the Budget for six 
 months. I forget how many hundreds of sittings and how many 
 hundreds of Divisions there were. I understand from those who 
 speak with a certain impartiality that it was discussed with a freedom 
 and a fullness of detail almost, if not entirely, without precedent 
 in our recent Parliamentary annals. . . . There was no guillotine. 
 There were ceaseless interviews with deputations, and yet all this 
 prolonged and careful labour, discussion, thought, contrivance — all 
 that is to go for nothing, and all its results are to be pulverised and 
 brought to naught by a trenchant sweep of the noble Marquess's 
 arm. That is what I call making a dummy House of Commons. 
 
 In the Division on the third reading, what were the numbers ? 
 They were 379 for the Budget Bill and 149 against it. In this 
 House to-morrow night let us suppose it is 500 against 50. My 
 Lords, the more triumphant your majority, the more huge the 
 disparity between your numbers and ours, the more flagrant the 
 political scandal, and the more blazing in the public eye the Con- 
 stitutional paradox. Such a contrast as that, 379 against 149 in 
 one House, only a four-year-old House, and 400 or 500 in this 
 House against 40 or 50 — I say it cannot last. . . . 
 
 I do not say at all, and have never promised, that this Budget 
 will bring right away the Millennium, but I am quite certain that it 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 405 
 
 will not bring Pandemonium. It will bring neither the Millennium 
 nor Pandemonium, and I think that noble Lords opposite are 
 beginning to feel that perhaps their apprehensions were unduly 
 aroused. Let me make one observation to which I believe the 
 noble Marquess will attach certain weight. When Mr. Gladstone 
 was going through his early financial operations, he was watched 
 by nobody in the world with a more eager interest than by Cavour. 
 I am not speaking quite without the book when I say there are 
 now Ministers in European countries, with their own battles to 
 fight, who are watching with some anxiety and some apprehension 
 the double issue, fiscal and constitutional, in which we are involved 
 by these proceedings. For many glorious generations England has 
 been the stable and far-shining model of reform, and any clouding 
 of her position in either fiscal or constitutional policy will be a gain, 
 and a heavy gain, on the Continent of Europe to the parties of 
 reaction. . . . 
 
 Lastly, the noble Marquess must have foreseen that the success 
 of this Amendment and its consequences must lead a pretty straight 
 way to constitutional revision, and I am sure he must know that 
 there is no such battle ground, if you look at our own history in 
 the seventeenth century, at the modem history of the United 
 States, or at that of half of the countries of Continental Europe, 
 for the fiercest and most determined conflicts, as constitutional 
 revision. With regard to the Second Chamber, I venture to call it 
 the pons asinorum of democracy. I hope noble Lords will recognise 
 that. The scene in this House during the last ten days must not, 
 I think, be counted one of those brilliant and exciting stage plays, 
 political and party stage plays, of which some of us have seen so 
 ■ many. I think it is much more than a mere stage play. It is the 
 first step on a tremendous journey, and, as we all know, when we 
 troop off home to-morrow night we shall not think that, though the 
 theatre is empty, the curtain has fallen upon a completed drama. 
 We shall all know in our hearts that the note has sounded for a 
 very angry and perhaps prolonged battle. 
 
406 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 6g 
 
 THE LORDS' REJECTION OF THE BUDGET 
 
 (The Earl of Crewe, Lord Privy Seal and Secretary of State for the 
 Colonies, Lords, November 30, igog) 
 
 The Earl of Crewe ^ : . . . My Lords, we are now going to 
 vote. In i860 when the Paper Duty Bill was before this House 
 Mr. Bright said, speaking of the then action of your Lordships' 
 House, " They voted out this Bill by a large majority with a 
 chuckle, thinking that by doing so they were making a violent at- 
 tack on the Ministry, and particularly upon the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer." My Lords, that is what you are going to do. Who 
 are going to vote ? The noble Lords who are here. Who are not 
 going to vote ? I cannot help alluding, although it has been men- 
 tioned before, to the absence from the noble Marquess's battalions 
 of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn — one of the most experi- 
 enced authorities on political finance in the country, and a Conserv- 
 ative of Conservatives. He is not here. But when the division list 
 is scanned to-morrow, as scanned it will be, by those who desire to 
 weigh as well as to count, many names will be missed from it. 
 There will be the names of many of those who have grown old in 
 the service of the State at home and abroad, particularly of those 
 who have served in distant parts of the Empire ; the names of 
 many of those who do the greater part of the real work of this 
 House — thankless work, and not, I think, often sufficiently re- 
 warded by public appreciation — in the committee room upstairs ; 
 there will be many names of those who possess, if I may venture 
 to say so, the coolest heads and the most amply furnished minds in 
 the House ; many of those who, when it is a question of deciding 
 merits of some great dispute between capital and labour, are called 
 upon to arbitrate in such cases by the common consent of all classes 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 4, col. 1324 sqq. 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 407 
 
 of our fellow-countrymen. My Lords, many of those will not be 
 here. Like the images of the Roman patriots at another kind of 
 funeral some two thousand years ago, when the historian said, 
 Effulgebant eo ipso quod effigies eorum nan videbantur, they are 
 even more conspicuous by their absence than they would be if 
 they recorded their vote. I know you will not agree with me, but 
 I do say that in tearing up the ancient charters, in removing the 
 venerable landmarks, you are making a most tragic blunder. You 
 are not afraid of the consequences ; no one could suppose you 
 would be afraid ; if you are afraid of anything in this matter, 
 you are possibly just the least bit afraid of being thought afraid. 
 That is the only scintilla of fear which I think could be recognised 
 on the Benches opposite. 
 
 It has been said in debate that there has been a sinister kind of 
 conspiracy, a plot, to lure your Lordships into an impossible posi- 
 tion. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I am in as good a 
 position as anybody to judge whether that is so, and I think I can 
 show you it is not so. I do not think I am breaking any Cabinet 
 confidence when I say that the great majority of my colleagues 
 including — unless I am mistaken — the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer himself, have been infinitely more sanguine than I have 
 been all through that your Lordships would pass the Finance Bill, 
 and it was only at a very recent date that they recognised the 
 probability of the action your Lordships are taking. That I think 
 is conclusive proof that there has been no conspiracy to put your 
 Lordships into a position where you could not pass it. . . . 
 
 If you think that any of us on this side of the House welcome 
 this crisis, you are entirely mistaken. But we are compelled to face 
 it, not only because our political existence as a Party is involved 
 but because in our view the interests of the country and of the 
 Empire depend upon the maintenance of a reasonable constitutional 
 balance between the governing powers of the State. It may be, 
 my Lords, that when the new Parliament meets we shall be sitting 
 where you sit now. It may be that we shall still be seated on these 
 
408 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Benches here. But, my Lords, whether we sit there or whether 
 we sit here, we must, after the action which your Lordships have 
 thought fit to take to-night, set ourselves to obtain guarantees — not 
 the old guarantees sanctioned by the course of time and enforced by 
 accommodation between the two Houses, but if necessary, if there 
 be no other way, guarantees fenced about and guarded by the force 
 of Statute — guarantees which will prevent that indiscriminate 
 destruction of our legislation of which your work to-night is the 
 climax and the crown. 
 
 The Lord Chancellor : The original Question was '" That the 
 Bill be now read a second time," to which an Amendment has been 
 moved to leave out all the words after " That " for the purpose 
 of inserting the following Motion, " This House is not justified in 
 giving its consent to this Bill until it has been submitted to the 
 judgment of the country." The Question I have to put is whether 
 the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion. 
 
 On Question ? 
 
 Their Lordships divided : Contents, 75 ; Not-Contents, 350. 
 
 Extract yo 
 
 FINANCE (1909-10) ACT, 1910 
 
 (10 Edw. 7, ch. 8, in part) 
 
 An Act to grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue 
 (including Excise), to alter other Duties, and to amend the 
 Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including 
 Excise), and to make other financial provisions. 
 
 (29th April 1910) 
 Most Gracious Sovereign, 
 
 We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects the Com- 
 mons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 
 Parliament assembled, towards raising the necessary supplies to 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 409 
 
 defray Your Majesty's public expenses, and making an addition 
 to the public revenue, have freely and voluntarily resolved to give 
 and grant unto Your Majesty the several duties herein-after men- 
 tioned ; and do therefore most humbly beseech Your Majesty that 
 it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the King's most Excellent 
 Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual 
 and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, 
 and .by the authority of the same, as follows : 
 
 Part I 
 
 Duties on Land Values 
 
 I. Duty on Increment Value 
 
 Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be 
 charged, levied, and paid on the increment value of any land a 
 duty, called increment value duty, at the rate of one pound for 
 every complete five pounds of that value accruing after the thir- 
 tieth day of April nineteen hundred and nine, and — 
 
 (a) on the occasion of any transfer on sale of the fee simple 
 of the land or of any interest in the land, in pursuance 
 of any contract made after the commencement of this 
 Act, or the grant, in pursuance of any contract made 
 after the commencement of this Act, of any lease (not 
 being a lease for a term of years not exceeding fourteen 
 years) of the land ; and 
 {U) on the occasion of the death of any person dying after 
 the commencement of this Act, where the fee simple of 
 the land or any interest in the land is comprised in the 
 property passing on the death of the deceased within the 
 meaning of sections one and two, subsection (i) {a), (p), 
 and (c), and subsection three, of the Finance Act, 1894, 
 as amended by any subsequent enactment ; and 
 
4IO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (c) where the fee simple of the land or any interest in the land 
 is held by any body corporate or by any body unincor- 
 porate as defined by section twelve of the Customs and 
 Inland Revenue Act, 1885, in such a manner or on such 
 permanent trusts that the land or interest is not liable to 
 death duties, on such periodical occasions as are provided 
 in this Act, 
 the duty, or proportionate part of the duty, so far as it has not 
 been paid on any previous occasion, shall be collected in accord- 
 ance with the provisions of this Act. 
 
 2. Definition of Increment Value 
 
 (i) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the increment value 
 of any land shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which 
 the site value of the land, on the occasion on which increment value 
 duty is to be collected as ascertained in accordance with this sec- 
 tion, exceeds the original site value of the land as ascertained in 
 accordance with the general provisions of this Part of this Act 
 as to valuation. 
 
 (2) The site value of the land on the occasion on which incre- 
 ment value duty is to be collected- shall be taken to be — 
 
 (a) where the occasion is a transfer on sale of the fee simple 
 of the land, the value of the consideration for the trans- 
 fer; and 
 {U) where the occasion is the grant of any lease of the land, or 
 the transfer on sale of any interest in the land, the value 
 of the fee simple of the land, calculated on the basis of 
 the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease 
 or the transfer of the interest ; and 
 (c) where the occasion is the death of any person, and the fee 
 simple of the land is property passing on that death, the 
 principal value of the land as ascertained for the purposes 
 of Part I of the Finance Act, 1894, and where any in- 
 terest in the land is property passing on that death the 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 41I 
 
 value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis 
 of the principal value of the interest as so ascertained; 
 and 
 (/s?) where the occasion is a periodical occasion on which the 
 duty is to be collected in respect of the fee simple of any 
 land or of any interest in any land held by a body cor- 
 porate or unincorporate, the total value of the land on 
 that occasion to be estimated in accordance with the gen- 
 eral provisions of this Part of this Act as to valuation ; 
 subject in each case to the like deductions as are made, under the 
 general provisions of this Part of this Act as to valuation, for the 
 purpose of arriving at the site value of land from the total value. 
 
 (3) Where it is proved to the Commissioners on an application 
 made for the purpose within the time fixed by this section that the 
 site value of any land at the time of any transfer on sale of the 
 fee simple of the land or of any interest in the land, which took 
 place at any time within twenty years before the thirtieth day of 
 April, nineteen hundred and nine, exceeded the original site value 
 of the land as ascertained under this Act, the site value at that 
 time shall be substituted, for the purposesof increment value duty, 
 for the original site value as so ascertained, and the provisions of 
 this Part of this Act shall apply accordingly. 
 
 Site value shall be estimated -for the purposes of this provision 
 by reference to the consideration given on the transfer in the same 
 manner as it is estimated by reference to the consideration given 
 on a transfer where increment value duty is to be collected on the 
 occasion of such a. transfer after the passing of this Act. 
 
 This provision shall apply to a mortgage of the fee simple of 
 the land or any interest in land in the same manner as it applies 
 to a transfer, with the substitution of the amount secured by the 
 mortgage for the consideration. 
 
 An application for the purpose of this section must be made 
 within three months after the original site value of the land has 
 been finally settled under this Part of this Act. . 
 
412 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 ij. Reversion Duty 
 
 (i) On the determination of any lease of land there shall be 
 charged, levied, and paid, subject to the provisions of this Part of 
 this Act, on the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor by reason 
 of the determination of the lease a duty, called reversion duty, at 
 the rate of one pound for every complete ten pounds of that value. 
 
 (2) For the purposes of this section the value of the benefit 
 accruing to the lessor shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) 
 by which the total value (as defined for the purpose of the general 
 provisions of this Part of this Act relating to valuation) of the land 
 at the time the lease determines, subject to the deduction of any 
 part of the total value which is attributable to any works executed 
 or expenditure of a capital nature incurred by the lessor during the 
 term of the lease and of all compensation payable by such lessor 
 at the determination of the lease, exceeds the total value of the 
 land at the time of the original grant of the lease, to be ascertained 
 on the basis of the rent reserved and payments made in considera- 
 tion of the lease (including, in cases where a nominal rent only has 
 been reserved, the value of any covenant or undertaking to erect 
 buildings or to expend any sums upon the property), but, where 
 the lessor is himself entitled only to a leasehold interest, the value 
 of the benefit as so ascertained shall be reduced in proportion to 
 the amount by which the value of his interest is less than the value 
 of the fee simple. . . . 
 
 16. Undeveloped Land Duty 
 
 (i) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there 
 shall be charged, levied, and paid for the financial year ending the 
 thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and ten, and every sub- 
 sequent financial year in respect of the site value of undeveloped 
 land a duty, called undeveloped land duty, at the rate of one half- 
 penny for every twenty shillings of that site value, 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 413 
 
 (2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, land shall be 
 deemed to be undeveloped land if it has not been developed by 
 the erection of dwelling-houses or of buildings for the purposes of 
 any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture (but includ- 
 ing glasshouses or greenhouses), or is not otherwise used bona fide 
 for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture : 
 Provided that — 
 
 (a) Where any land having been so developed or used reverts 
 to the condition of undeveloped land owing to the build- 
 ings becoming derelict, or owing to the land ceasing to be 
 used for any business, trade, or industry other than agri- 
 culture, it shall, on the expiration of one year after the 
 buildings have so become derelict or the land ceases to 
 be so used, as the case may be, be treated as undeveloped 
 land for the purposes of undeveloped land duty until it 
 is again so developed or used ; and 
 (b') Where the owner of any land included in any scheme of 
 land development shows that he or his predecessors in 
 title have, with a view to the land being developed or used 
 as aforesaid, incurred expenditure on roads (including 
 paving, curbing, metalling, and other works in connexion 
 with roads) or sewers, that land shall, to the extent of 
 one acre for every complete hundred pounds of that 
 expenditure, for the purposes of this section, be treated 
 as land so developed or used although it is not for the 
 time being actually so developed or used, but, for the pur- 
 poses of this provision, no expenditure shall be taken 
 into account if ten years have elapsed since the date of 
 the expenditure, or if after the date of the expenditure 
 the land having been developed reverts to the condition 
 of undeveloped land, and in a case where the amount 
 of the expenditure does not cover the whole of the land 
 included in the scheme of land development, the part of 
 the land to be treated as land developed or used as 
 
414 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 aforesaid shall be determined by the Commissioners as 
 being the land with a view to the development or use 
 of which as aforesaid the expenditure has been in the 
 main incurred. 
 
 (3) For the purposes of undeveloped land duty, the site value 
 of undeveloped land shall be taken to be the value adopted as the 
 original site value or, where the site value has been ascertained 
 under any subsequent periodical valuation of undeveloped land for 
 the time being in force, the site value as so ascertained : 
 
 Provided that where increment value duty has been paid in 
 respect of the increment value of any undeveloped land, the site 
 value of that land shall, for the purposes of the assessment and 
 collection of undeveloped land duty, be reduced by a sum equal to 
 five times the amount paid as increment value duty. 
 
 (4) For the purposes of undeveloped land duty undeveloped 
 land does not include the minerals. . . . 
 
 20. Mineral Rights Duty and Provisions as to Minerals 
 
 (1) There shall be charged, levied, and paid for the financial 
 year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and 
 ten and every subsequent financial year on the rental value of 
 all rights to work minerals and of all mineral wayleaves, a duty 
 (in this Act referred to as a mineral rights duty) at the rate in 
 each case of one shilling for every twenty shillings of that rental 
 value. 
 
 (2) The rental value shall be taken to be — 
 
 {a) Where the right to work the minerals is the subject of 
 a mining lease, the amount of rent paid by the work- 
 ing lessee in the last working year in respect of that 
 right ; and 
 
 (3) Where minerals are being worked by the proprietor there- 
 of, the amount which is determined by the Commis- 
 sioners to be the sum which would have been received 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 415 
 
 as rent by the proprietor in the last working year if the 
 right to work the minerals had been leased to a work- 
 ing lessee for a term and at a rent and on conditions 
 customary in the district, and the minerals had been 
 worked to the same extent and in the same manner as 
 they have been worked by the proprietor in that year : 
 Provided that the Commissioners shall cause a copy 
 of their valuation of such rent to be served on the 
 proprietor ; and 
 (<:) In the case of a mineral wayleave, the amount of rent 
 paid by the working lessee in the last working year in 
 respect of the wayleave : 
 Provided that if in any special case it is shown to the Commis- 
 sioners that the rent paid by a working lessee exceeds the rent 
 customary in the district, and partly represents a return for expend- 
 iture on the part of any proprietor of the minerals which would 
 ordinarily have been borne by the lessee, the Commissioners shall 
 substitute as the rental value of the right to work the minerals or 
 the mineral wayleaves, as the case may be, such rent as the Com- 
 missioners determine would have been the rent customary in the 
 district if the expenditure had been borne by the lessee. . . . 
 
 26. Valuation of Land for Purposes of Act 
 
 (i) The Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the pass- 
 ing of this Act, cause a valuation to be made of all land in the 
 United Kingdom, showing separately the total value and the site 
 value respectively of the land, and in the case of agricultural land 
 the value of the land for agricultural purposes where that value is 
 different from the site value. Each piece of land which is under 
 separate occupation, and, if the owner so requires, any part of any 
 land which is under separate occupation, shall be separately valued, 
 and the value shall be estimated as on the thirtieth day of April 
 nineteen hundred and nine. 
 
4l6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (2) Any owner of land and any person receiving rent in respect 
 of any land shall, on being required by notice from the Commis- 
 sioners, furnish to the Commissioners a return containing such par- 
 ticulars as the Commissioners may require as to the rent received 
 by him, and as to the ownership, tenure, area, character, and use 
 of the land, and the consideration given on any previous sale or 
 lease of the land, and any other matters which may properly be 
 required for the purpose of the valuation of the land, and which 
 it is in his power to give, and, if any owner of land or person re- 
 ceiving any rent in respect of the land is required by the Commis- 
 sioners to make a return under this section, and fails to make 
 such a return within the time, not being less than thirty days, speci- 
 fied in the notice requiring a return, he shall be liable to a penalty 
 not exceeding fifty pounds to be recoverable in the High Court. 
 
 (3) Any owner of land may, if he thinks fit, furnish to the Com- 
 missioners his estimate of the total value or site value or both of 
 the land, and the Commissioners, in making, their valuation, shall 
 consider any estimate so furnished. . . . 
 
 28. Periodical Valuation of Undeveloped Land 
 
 For the purpose of obtaining a periodical valuation of unde- 
 veloped land the Commissioners shall, in the year nineteen hundred 
 and fourteen and in every subsequent fifth year, cause a valuation 
 to be made of undeveloped land showing the site value of the land 
 as on the thirtieth day of April in that year, and, for the purpose 
 of ascertaining the value at that time, the provisions of this Act as 
 to the ascertainment of value shall apply for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining value on any such periodical valuation as they apply for the 
 purpose of ascertaining the original value : 
 
 Provided that if on any such periodical valuation the valuation 
 of any undeveloped land which is liable to undeveloped land duty 
 is for any reason begun but not completed in the year of valuation, 
 the Commissioners may complete the valuation after the expiration 
 of the year of valuation, subject to an appeal under this Act, . , . 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 417 
 
 Part II 
 Duties on Liquor Licences 
 [Clauses 43-53-] 
 
 Part III 
 
 Death Duties 
 
 54. Amended Rates 
 
 The scale set out in the Second Schedule to this Act'' shall, in 
 the case of persons dying on or after the thirtieth day of April 
 nineteen hundred and nine, be substituted for the scale set out in 
 the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1907, as the scale of rates 
 of estate duty, and two per cent shall be substituted for one per 
 cent in section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1894 (in this Part of 
 this Act referred to as the principal Act), as the rate of settlement 
 estate duty. . . . 
 
 Part IV 
 
 Income Tax 
 
 6s. Income Tax for igog-igio 
 
 (i) Income tax for the year beginning on the sixth day of April 
 nineteen hundred and nine shall be charged at the rate of one 
 shilling and twopence. . . . 
 
 66. Super-tax on incomes over £5,000 
 
 (i) In addition to the income tax charged at the rate of one 
 shilling and twopence under this Act, there shall be charged, levied, 
 and paid for the year beginning on the sixth day of April nineteen 
 hundred and nine, in respect of the income of any individual, the 
 
 1 Cf. infra, p. 420. 
 
4l8 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 total of which from all sources exceeds five thousand pounds, an 
 additional duty of income tax (in this Act referred to as a super-tax) 
 at the rate of sixpence for every pound of the amount by which the 
 total income exceeds three thousand pounds. 
 
 (2) For the purposes of the super-tax, the total income of any 
 individual from all sources shall be taken to be the total income of 
 that individual from all sources for the previous year, estimated in 
 the same manner as the total income from all sources is estimated 
 for the purposes of exemptions or abatements under the Income 
 Tax Acts ; but, in estimating the income of the previous year for 
 the purpose of super-tax, — 
 
 {a) there shall be deducted in respect of any land on which 
 income tax is charged upon the annual value estimated 
 otherwise than in relation to profits (in addition to any 
 other deduction) any sum by which the assessment is re- 
 duced for the purposes of collection under section thirty- 
 five of the Finance Act, 1894, or on which duty has been 
 repaid under the provisions of this Act relating to the 
 repayment of duty in respect of the cost of maintenance, 
 repairs, insurance, and management ; and 
 (p) there shall be deducted the amount of any premiums in 
 respect of which relief from income tax may be allowed 
 under section fifty-four of the Income Tax Act, 1853 (as 
 "extended by any subsequent enactment) ; and 
 (<r) there shall be deducted in the case of a person in the service 
 of the Crown abroad, any such sum as the Treasury may 
 allow for expenses which in their opinion are necessarily 
 incidental to the discharge of the functions of his office 
 and for which an allowance has not already been made ; 
 (d) Any income which is chargeable with income tax by way of 
 deduction shall be deemed to be income of the year in 
 which it is receivable, and any deductions allowable on 
 account of any annual sums paid out of the property or 
 profits of the individual shall be allowed as deductions in 
 
THE LLOYD GEORGE BUDGET 419 
 
 respect of the year in which they are payable, notwith- 
 standing that the income or the annual sums, as the case 
 may be, accrued in whole or in part before that year. . . . 
 
 Part V 
 
 Stamps 
 
 7J. Stamp Duty on Conveyances or Transfers on Sales 
 
 The stamp duties chargeable under the heading " Conveyance 
 or Transfer on Sale of any Property " in the First Schedule to 
 the Stamp Act, 189 1 (in this Part of this Act referred to as the 
 principal Act), shall be double those specified in that Schedule : 
 Provided that this section shall not apply to the conveyance or 
 transfer of any stock or marketable security as defined by section 
 one hundred and twenty-two of that Act, or to a conveyance or 
 transfer where the amount or value of the consideration for the 
 sale does not exceed five hundred pounds and the instrument con- 
 tains a statement certifying that the transaction thereby effected 
 does not form part of a larger transaction or of a series of trans- 
 actions in respect of which the amount or value, or the aggregate 
 amount or value, of the consideration exceeds five hundred pounds. 
 
 7^!. Stamp Duty on Gifts Inter Vivos 
 
 (i) Any conveyance or transfer operating as a voluntary dispo- 
 sition inter vivos shall be chargeable with the like stamp duty as 
 if it were a conveyance or transfer on sale, with the substitution 
 in each case of the value of the property conveyed or transferred 
 for the amount or value of the consideration for the sale : 
 
 Provided that this section shall not apply to a conveyance or 
 transfer operating as a voluntary disposition of property to a body 
 of persons incorporated by a special Act, if that body is by its 
 Act precluded from dividing any profit among its members and 
 
420 
 
 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the property conveyed is to be held for the purposes of an open 
 space or for the purposes of its preservation for the benefit of the 
 nation. . . . 
 
 [Part VI (clauses 80-86) treats of Customs and Excise other 
 than Liquor Licence duties, such as tobacco, motor spirits and 
 special taxes on beer; Part VII (clauses 87—91) provides for 
 payments to local authorities and to the road improvement ac- 
 count; Part VIII (clauses 92-96) is general and supplementary. 
 Six schedules accompany the Act.] 
 
 Second Schedule 
 Scale of Rates of Estate Duty 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Estate Duty shall 
 
 
 Where the 
 
 Principal Value of the 
 
 Estate 
 
 be payable at the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rate per Cent of 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 Exceeds 
 
 100 
 
 and does not exceed 
 
 500 . . 
 
 I 
 
 « 
 
 500 
 
 tt n 
 
 (t « 
 
 1,000 . . 
 
 2 
 
 ** 
 
 1,000 
 
 tt tt 
 
 ,V( « 
 
 5,000 . . 
 
 3 
 
 tt 
 
 5,000 
 
 " " 
 
 tt (t 
 
 10,000 . . 
 
 4 
 
 " 
 
 10,000 
 
 (t tt 
 
 IK tt 
 
 20,000 . . 
 
 s 
 
 tt 
 
 20,000 
 
 " " 
 
 t< « 
 
 40,000 . . 
 
 6 
 
 i\ 
 
 40,000 
 
 T^ « 
 
 tt t( 
 
 70,000 . . 
 
 7 
 
 « 
 
 70,000 
 
 t( (( 
 
 t( H 
 
 100,000 . 
 
 8 
 
 " 
 
 100,000 
 
 " 
 
 « « 
 
 150,000 . . 
 
 9 
 
 ^^ 
 
 1 50,000 
 
 !* (t 
 
 It « 
 
 200,000 . . 
 
 10 
 
 " 
 
 200,000 
 
 (^ \\ 
 
 (» H 
 
 400,000 . . 
 
 II 
 
 t( 
 
 400,000 
 
 (t (f 
 
 t' M 
 
 600,000 . . 
 
 12 
 
 t» 
 
 600,000 
 
 " " 
 
 tt It 
 
 800,000 
 
 13 
 
 « 
 
 800,000 
 1,000,000 
 
 tt n 
 
 tt tt 
 
 1,000,000 
 
 14 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 CURBING THE LORDS 
 
 [The House of Lords with its overwhelming Conservative ma- 
 jority offered for several years after 1905 a serious check upon 
 the legislative programme of the Liberal Government. In 1906 
 the Lords rejected important governmental measures dealing with 
 education, licensing, and plural voting, and subsequently displayed 
 no little opposition to various proposals for social reform. The 
 social problem in Great Britain was thus complicated by a political 
 and constitutional question as to the relations between the Houses 
 of Parliament. 
 
 This situation the Liberals grasped at once ; and as early as 
 June 24, 1907, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannernian, as Premier, pre- 
 sented a resolution in the House of Commons, " That, in order to 
 give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their elected 
 representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other House 
 to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted 
 by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament 
 the final decision of the Commons shall prevail." The debate on 
 this resolution, which brought out the most salient features of the 
 constitutional and political issue, is reproduced, in part, below : 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's explanation and defence of 
 the proposal {Extract ji) ; Mr. Arthur J. Balfour's opposition 
 in behalf of the Conservatives {Extract 72) ; the attack of Mr. 
 D. Shackleton, a Labour Member, upon the undemocratic char- 
 acter of the House of Lords {Extract yj) ; the scholarly defence 
 of a Second Chamber by Sir William Anson, representing Oxford 
 University and an acknowledged authority on the constitutional 
 
 421 
 
422 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 history of England {Extract 7^) ; a clear exposition of the issue 
 both between the Houses and between the Parties, by Mr. Winston 
 Churchill {Extract 75) ; and Mr. David Lloyd George's scathing 
 arraignment of the Upper House {Extract y6). The resolution 
 was carried by 432 votes to 147. 
 
 Lord Rosebery and other prominent members of the Upper 
 House had long advocated some kind of reform in the constitu- 
 tion of their House; and in 1907 they succeeded in securing the 
 appointment of a Select Committee. This Committee, in a lengthy 
 report published on December 3, 1908, proposed to distinguish 
 between Peers and " Lords of Parliament " or Members of the 
 House of Lords ; and recommended that, except in case of a Peer 
 of the Blood Royal, a peerage should not entitle one to a seat in 
 that House. The hereditary Peers, including those of Scotland 
 and Ireland, should be entitled to elect 200 representatives to sit 
 in that House for each Parliament, this election being conducted 
 by a form of cumulative voting. The Archbishops should hold 
 seats as of right, the Bishops should elect eight representatives. 
 The Committee would gladly see representatives of the other great 
 Churches in the House, but could formulate no recommendation. 
 Official representatives of the great self-governing Colonies might 
 be introduced into the House without the danger of involving the 
 Colonies in British party politics ; as to the representation of India, 
 they could formulate no specific recommendation, but thought its in- 
 terest would be secured by the presence of ex-Viceroys and other 
 qualified persons in the House. Besides the elective Peers, any 
 Peer should be entitled to sit in the House who had been Cabinet 
 Minister, "Viceroy of India, Governor-General of Canada or Aus- 
 tralia, High Commissioner for South Africa, or Lord-Lieutenant 
 of Ireland, or who had held any of certain Colonial Governorships 
 or high offices or had been Lieutenant-General or Vice-Admiral on 
 the active list, or had sat for a certain period in the Commons. 
 This recommendation would add about 130 Peers to the House. 
 The Crown should be empowered to summon four life Peers 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 423 
 
 annually, the total not to exceed forty. This would give a House 
 of somewhat less than 400, as against the existing number of 
 considerably over 600. Among many other interesting items the 
 Report stated that proposals had been discussed to admit elected 
 representatives from County Councils and Municipal Corporations, 
 whether Peers or not, but that the Committee, being almost equally 
 divided, made no recommendation. 
 
 On the report of the Select Committee on the reform of their 
 own House, the Lords took no action during the year 1909. But 
 as the year advanced, it became increasingly clear to the Liberal 
 Government that they themselves must endeavour to solve the 
 difficulties between the Houses of Parliament by drastic legisla- 
 tive application of the Campbell- Bannerman Resolution of 1907. 
 To have one political party dominant in the House of Commons, 
 and another in the House of Lords, was not only an anomaly, 
 but a serious impediment to constructive legislation. In 1909, it 
 will be remembered, the Upper House weakened the Housing, 
 Town Planning, and Development Acts and rejected altogether 
 the Lloyd George Budget.^ That rejection of the financial measure 
 for the year — usurpation, the Liberals called it — was the imme- 
 diate occasion for the break between the two Houses. 
 
 What would be the outcome ? Lord Rosebery, supporting the 
 Select Committee of the House of Lords, had one solution to sug- 
 gest ; Mr. Asquith's Government had another. The majority of 
 the Upper House naturally hoped that the elections of January, 
 19 10, which so closely followed the rejection of the Budget, would 
 restore their Conservative friends to power in the Lower House, 
 in which case any radical parliamentary reform would be quite un- 
 necessary. But their hopes were doomed to disappointment " ; and 
 when Mr. Asquith met his new Parliament in 19 10 he declared 
 that not only would the passage of the Budget now be insisted 
 upon, but also a definite settlement of the constitutional question 
 along the lines laid down in the Commons Resolution of 1907. 
 
 1 Cf. supra, chs. vii, viii. 2 cf. supra, p. 360. 
 
424 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Lord Rosebery determined to anticipate the Government's ac- 
 tion. On February 24, 1910, he gave notice that on March 14 
 he would move that the House of Lords resolve itself into com- 
 mittee to consider the best means for so reforming its organisation 
 as to constitute it a strong and efficient Second Chamber. On 
 March 12 a report was published of the numbers and services 
 of temporal Peers. Eighteen had held high judicial office ; forty- 
 three had been Cabinet Ministers or Parliamentary heads of Gov- 
 ernment departments, or Speakers of the Commons ; twenty 
 had been Lords-Lieutenant of Ireland, Viceroys of India, or Gov- 
 ernors-General of Canada, Australia, or the South African Union ; 
 twenty-four had been Governors of Dominions, Colonies, Indian 
 Presidencies or Provinces, or High Commissioners of South Africa ; 
 fifty-one had held minor Ministerial offices ; two had been Ministers 
 or Ambassadors to foreign Powers ; 148 had sat in the Commons, 
 and seven had attained the rank of Vice-Admiral or Lieutenant- 
 General. The number of Peers on the roll at the beginning of 
 the session in 1765 was 202; in 1835, 4^3; in 1865, 454; in 
 1885, 524; in 1900, 593 ; in 1906, 613 ; and at the time of issu- 
 ing the return it was 622, of whom four were Royal, twenty-six 
 Episcopal, and five life Peers. In 1909 eighty-one out of a total 
 of 589 temporal Peers (including minors and Peers kept away by 
 their official duties or by ill-health) did not attend, and i68 attended 
 less than ten times. 
 
 The debate on Lord Rosebery's Resolutions extended from 
 March 14 to March 21, when they were carried by substantial ma- 
 jorities, and served to bring out the chief arguments on both sides. 
 . The Earl of Rosebery, in introducing the subject, stated that since 
 his reform proposals of 1888 he had expected real reform in the 
 House of Lords to come from outside ; but it was now thought 
 better that it should be proposed from some neutral source within 
 the House in which there had long been a consciousness of its im- 
 perfections — its excessive numbers, its exclusive representation 
 of a class, and its basis in heredity. It had splendid traditions and, 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 425 
 
 according to Freeman, was the lineal descendant of the Witenage- 
 mot; even Mr. Redmond had eulogised it in 1894. Of the various 
 efforts at reform from within, Lord Newton's Committee alone had 
 reached a definite conclusion and the general election had returned 
 a hostile majority of 1 2 5 . The Irish and Labour parties respectively 
 were hostile for the sake of Home Rule and of nationalisation 
 schemes, but Scotland and the North of England had an insuper^ 
 able objection to the hereditaiy principle. The Government plan 
 would first disable the House and then reconstitute it, but the 
 reconstitution would never be agreed to by the more advanced ele- 
 ments ; the plan was like hamstringing a horse and then starting 
 him for the Derby. After citing Cromwell's famous condemnation 
 of single-chamber Government, he asked what self-respecting per- 
 son would care to sit in the House which the Government would 
 some day propose to re-establish ? There would be a violent reac- 
 tion and a demand for a House of Lords stronger than the present 
 one ; but meanwhile a Home Rule Bill might be passed, and the 
 country might be at the mercy of a momentary ebullition of feeling. 
 The Second Chamber would secure that the voice of the people 
 should be deliberate. Revolutions in history had been carried by 
 small and determined minorities. The Greater Britains, who had 
 been provided with strong Second Chambers, would lose faith in 
 England if single-chamber Government were established ; strong 
 Senates had been deliberately established in France and the United 
 States ; the only two Single-Chamber States were Greece and Costa 
 Rica. It was felt better to proceed by resolutions, as a basis for a 
 Bill to be framed by some future Government. The Peers might 
 now do the country a service greater than any since that of the 
 Barons at Runnymede, or they might cling to obsolete privileges 
 and await in decrepitude their doom. But he had confidence in 
 their action. 
 
 Lord Morley of Blackburn, replying to Lord Rosebery, distrusted 
 historical and colonial analogies ; in Canada and Australia the Sec- 
 ond Chamber was nominated. Lord Rosebery had not 'come even 
 
426 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 to the fringe of the existing emergency. It would have been better 
 to await the proposals of the Government. In November, 1909, 
 the Lords rejected the Budget, and were held up as a model of 
 political virtue ; now, having killed the Budget, they were com- 
 mitting suicide by declaring their unfitness. The Government 
 thought it inexpedient to discuss proposals for reform until an ef- 
 fective method had been provided for settling disputes between the 
 Houses. The question had been raised by a practical emergency ; 
 the gulf between the Houses had widened and deepened since 
 1894, and great changes had become inevitable. To make a " strong 
 and efficient " Second Chamber would be to take back part of the 
 electoral power established by the Liberals and to intensify friction; 
 reform would not remove the grievance that that House did not 
 receive Bills in time to debate them ; the changes proposed would 
 not free the House from the imputation of class prejudice, and 
 there was no provision for removing or diminishing deadlocks. He 
 applied to Lord Rosebeiy his own description of "the riddle that 
 perplexed Cromwell" — "Like smaller reformers since, he had never 
 decided to begin with, whether to make his Lords strong or weak ; 
 strong enough to curb the Commons, and yet weak enough for the 
 Commons to curb them." 
 
 The Earl of Onslow, speaking next, desired a Second Chamber 
 based on the House of Lords, with some representation of the Do- 
 minions overseas ; this latter proposal was unfavourably criticised by 
 Lord Northcote. Of subsequent speakers some favoured reform ; 
 among them Earl Cawder, who desired the retention of a large 
 hereditary element and maintained that on Home Rule, the Edu- 
 cation Bill, the Licensing Bill, and the Budget, the Lords repre- 
 sented the minds of the people better than the Commons. Earl 
 Carrington laid stress on the deadlock between the Houses, which 
 Lord Rosebery's proposal did nothing to diminish. On this ques- 
 tion he declared that the Government were ready to lead the whole 
 progressive party, and on its decision to stand or fall. 
 
 On behUlf of his Government, Mr. H. H. Asquith introduced 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 427 
 
 the main features of the proposed Parliament Bill under the form 
 of Resolutions in the House of Commons on March 29, 1910. He 
 began by noting the advance of the question since June 24, 1907, 
 as marked by the rejection of the Finance Bill ; the general election, 
 at which the relations of the two Houses constituted at least a lead- 
 ing issue ; and the spontaneous movement of the House of Lords 
 towards its own reform. His motion assumed that two Cham- 
 bers were necessary ; but Great Britain did not possess a truly 
 bi-cameral system. The Commons must predominate ; but a Sec- 
 ond Chamber might usefully discharge the functions of consulta- 
 tion, of revision, and, subject to proper safeguards, of delay. Such 
 a Chamber should be relatively small ; its basis should be demo- 
 cratic, not hereditary ; it must not be " governed by partisanship 
 tempered by panic," and should be representative of and dependent 
 on the will of the nation. The Government resolutions, therefore, 
 were not put forward as a final or adequate solution. Meanwhile, 
 however, they had to deal with the House of Lords as it was. The 
 resolutions to be moved in Committee ^ were not to be treated as 
 clauses in a Bill, but as basis for a Bill. The first he justified by 
 citations from Pitt, Lord Rosebery, Lord Salisbury, and Mr. Bal- 
 four, and explained that tacking, a purely speculative possibility, was 
 -guarded against by entrusting to the Speaker the decision as to what 
 was or \yas not a Money Bill. He should strongly deprecate leaving 
 the decision to the Law Courts. The second resolution provided 
 a new remedy for a deadlock between the two Houses. But for 
 the right of the Crown to create new Peers — which he defended, 
 amid some Opposition protests, by citations from Erskine, May, 
 Dicey, and Bagehot — there was now no way out of such a dead- 
 lock ; and the resolution passed in the Lords that a Peer should not 
 necessarily have the right to sit and vote in the Upper House would 
 deal a fatal blow at the Royal Prerogative. Apart from this power, 
 which should be exercised only in extreme cases, but then without 
 fear, there were only two possible checks on the Upper House : 
 
 1 Cf. the provisions of the Act, infra, p. 474. 
 
428 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 (i) The referendum, which he had formerly been inclined to 
 favour, would be unsuited for cases where the two Houses agreed 
 unless it were accompanied by some power of initiative ; it would 
 tend to undermine the responsibility and dependence of the Com- 
 mons and would not really be confined to a single issue. (2) A 
 joint sitting of the two Houses would not be applicable with the 
 existing House of Lords. The Government proposal as to the 
 Lords' Veto had been recommended in a more drastic form by John 
 Bright in a speech at Birmingham on August 4, 1884. Sir Henry 
 Campbell-Bannerman had modified it ; the Government had carried 
 the modification farther and coupled with' it the limitation of the 
 term of Parliament to five years. After replying at length to the 
 argument that its adoption would mean single-chamber government, 
 Mr. Asquith eloquently described how the forms of the Constitution 
 had been adapted to modern needs. Queen Elizabeth in one session 
 vetoed forty-eight Bills out of ninety-one ; but the Veto of the Sov- 
 ereign was dead, yet the Monarchy was far more secure than under 
 the Tudors. But one sterilising factor in the Constitution still re- 
 mained : the absolute Veto of the House of Lords ; it must go, as 
 the Veto of the Crown had gone. 
 
 Mr. Arthur J. Balfour, replying in behalf of the Opposition, ban- 
 tered the Government on the divergence of views among their 
 supporters. The Prime Minister had settled down to a moderate 
 approval of the functions of a Second Chamber, provided it had no 
 real power ; Sir Edward Grey and the Home Secretary each took 
 a different view ; some Ministerialists desired to abolish it alto- 
 gether ; and, probably owing to its divergence, the Government had 
 brought forward proposals which would neither mend the evils of the 
 Second Chamber nor end them. If the House of Lords were unfit 
 for its functions, reform it ; but the Government could not agree 
 on a reform. That it delayed the legislation of a revolutionary Gov- 
 ernment was not surprising, but there was no deadlock. Since Mr. 
 Bright's speech of 1884 it had been shown that the House of Lords 
 alone stood between the country and great constitutional changes 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 429 
 
 of which the country profoundly disapproved. Alone among the 
 great countries of the world, we had no written Constitution and 
 no safeguards against violent changes. It was absurd to put disso- 
 lution and the creation of Peers on a par. The proposal was an 
 absurd experiment in Constitution making; the House of Lords 
 had, and ought to have, the power to reject Money Bills. To make 
 the Speaker the judge of tacking would make him in a sense the 
 author of legislation, and there was a kind of virtual tacking, by 
 bringing in Money Bills for other than money objects, on which his 
 opinion would not be asked. In all great free self-governing com- 
 munities there were safeguards, insuring that measures could be 
 referred to the electors. Moreover, if the Finance Bill were voted 
 on simply upon its merits, everyone knew it would be rejected. It 
 was therefore absurd to say that the House of Lords had misused 
 its admittedly very delicate function as to Money Bills. The Gov- 
 ernment scheme under the second resolution would divide the life of 
 a Parliament into a single-chamber period — " like Costa Rica " — 
 and a two-chamber period. It would be a piebald, harlequin Con- 
 stitution ; it was really the coming election — not the past one — 
 that influenced a House of Commons. The Government under 
 this scheme would bring in all their great measures early and would 
 never be able to improve them. The scheme could not survive, and 
 would initiate a Constitutional controversy which would be fatal to 
 all plans of social reform. 
 
 Mr. John Redmond, the leader of the Irish Nationalists, on whom, 
 as well as upon the Labour Members, the Government must now 
 rely for support, described Mr. Balfour's speech as amusing, but 
 not serious. He enumerated a number of Irish Bills, from Catholic 
 emancipation onwards, which the House of Lords had treated in a 
 way prejudicial to Ireland, and assured the Government of his hearty 
 support of the resolutions. He could not support a reform of the 
 House of Lords, as it would tend to strengthen it. A settlement of a 
 deadlock by a Referendum Bill would bring them back to the Royal 
 prerogative. After commenting on Lord Rosebery's denunciation 
 
430 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 of the action of the House of Lords and of the idea of reforming 
 it in 1894, he expressed regret that the resolutions had not been be- 
 fore the country at the election and urged the Government to press 
 on with them. If the Lords rejected them, let the Prime Minister 
 ask for an assurance from the Crown that Peers would be created, 
 and, if the request were refused, let him go to the country at once. 
 
 Mr. Asquith's resolution was agreed to on April 4, 19 10. The 
 majority was composed of 256 Liberals, 34 Labour Members, and 
 67 Nationalists. None but Unionists were in the minority. 
 
 The Bill founded on the resolutions was introduced by Mr. 
 Asquith on April 14, 19 10. Subsequently he explained that if the 
 Lords rejected or declined to consider the Government policy, the 
 Ministers would either resign or recommend a dissolution, and 
 would not recommend a dissolution except under such conditions 
 as to insure that in the new Parliament the judgment of the people 
 as expressed at the election would be carried into law. 
 
 The progress of the Parliament Bill was temporarily delayed on 
 account of the death of King Edward VII on May 6, 19 10, and 
 the accession of King George V. It was generally felt that it 
 would be unfair to lay the burden of deciding whether or not to 
 override the resistance of the Peers on the new King at the outset 
 of his reign, and that in any case the controversy, though it could 
 not be dropped, would have to be approached with an increasing 
 readiness for a settlement. On June 8, the day fixed for the 
 reassembling of Parliament, it was announced that the Ministry 
 were ready to propose a small private conference between them- 
 selves and the Unionist leaders. Though not favourably received 
 by the extremists on either side, the proposal was welcomed by the 
 moderates of both parties. 
 
 On June 16 the Conference was formally decided upon by the 
 leaders on both sides, and next day it held its first meeting in the 
 Prime Minister's room, behind the Speaker's Chair in the House 
 of Commons. It numbered eight members — Mr. H. H. Asquith, 
 Mr. David Lloyd George, the Earl of Crewe, and Mr. Augustine 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 43 1 
 
 Birrell, representing the Government, and Mr. Arthur J. Balfour, 
 the Marquess of Lansdowne, Earl Cawder, and Mr. Austen Cham- 
 berlain, the Opposition. An official statement was issued that the 
 negotiations were entirely untrammelled and the proceedings would 
 throughout be strictly confidential. Advanced Liberal and Labour 
 opinions continued unfavourable, however ; so was the main body 
 of the Nationalists. Twenty-one meetings of the Constitutional 
 Conference were held during the summer and autumn. At length, 
 on November 10, the Prime Minister announced its cortiplete 
 failure and stated that, so far as the Government were concerned, 
 another general election would be necessary in December. 
 
 The centre of interest then shifted to the House of Lords. On 
 November 21, 19 10, the Earl of Crewe, in behalf of the Govern- 
 ment, moved the second reading of the Parliament Bill, setting 
 forth in o'utline the controversy between the two Houses opened 
 by the Education Bill of 1906 and presenting an analysis of its 
 provisions {Extract yf). The Marquess of Lansdowne expressed 
 strong opposition to the Bill in principle and in detail {Extract f8). 
 In the subsequent debate, the Earl of Rosebery complained {Ex- 
 tract jg) that the House was regarded simply as a condemned 
 criminal without the usual indulgences. The Lord Chancellor asked 
 why Lord Rosebery or some other Peer had not brought forward 
 some definite plan earlier {Extract 80). 
 
 The Peers would hardly feel inclined to go to the country on the 
 question of the Veto without an alternative proposal to the Govern- 
 ment's Parliament Bill. Therefore, on November 23, the Marquess 
 of Lansdowne presented to the House of Lords the Opposition 
 Scheme in the form of resolutions {Extract 81). Among the sup- 
 porters of these resolutions was Lord Ribblesdale {Extract 82). 
 They were at once passed, the Ministers holding aloof, and com- 
 municated to the House of Commons. The deadlock between the 
 Houses and between the Parties was complete. 
 
 The Parliamentary session of 19 10 was now virtually over, and 
 the interest lay in the constituencies. The Ministerial case was 
 
432 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 effectively restated by the Prime Minister at Hull on November 25, 
 before an audience of 3000, after the annual meeting of the Na- 
 tional Liberal Federation, which had concentrated its attention on 
 the Veto. Mr. Asquith first replied at length to the charge that 
 the election was being rushed in order to set up single-chamber 
 government. The Veto had been the dominant issue at the January 
 election ; the Peers had then no alternative policy ; the King's 
 4eath had prevented the fulfilment of his own promise ; the failure 
 of the Conference had necessitated a dissolution. It was said that 
 the Government were hurrying on a dissolution to prevent the 
 Lords from presenting their case and to avoid submitting the 
 Budget to the Commons, and Lord Lansdowne's call for the Par- 
 liament Bill was supposed to have defeated the manoeuvre. But 
 before Parliament reassembled the Government had decided to 
 present the essential features of the Budget to it, and to give the 
 Peers full opportunity to criticise the Government's proposals on 
 the Veto, or to present their own. The dissolution was undertaken 
 to settle the question before proceeding with Liberal legislation. 
 An adverse vote would bring Protection disguised as Tariff Re- 
 form ; but he preferred to concentrate his criticism on Lord 
 Lansdowne's " crude and complex " scheme. He did not believe 
 the " backwoods Peers " or a Tory majority in the House of 
 Commons would accept it, and he insisted especially on the obscu- 
 rity of its details, the sacrifice of the Royal power to create Peers, 
 the uncertainty as to the numbers of the new House, and the 
 indefiniteness of the term " questions of great gravity." He ob- 
 jected to the referendum on three grounds : it would enable the 
 House of Lords to enforce what would virtually be a general elec- 
 tion — and, if the Ministry were beaten, there would be a general 
 election besides; it would destroy the Parliamentary sense of respon- 
 sibility, and therefore representative government. The Ministerial 
 scheme was not a scheme for single-chamber government and was 
 not final ; it was the minimum necessary to get on with the Liberal 
 programme, which he had stated at the Albert Hall in 1909. He 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 433 
 
 saw no cause for shame in the givers or takers of American dollars ; 
 and, in securing self-government for Ireland and afterwards lighten- 
 ing the work of Parliament, the Government should have the sym- 
 pathy of the Dominions, who had learned how easy it was to combine 
 local autonomy and Imperial loyalty. But the immediate task was 
 to secure fair play for Liberal legislation and popular government. 
 
 The Unionist case was put on the same evening by Lord Lans- 
 downe at a demonstration held at Glasgow after the annual meet- 
 ing of the Liberal Unionist Council. After regretting that the Con- 
 ference had not made for a reasonable settlement, he ridiculed the 
 contention that the conflict was " Peers against People." The last 
 four Liberal Ministries had created 136 Peers; the Liberal Peers 
 now numbered only 120. Of about 230 Ministerial measures 
 introduced since January, 1906, the House of Lords had rejected 
 only six. He mentioned nine of first-class importance that had 
 become law and referred to Lord Carrington's eulogy of Liberal 
 achievement. After defending at length the Lords' action on the 
 Education, Licensing, and Finance Bills, he asked. Why was their 
 interference regarded with jealousy ? Many people held that the 
 hereditary principle was anomalous ; but moderate men would say 
 that in Great Britain, especially at present, a real Second Chamber 
 was needed. Ministers began at the wrong end ; they abused the 
 House of Lords, but would not touch its reform. He outlined and 
 upheld the alternative policy of his resolutions, and thought the out- 
 line might be filled up satisfactorily, but the Government refused 
 to discuss it. The issue was between reform and revolution. He 
 reaffirmed Tariff Reform and the Unionist land policy. 
 
 Parliament was prorogued, preparatory to its dissolution, on 
 November 28 ; and the candidates for the House issued their 
 customary appeals to constituents. Mr. Balfour's declared that 
 " behind the single-chamber conspiracy lurk Socialism and Home 
 Rule." Mr. Asquith's said that the appeal to the country was 
 almost narrowed to a single issue, and on its determination hung 
 the whole future of democratic government. 
 
434 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 The general election which extended over the period from 
 December 2 to December 20 returned 272 Liberals, 42 Labour 
 Members, 76 Nationalists, 8 Independent Nationalists, — 398 Min- 
 isterials, — and 271 Unionists. On the whole, the result was much 
 the same as in January. In London the Liberals had gained a 
 little ; in Scotland the Unionists had slightly strengthened their 
 position. Speaking broadly, industrial England returned Ministe- 
 rialists, except the Birmingham area, while the chief ports, except 
 London, Liverpool, and Plymouth, and also the pleasure and resi- 
 dential towns and districts were Unionist. Class cleavage had 
 increased. 
 
 The motion for leave to introduce the Parliament Bill in the 
 new House of Commons was made by the Prime Minister on 
 February 21, 19 n, and the next day it passed first reading by 351 
 votes to 227. Second reading was passed amid noisy demonstra- 
 tions on March 2 by 366 to 243. Some nine hundred amendments, 
 most of which had been offered by Unionists, were considered dur- 
 ing Committee and Report stages from April 3 to May 10. On 
 May 15 the final effort of the Unionists in the House of Com- 
 mons to reject the Bill was frustrated by a vote of 363 to 243, 
 and the third reading carried by 362 to 241. 
 
 The Bill had been somewhat modified in its passage through 
 the Commons. It had been made clear that it did not apply to 
 private Bills ; the wording of the clause relating to Money Bills 
 had been made more precise, and the Bills relating to the raising 
 of money by local authorities for local purposes had been ex- 
 pressly excluded ; the certificate of the Speaker was required to 
 be endorsed on all Money Bills when sent up to the Lords and 
 presented for the royal assent, but the prohibition was struck out 
 prohibiting any amendment which, in the opinion of the Speaker, 
 would prevent the Bill from remaining a Money Bill. The two 
 years' period was to run from the second reading in the first ses- 
 sion to the passing the Commons in the third session, and amend- 
 ments certified by the Speaker to have been made by the House 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 435 
 
 of Lords in the third session and approved by the Commons 
 were to form part of the Bill in question when presented for the 
 royal assent. 
 
 In the House of Lords, the Parliament Bill now speedily passed 
 first and second reading, the real struggle being deferred by the 
 Conservative Peers until after the coronation. But in July the 
 struggle became acute between the majority in the Upper House 
 and the Government. On July 20, 19 1 1, the Bill passed third read- 
 ing, accompanied by several important amendments, which, had 
 they been finally agreed to, would have defeated the purpose of 
 the measure. 
 
 It was under these circumstances that the Prime Minister ad- 
 dressed the following letter to the leader of the Opposition : 
 
 10, Downing Street, July 20 
 Dear Mr. Balfour, 
 
 I think it is courteous and right, before any public decisions are an- 
 nounced, to let you know how we regard the political situation. 
 
 When the Parliament Bill in the form which it has now assumed returns 
 to the House of Commons we shall be compelled to ask that House to 
 disagree with the Lords' amendments. 
 
 In the circumstances, should the necessity arise, the Government will 
 advise the King to exercise his prerogative to secure the passing into law 
 of the Bill in substantially the same form in which it left the House of 
 Commons, and His Majesty has been pleased to signify that he will con- 
 sider it his duty to accept and act on that advice. 
 
 Yours sincerely, 
 
 H. H. Asquith 
 
 At a meeting of the Unionist Peers on July 21, Lord Lans- 
 downe read a copy of the foregoing letter and pointed out that 
 the Parliament Bill was to be passed, either with or without the 
 creation of Peers. If the creation took place, the passage of the 
 Parliament Bill and such measures as the Home Rule Bill would 
 not be prevented, while the King's prerogative would have been 
 brought into the political arena and a step taken which must be 
 deplored. He therefore held that the Opposition Peers were no 
 
436 . BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 longer " free agents." The Earl of Halsbury strongly opposed 
 surrender, and was supported, according to various accounts, by 
 the Earl of Selborne, the Duke of Bedford, the Marquess of Salis- 
 bury, and Lord Willoughby de Broke ; but Viscount St. Aldwyn, 
 Lord Curzon of Kedleston, and the Duke of Devonshire strongly 
 supported Lord Lansdowne in advocating submission. It was said 
 by the Times that the minority against surrender numbered about 
 fifty. The Irish Unionist members, according to a statement by 
 their chairman. Sir Edward Carson, informed Lord Lansdowne 
 that " the disgrace and ignominy of surrender on the question far 
 outweighed any temporary advantage " derived from the fact that 
 Home Rule would be subject to the delay of two years imposed 
 by the Parliament Bill ; and a dinner to the Earl of Halsbury as 
 the leading advocate of resistance was given on July 26. Against 
 " surrender " the chief arguments were that the country would be 
 roused against the Liberals by the creation of new Peers, and that 
 the latter would soon cease to be Radical. 
 
 The House of Commons met to deal with the Lords' amend- 
 ments on Monday, July 24, 19 11. It was thronged in every part, 
 and the situation favoured an explosion. Mr. Asquith, on enter- 
 ing, was received with Liberal and Nationalist acclamations, and 
 murmurs and. cries of " Traitor " from the Opposition, who loudly 
 cheered Mr. Balfour. After questions and the introduction of five 
 new members, Mr. Asquith rose, but was again received with 
 uproar and cries of " Traitor." The Speaker intervened without 
 avail ; several members on both sides rose to points of order, Lord 
 Hugh Cecil taking a prominent part -in the disturbance. There 
 were shouts to the Prime Minister of " Consult your masters ! " 
 and " Let Redmond speak I " Sir Edward Carson, after further 
 interruptions, moved the adjournment of the debate, but the 
 Speaker pointed out that as yet there was no debate, and urged a 
 little later that the right of free discussion was far more important 
 for the Opposition than for the Government. Mr. Aisquith was then 
 able to begin his speech and sketch the history of the Parliament 
 
CURBING. THE LORDS 437 
 
 Bill. There were, however, constant derisive interruptions, among 
 the cries being " Leave the King out ! " and " Who killed the 
 King ? " At last he declined " to degrade himself further " by 
 pressing his arguments on the Opposition ; he merely stated that 
 unless thfe House of Lords would consent to restore the Bill with 
 reasonable amendments Ministers would be compelled to invoke 
 the exercise of the Royal prerogative. One thing was certain — 
 the determination of the Government and the vast majority of the 
 people that without further delay the Bill should become law. 
 
 The motion for disagreeing with the Lords' amendments was 
 at length carried in the House of Commons on August 8, 19 ii, 
 by 321 votes to 215. 
 
 The momentous debate on the question of acquiescence by the 
 House of Lords in the treatment given to their amendments by 
 the Commons took place on August 9 and 10, 191 1. Lord Wil- 
 loughby de Broke, a leader among the resisters, declared in the 
 course of a vigorous speech that the Government might win a 
 dozen general elections without altering his opposition to the Bill ; 
 he warned the bishops that the Established Church could be re- 
 tained only through the agency of the Tory party. The Earl of 
 Halsbury, the Dukes of Norfolk, Bedford, and Marlborough, and 
 others, supported resistance. Lord Newton, in an answering speech, 
 described the attitude of the resisters as that of the Chinese who 
 killed themselves on the doorstep of the person who had ill-treated 
 them, and said that, so far from ridicule killing the creation, " they 
 would have the ridicule, and the Government, the Peers." The 
 Marquess of Lansdowne likewise urged surrender, as did Lord 
 Ribblesdale, Viscount St. Aldwyn, the Earl of Camperdown, and 
 others. 
 
 At last, the Archbishop of Canterbury said briefly that he had 
 intended to abstain from voting, but he had been influenced by the 
 callousness and levity with which some noble Lords contemplated 
 the creation of 500 Peers, which would make the House and the 
 country a laughing-stock in the Dofninions and in foreign countries. 
 
438 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Lord Curzon of Kedleston most earnestly advocated submission, 
 because the Bill would pass in any case ; it might be rejected — 
 owing to the actions of a small minority of the Unionists — and 
 then there would certainly be a creation of Peers large enough to 
 upset the Constitution. " You will have to start fresh. God knows 
 how we shall do it." The Marquess of Bristol interjected, " It is 
 because 400 Peers are going to run away to-night." Lord Curzon 
 replied, " I would sooner run away with the Duke of Wellington 
 than stand with the noble Lord." The Earl of Halsbury vigorously 
 contested Earl Curzon's argument ; the Earl of Rosebery, in ex- 
 tremity, announced his intention of supporting the Government; 
 and the Earl of Selborne, in an impassioned speech, asked. Should 
 they perish in the dark by their own hand, or in the light, killed by 
 their enemies ? 
 
 In intense excitement, the division took place, and the result was 
 for some time uncertain. But the motion " that the House do not 
 insist on the amendment" was carried by 131 to 114, thirty-seven 
 Unionist Peers voting with the Government. 
 
 The Parliament Act of 191 1, in its final form, is given as 
 Extract c?j.] 
 
 Extract yi 
 
 PROPOSALS FOR RESTRICTING THE POWER OF THE 
 HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 (Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Prime Minister and First Lord 
 of the Treasury^ Commons, June 24, 190J) 
 
 Sir H. Campbell- Bannerman ' : I rise to move, " That, in 
 order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their 
 elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other 
 House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so 
 restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single 
 
 1 Parliamentaiy Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 176, col. 909 sqq. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 439 
 
 Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail." In 
 moving this Resolution we are following the notable precedent of 
 the famous Resolutions of 1678 and i860 ; and I hope our method 
 of procedure will commend itself to the House. . . . 
 
 My Motion affirms the predominance of the House of Commons 
 as the representative House of Parliament, and I submit that in 
 spirit and in fact that is a strictly true constitutional proposition. I 
 may claim for it, up to a point, the adhesion of the Party opposite 
 and of the House of Lords itself. The supremacy of the people 
 is admitted in theory even by the House of Lords. It is admitted 
 that the will of the people — -that will upon which the poet tells 
 us our Constitution is broad-based — is in the long run entitled to 
 prevail. It is admitted even by those whose natural leanings and 
 proclivities would lead them to a very restricted order of repre- 
 sentative institutions. To that extent, therefore, we are seemingly 
 at one. How, then, is that will of the people to be got at and 
 ascertained unless you take the view of the elective House as ex- 
 pressing it ? The supremacy of the people in legislation implies, in 
 this country at any rate, the authority of the Commons. The party 
 for which I speak has never swerved from that position, and unless 
 you are going to fall back upon some foreign method, such as the 
 referendum or the mandate or the plebiscite, or some other way of 
 getting behind the backs of the elected to the electors themselves, 
 such as was advised by both the first and third Napoleon — unless 
 that is the example you are going to follow, then there is no course 
 open but to recognise ungrudgingly the authority which resides in 
 this House and to accept the views of the Nation as represented 
 in its great interests within these walls. The Resolution embodies, 
 therefore, a principle the logic of which at any rate is accepted by 
 both Parties and both Houses — the principle of the predominance 
 of the House of Commons. 
 
 But let us be quite clear as to what we mean by predominance, 
 and especially what we mean by the ultimate prevalence of the 
 House of Commons. We do not on this side of the House mean 
 
440 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 an abstract, a deferred supremacy ; that is not what we mean by 
 the supremacy of the House of Commons. We do not mean a 
 supremacy that comes into play after one or two or more appeals 
 to the country, before which a determined resistance of the other 
 House will give way. That is not what we mean by the supremacy 
 of the House of Commons. That arrangement does not in the 
 least fulfil the requirements of the Constitution. Where we differ, 
 therefore, is as to the point at which the authority of this House 
 becomes effective. . . . 
 
 What meaning does the supremacy of the House of Commons 
 convey to the minds of the House of Lords ? In the first place, it is 
 matter of common knowledge that its working varies according to 
 circumstances. When their own Party are in power — that is the 
 Party to .which the vast majority of the Members of the House of 
 Lords belong — they recognise without reservation, they even make 
 what I would almost call indecent haste, to recognise this supremacy. 
 There is never a suggestion that the checks and balances of the 
 Constitution are to be brought into play ; there is never a hint that 
 this House is anything but a clear and faithful mirror of the settled 
 opinions and desires of the country, or that the arm of the execu- 
 tive falls short of being the instrument of the national will. No, 
 Sir ; the other House, in these circumstances, may be said to adopt 
 and act upon the view of the inherent authority of this House, which 
 was expressed by Edmund Burke in these words, " The virtue, spirit, 
 and essence of the House of Commons consists in its being the 
 express image of the nation." I know of no instance under a con- 
 genial regime, that is to say, not in recent times, when the House 
 of Lords seriously challenged the decisions of this House except 
 
 — it is rather comical — in the solitary case of the Deceased Wife's 
 Sister Bill ; on two separate occasions this House has passed this 
 Bill when the Conservatives were in power — a private Bill it was 
 
 — and on both occasions the other House rejected it. It is almost 
 refreshing to come upon this marked action in the revising House. 
 But certainly the supposed characteristic of a single-chamber system 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 44 1 
 
 of Government which prevails in Unionist times has never been 
 broken by any hint or suggestion that the Government and the 
 House of Commons should go to the country and ascertain what 
 the people were thinking. That is a novel innovation. . . . 
 
 . . . Witness the transition that takes place the moment a Lib- 
 eral House of Commons comes into being. A complete change 
 comes over this constitutional doctrine of the supremacy of this 
 Chamber. They rested and reposed on its supremacy during the 
 period that I have been dealing with. Now they challenge it ; and 
 it becomes a deferred supremacy — a supremacy which is to arrive, 
 it may be, at the next election, or the election after that, or may be 
 never at all. Suppose a difference to arise between the two Houses, 
 not the existing House of Commons but some future one is to pre- 
 vail. What is the good of electing us to the House of Commons ? 
 [Ironical Opposition cheers.J What is the good of electing Mem- 
 bers of either side to the House of Commons, if the opinion of 
 the House of Commons is to be of no account ? If the House of 
 Lords knows better than the House of Commons, what is the good 
 of the House of Commons ? I do not know, I never have known, 
 and I have never been able to discover, by what process the 
 House of Lords professes to ascertain whether or not our deci- 
 sions correspond with the sentiments of the electors ; but what I 
 do know is that this House has to submit to carry on its existence 
 in a state of suspense, knowing that our measures are liable to 
 be amended, altered, rejected, and delayed in accordance with the 
 mysterious intuition, almost divination, which enables the Lords to 
 keep in immediate touch with the electors during a Liberal adminis- 
 tration. It is a singular thing, when you come to reflect upon it, 
 that the representative system should only hold good when one 
 Party is in office, and should break down to such an extent as that 
 the non-elective House must be called in to express the mind of 
 the country whenever the country lapses into Liberalism. . . . 
 
 Now I come to another question which we have to ask our- 
 selves, and that is : What is the nature of the authority under 
 
442 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 which the other House, during its intermittent period of activity 
 claims to override and suspend the decisions of this House and to 
 afford it a merely nominal and deferred predominance? What are 
 the grounds on which the Lords intervene ? There is no occasion 
 to go back very far. Before the Reform Act there was really no 
 question of this kind before the country, for this reason : Both 
 Houses were in the habit of working together in the interests of 
 the existing state of society, which was very far from being a dem- 
 ocratic state, and any tendency to independence on the part of the 
 House of Commons was held in check by the fact that there were 
 some 300 votes in this House under control of the Members of 
 the other House. There was, therefore, in these circumstances, 
 no particular occasion for a veto. Nor do I propose to go over 
 subsequent history — a dismal history in this respect, in which 
 beneficent measures were flouted or rejected or mutilated and vio- 
 lent hands laid upon them by the other House. Their actions are 
 all of a piece, and I think we may be quite content to take the 
 most recent instances as a pattern and example of what has been 
 happening ever since the Reform Bill was passed. We take them 
 because we have them fresh in our minds. They happened under 
 our eyes in the present Parliament, which has not had a long life 
 yet. These events, marking as they do, in my opinion, the climax of 
 this long series of rebuffs put upon this House, and through this 
 House upon the electors, embody in themselves in a sufficiently 
 striking manner the claims that are really put forward to stultify 
 the action of the Commons. When you find a general election like 
 the last treated as mere irrelevance, and a House of Commons 
 which returned with an unexampled majority regarded elsewhere 
 as a body devoid of real vitality and vital authority, I say we then 
 have to look upon its claims with a stronger feeling, because they 
 are put forward with a degree of violent aggressiveness which 
 compels us to challenge them. If we are concerned at all with the 
 authority of the House of Commons — and I trust that everyone 
 within these walls is concerned — it is impossible for us to let this 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 443 
 
 pass. I therefore take the actual cases within our own immedi- 
 ate experience as the touchstone of the claims of the other House. 
 The first thing I would point out is that the merits and demerits 
 of the Bills that we deal with are not in question at all. The Edu- 
 cation Bill and the Plural Voting Bill may be thoroughly bad Bills 
 in the estimation of hon. Members opposite and of the right hon. 
 Gentleman at the winding of whose horn the portcullis over the 
 way comes rattling down. If the country shares the view of the 
 right hon. Gentleman, it is not there [The Front Opposition Bench] 
 he would be, but here. But let hon. Gentlemen observe that the 
 other House, when it proceeded, within twelve months of the 
 election, summarily to dispose of these measures of ours, did so, 
 according to its own account, not on their merits, but because it 
 claimed to know the mind of the country. That was the plea that 
 was urged. " Your Education Bill," they said, " does not square 
 with the professions of the people or the desires of the people, 
 and as for your Electoral Reform Bill, it ought to be part of a 
 larger scheme of reform such as the country desires." Of course, 
 they dwelt on the vicious qualities of our poor Bills. So they did 
 in the case of the Trade Disputes Bill, which was an even blacker 
 and more iniquitous Bill than the others. But they passed this Bill, 
 and they rejected the less infamous Bills ; and they were strictly 
 logical in so doing. By that I mean that the reason they gave 
 was an intelligible reason. They professed to be satisfied that a 
 powerful section of opinion demanded the one Bill and they pro- 
 fessed to be unsatisfied that the others were so demanded. They 
 acted on their own judgment. Their whole case rests upon that. 
 And I may add as a subsidiary reason that in the case of the in- 
 famous and iniquitous Bill it was considered desirable to exercise 
 some circumspection. We all remember the words of Lord Lans- 
 downe that they were passing through a period when it was neces- 
 sary for the House of Lords to move with great caution. Conflicts 
 and controversies might be inevitable. Let their Lordships, as far 
 as they were able, be sure that if they were to join issue they did 
 
444 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 so on ground which was as favourable as possible to themselves — 
 not to the country — in the interests of good and sound legislation. 
 In this case he believed the ground would be unfavourable to the 
 House. So they passed that most iniquitous and dangerous and 
 disastrous Bill. They made friends with the mammon of unright- 
 eousness with a view to maintaining themselves in their own hab- 
 itation. Therefore, in addition to this intermittent action we have 
 to take note of this further singular fact that the powers of that 
 House are avowedly exercised without reference to the merits of 
 what is sent up to it, and on the ground that we, who are the rep- 
 resentatives of the people as the result of all our elaborate electoral 
 machinery, are incapable of speaking and acting on their behalf. 
 
 Such a claim will not stand a moment's investigation. The Con- 
 stitution knows nothing of this doctrine of the special mandate, 
 nothing whatever. It is an invention apparently of the Lords, de- 
 signed to afford them some kind of shelter behind which they may 
 get rid of the Bills they dislike. Now, I am anxious to make this 
 matter clear, because it is important to my proposition — namely, 
 that the relations of the Houses call for definition; and if the 
 action of the House of Lords is based on assumptions which are 
 fatal to a true representative system, then the question of how 
 far they are entitled to push such action surely requires serious 
 consideration. If this House was elected on a mandate for this 
 or a mandate for that, or a mandate for the other, I could under- 
 stand, even if I did not approve of, the process of sifting and try- 
 ing our decisions in order to see whether they corresponded with 
 what passed at the elections. In its absence such a claim becomes 
 grotesque. Yet how seriously is it urged. We are invited to go to 
 the country ad hoc to test whether the other House or this House 
 is right whenever we come to a deadlock. We have not been 
 elected on any such system as that. We were elected to carry 
 out certain broad principles, and yet, forsooth, we are to go back, 
 and be re-elected on Bills and on sections of Bills and subsections 
 of Bills if we are to convince the other House. I shall have a- 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 44S 
 
 word to say directly on this demand for a dissolution, but I want 
 first to say how glad I am to be able to claim the right hon. Gen- 
 deman opposite as a sworn foe of the doctrine of the mandate. 
 He has described it as fundamentally essentially a vicious theory. 
 " You could not work Parliamentary institutions," he says, '" on 
 that principle at all." [Opposition cheers.] Yes, but it is on that 
 very principle that the House of Lords are working. Why has the 
 right hon. Gentleman not warned the House of Lords that they 
 are pursuing a course under which, as he says. Parliamentary 
 institutions cannot be worked at all, and that they are seeking 
 to inveigle us into an unconstitutional and vicious system ? It is 
 strange that when they challenge us because we have not got a 
 mandate for this, or that we have misread a mandate for that, or 
 that we must go to the country for a mandate for the other thing, 
 the right hon. Gentleman sits quietly and allows them to flounder 
 in the morass. . . . 
 
 Now I come to the outline of the plan which the Government 
 propose. It is proposed that, if a Bill is sent up to the other 
 House, and in the result the two Houses find agreement impos- 
 sible, a Conference shall be held between Members appointed in 
 equal numbers by the two Houses. The conference will be of 
 small dimensions. Its proceedings will be private, and its objects 
 will be to enable each Party to negotiate and to seek for a com- 
 mon measure of agreement which the Government might find 
 itself able to adopt. There is nothing novel in this proposal, be- 
 cause the two Houses formerly did meet in conference ; but there 
 were certain inconveniences in the procedure, and, whether it was 
 due to the fact that the Commons were expected to go into the 
 other House bareheaded and to remain standing, or whether it was 
 due to the obvious practical difficulties of arriving at any decision 
 at a joint meeting carried on by a large number of persons in this 
 singular manner, no Conference has been held since 1836. Infor- 
 mal conferences between members of the Government and Oppo- 
 sition in the two- Houses have, of course, not infrequently been 
 
446 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 held since that date, and sometimes good results have followed. 
 But what the Government proposes is that statutory provision 
 should be made for such meetings in the event of disagreement, 
 and that the Conference should occupy a definite place in the 
 transactions between the two Houses. Supposing, then, the Con- 
 ference to be unproductive. The Bill — either the same Bill, with 
 or without modifications, or a similar Bill with the same object — 
 might at the discretion of the Government be reintroduced after 
 a substantial interval ; and by a substantial interval I have in my 
 mind a minimum of perhaps six months, unless in cases of great 
 urgency. This Bill would be passed through its various stages in 
 the House of Commons under limitations of time — limitations 
 of time adapted to the requirements of the case — discussion be- 
 ing restricted, so far as possible, to the new matter, if any, intro- 
 duced. The Bill would then be sent up again, so that the other 
 House would have a second and ample opportunity of considering 
 it. If there was still a difference between the two Houses, a 
 Conference might again be summoned. Supposing this time an 
 arrangement again failed, this second BiU would be reintroduced 
 and passed swiftly through all its stages in this House in the 
 form last agreed to and sent to the other House with arr inti- 
 mation that unless passed in that form it would be passed over 
 their heads. Yet again there would be a Conference, and a 
 further effort to agree. Now the House will see that the plan 
 which I have sketched gives ample — some will think too ample 
 — opportunities for discussion and reflection, and that it pro- 
 vides full room in the intervals for consideration by the countr)'. 
 And we are convinced that it leaves no opening for hasty or 
 arbitrary action. . . . 
 
 Here is a most important point. It may be said that it will be 
 in the power of an effete Government in the last years of an effete 
 Parliament, when the sentiment of the countiy may have become 
 cold, or, at least, uncertain, to carry things with a high hand, and 
 in such circumstances any amount of deliberation and consultation 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 447 
 
 would fail to prevent rash and arbitrary measures being taken. 
 It is quite true, Sir, that we have known cases where an effete Gov- 
 ernment, trading on the initial strength it had lost, has dragged 
 out an undesirable existence amid the flickering activity which we 
 associate with the exhausted candle. But no one can say that 
 that is a favourable moment for legislation. Therefore, I have to 
 state that we are strongly of opinion that the way to guard against 
 such an evil is the very simple way of shortening the duration of 
 Parliament. 
 
 This reform can be justified on other and broader grounds. 
 But I am here speaking of it only in face of this particular matter 
 with which my Resolution deals ; and we consider that the un- 
 doubted danger that the House of Commons, with the increased 
 power which we claim for it, might for some years of its life have 
 its genuine representative character impaired, can be best guarded 
 against by a more frequent reference to the electorate. This is, as 
 is known, no new proposal. Most of us on this Bench have voted 
 for quinquennial Parliaments, and we believe that the reduction of 
 the period of Parliamentary existence to five years will add vigour, 
 freshness, and life to our Parliamentary system. 
 
 There are, indeed, very vague, and, I think, not very well- 
 informed proposals for a foreign institution, called a referendum, 
 whereby a particular Bill can be submitted to a special vote on the 
 part of the electors of the country. I see the strongest objections 
 to any such proposal. The necessary isolation of the subject from 
 the whole range of political feeling is well-nigh impossible ; it is in- 
 consistent with, and, in my opinion, destructive of. Parliamentary 
 government as we understand it ; and it has the peculiarity that 
 you would be introducing a new element into our Constitution 
 which would never come into play while one order of things was 
 represented in the Government, but when Liberals were in a ma- 
 jority would be employed for the purpose of flouting and defeating 
 the Government of the day, the majority in the House of Com- 
 mons, and the electorate itself. 
 
448 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Let me point out that the plan which I have sketched to the 
 House does not in the least preclude or prejudice any proposals 
 which may be made for the reform of the House of Lords itself. 
 The constitution and composition of the House of Lords is a ques- 
 tion entirely independent of my subject. My Resolution has nothing 
 to do with the relations of the two Houses to the Crown, but only 
 with the relations of the two Houses one to the other. At present 
 we are face to face, as I have shown, with the ultimate supremacy 
 of the House of Lords. I see that this is the theory almost nakedly 
 put forward by some of those gentlemen in the Press who are good 
 enough to tell us what we ought to do. They evidently have in 
 their minds as a model some of those Continental States whose 
 system is essentially and fundamentally autocratic, but in which the 
 autocracy ornaments and supplements itself with a representative 
 body, useful for occupying public attention and for hammering out 
 the details of legislation, but bearing much the same relation that 
 the kitchenmaid bears to the cook. The House orLords, according 
 to this theory, is to be the cook. Sir, the House of Commons is 
 spoken of by these instructors of the public in language of formal, 
 guarded, traditional respect, but is treated as a wayward, impulsive 
 body allowed to do useful work and on occasion to have its fling, 
 but to be pulled up by the House of Lords as soon as it ventures 
 upon the pet prejudices and interests of that which used to be the 
 ruling class in this kingdom. Sir, we have not so learned our exist- 
 ing Constitution. We have perfect confidence in the good feeling, 
 the good sense, the wisdom, the righteousness, and the patriotism 
 of our country. We need no shelter against them ; and, therefore, 
 we would invert the roles thus assigned to the two Houses. Let the 
 country have the fullest use on all matters of the experience, wis- 
 dom, and patriotic industry of the House of Lords in revising and 
 amending and securing full consideration for legislative measures ; 
 but, and these words sum up our whole policy, the Commons shall 
 prevail. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 449 
 
 Extract ^2 
 
 DEFENCE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 (Mr. Arthur J. Balfour, Commons, June 34, igof) 
 
 Mr. Balfour ^ : The very last words that fell from the mouth 
 of the right hon. Gentleman indicate sufficiently the difference which 
 lies between us. His contention, expressed with considerable reit- 
 eration in the course of his speech, is that any House of Commons, 
 elected at any particular date, is competent within the term of its 
 own existence to deal with the whole interests of the State and 
 modify them completely, without further reference to the people 
 who gave it birth. He lays it down categorically in the last sentence 
 he uttered that it is the House of Commons alone whose rights and 
 privileges we have to consider. I venture to consider that we might 
 occasionally think of the people. The real and only problem which 
 ought to be before the minds of those who are engaged in dealing 
 with the Constitution of a free country is how the continuous will 
 of the people — the interests of the existing generation and the in- 
 terests of generations to come — can be best considered. And it is 
 to that problem alone that I shall endeavour to direct the attention 
 of the House to-day in the few observations I have to make upon 
 the right ten. Gentleman's proposals. . . . 
 
 I do not at all deny that this House is the predominant partner. 
 By the practice of the Constitution it undoubtedly is so. But just 
 see how great are the powers that this House possesses which the 
 other House neither possesses nor makes any claim to. We must 
 always remember that the most important decision the country 
 makes at the election is who shall control the administrative machin- 
 ery and the general policy of the country. That decision the House 
 of Lords neither claims to touch, nor can touch. The Government 
 of the day, the House of Commons of the day, would treat with 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 176, col. 926 sqq. 
 
4SO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 derision any vote passed by the House of Lords condemning a 
 particular Ministry or a particular member of a Ministry. They 
 would not suggest for a moment that such a vote carried with it 
 either the resignation of the Government or the Minister, or a dis- 
 solution, or any consequence whatever except a mere statement of 
 opinion on the part of their Lordships that they disapproved of a 
 Ministry to whom this House gave its confidence. That, after all, is 
 the greatest of the powers which this House possesses. We can put 
 an end to a Government ; we can bring a Government into being ; 
 we can destroy the career of a Minister ; and we can pass a vote 
 of censure which carries with it an immediate resignation. We have 
 our hand upon the administrative machine to this extent at all events 
 — that we cannot prevent a Government doing that of which we 
 disapprove ; we can afterwards punish it for having done so. 
 
 It is true that the Administration is in many particulars far out 
 of the reach of the House of Commons, and ought to be. The 
 House of Commons cannot make a treaty ; it cannot prevent the 
 Government making a treaty ; if it could, would the New Hebrides 
 Convention ever have been made ? It cannot prevent the Govern- 
 ment making war ; it cannot prevent the Government making peace 
 or exercising any one of these great administrative responsibilities. 
 All it can do is afterwards to pass some condemnation upon the 
 Government. In passing that condemnation it takes into account 
 not merely the particular executive transaction, but whether upon 
 the whole it desires to see the Government retained in office or 
 not ; and the House of Commons will constantly condone actions 
 of which it disapproves simply because it does not wish to dis- 
 possess the Government of office. In that sense the Government 
 always possesses the confidence of the House of Commons. . . . 
 
 We all being agreed that the House of Lords under our existing 
 system occupies a very subordinate position, the question is whether 
 that position, subordinate as it is now, shall be made yet more sub- 
 ordinate by the House of Lords being deprived altogether of the 
 power of preventing a particular House of Commons, elected at 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 451 
 
 some particular conjuncture, from doing everything it wishes, not 
 merely in the sphere of administration, where you must leave it to 
 the Government of the day for good or for ill, but doing whatever 
 it likes in the sphere of legislation, where you may in one day, or at 
 all events in a few weeks, upset institutions which have taken cen- 
 turies to rear and which once destroyed can never be replaced. . . . 
 
 I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he thinks this is a 
 very undemocratic way of looking at the matter. What is a demo- 
 cratic way of looking at it ? I \inderstand the democratic theory 
 of Government to be that those who are concerned with the deci- 
 sion should be the people who make it ; and as far as that can be 
 attained, I, at all events, desire to see it attained. But who is con- 
 cerned with the decision which we make when a great constitutional 
 issue is involved ? Is it the particular Parliament ? Are the par- 
 ticular male adults in a given year who have got the given qualifica- 
 tions the only people whose interests are concerned ? Those adult 
 males are, in the first place, the heirs, and, in the second place, 
 trustees of many centuries ; and it is preposterous to say that we 
 should so frame our Constitution that the holders of power for the 
 moment should be regarded as in every respect the irresponsible 
 managers, not only of their own affairs for the moment, but of the 
 affairs of their country for all time. Because, remember, there are 
 many things which can be done which are irreversible when you 
 are dealing with great growths in the region of politics ; just as 
 when you are dealing with them in the region of nature you cannot 
 replace that which you destroy. You may pull down a building and 
 erect another exactly like it ; you cannot cut down a tree and say, 
 " To-morrow I will have another tree in its place.'' So it is with 
 an institution. You are absolutely bound to see that no hasty de- 
 cision shall upset in one reckless hour interests which have been 
 slowly and painfully built up by our predecessors, and which our 
 successors never can replace. 
 
 Therefore, I say, you must in this country do what every other 
 country has done, what some other countries have done with 
 
452 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 over-caution and over-care, — see that there is some permanence 
 and continuity in your institutions. I am no favourer of perpetual 
 entails, I do not wish to see the institutions of this country in any 
 particular stereotyped and perpetuated for all time, made absolutely 
 petrified and immovable, as, for instance, the institutions of the 
 American Commonwealth are, or almost are, under the peculiar 
 regulations of their Constitution. But while I do not wish to imitate 
 the immovable conservatism of the republican institutions of Amer- 
 ica, I think we should be perfectly insane — setting aside not only 
 the lessons of our own history, but of every other history — if we 
 did not so arrange our Constitution that when the people decide 
 upon a change it shall be after the most mature consideration, after 
 the thing has been weighed and looked at from all sides, and after 
 it has been considered in isolation from all those perturbing con- 
 siderations which operate at a moment. It is folly to call that 
 anti-democratic ; on the contrary, it is democracy properly under- 
 stood. It is government of the people by the people — [An Hon. 
 Member : For the people ?] — and for the people. Not by the 
 people for the people living under one Parliamenf, be it of seven 
 or five years' duration, but by the people for the people for genera- 
 tions. If the interests we had to deal with were the interests.of a 
 particular set of electors at a particular time, let them manage or 
 mismanage their own affairs as they please ; but let us take care 
 that as interests far beyond their own immediate and personal in- 
 terests are confided to them, they should exercise the great duties 
 thrown on them with full responsibility and full knowledge after 
 mature reflection. Let us not hand over, as the right hon. Gentle- 
 man proposes to hand over, to a House of Commons elected, it may 
 be in some moment of passion, like 1900 — [Ministerial cheers] — 
 like 1906, the eternal and perpetual interests of the country. . . . 
 I wish the right hon. Gentleman had given us more details in 
 regard to the disasters which have followed from the present state 
 of things. He skipped lightly from the beginning of time to the 
 first Reform Bill, and still more lightly from the first Reform Bill 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 45 3 
 
 to last year ; but in this agile procedure he never made any refer- 
 ence to the greatest attempt at constitutional change which has 
 been made in our time. That, of course, was Mr. Gladstone's 
 attempt to establish Home Rule in 1886 and 1893. Home Rule 
 may be right or wrong. I am not going to argue that question. 
 But it would be a very great constitutional change. It would fun- 
 damentally alter the relations between Great Britain and Ireland ; 
 and even those who believe in it most firmly, and who look forward 
 to it with the most sanguine confidence, must admit that it would 
 carry in its train a whole series of consequences, which it is quite 
 impossible for any prophet, however endowed, adequately to foresee. 
 Caution, therefore, is eminently required in making such a change 
 as this. Our existing institutions have not prevented Home Rule. 
 Home Rule may come. But they have insured that Home Rule 
 shall not, at all events, be carried in the way which the right hon. 
 Gentleman wants to carry everything in future. If ever there was 
 a decision of the country upon Home Rule, surely that decision 
 was taken, first in 1886, and secondly in 1895. The decision may 
 have been wrong, but that decision in 1895 absolutely reversed the 
 decision which the House of Commons had come to in 1886 and 
 1893 respectively. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : The Home Rule Bill of 1886 did not 
 pass the Commons. 
 
 Mr. Balfour : It was adopted by the Government of the day 
 dependent upon the House of Commons. That is quite as good 
 for the purpose of my argument. But if you quarrel with the in- 
 stance of 1886, let us confine our attention to 1893. The election 
 which followed in 1895 showed that the people, perhaps mistakenly, 
 — I am not arguing that, — were not in favour of Home Rule. 
 Now, let us examine how Home Rule would have worked under 
 the right hon. Gentleman's plan. He says he is going to introduce 
 quinquennial Parliaments, and thinks by that means the House of 
 Commons will never be out of touch with the people. But the 
 House of Commons which was dissolved in 1895 only lasted for 
 
454 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 three years. It therefore fell far short of the quinquennial term, 
 upon which the right hon. Gentleman relies for this perpetual co- 
 ordination between the views of the House of Commons and the 
 views of the people. And yet the people stated as decisively as 
 they could that the House of Lords had properly exercised in the 
 greatest of all cases the functions entrusted to it by the Consti- 
 tution. Had the right hon. Gentleman's so-called reform been in 
 existence in 1893, Home Rule, I presume, would now be law — 
 perhaps to the benefit of the community, but certainly against the 
 will of the people. Is it possible, with that instance fresh in our 
 memories, to say that this change, whatever its other merits may 
 be, is intended, in the words of the Resolution, to "give effect 
 to the will of the people ? " If those who framed this Resolution 
 had in their minds recent history in which they themselves were 
 personally engaged, this Resolution is hypocritical on the face of 
 it. It is intended not to carry out the will of the people, but the 
 will of the House of Commons of the moment. Am I not, then, 
 justified in repeating the words with which I began my speech, that 
 the right hon. Gentleman when he talks about the people is think- 
 ing rather of the House of Commons, and that it is our business 
 to think rather of the people than the House of Commons ? 
 
 But this does not exhaust my criticism of the right hon. Gentle- 
 man's motives. He has no claim, or even the pretence of a claim, 
 to be carrying out the will of the people by this Resolution. It is 
 his own will that he wants to carry out. I think the facts go fur- 
 ther than that. The right hon. Gentleman belongs to the school 
 of Radicalism, which holds as inveterate superstition and prejudice 
 that the one object you should always be driving at is not to bring 
 in good legislation, but to alter the legislative machinery. Social 
 legislation appears in their speeches, but it never appears anywhere 
 else. . . . They have not desired to bring in Bills which were so 
 good that nobody could quarrel with them, but Bills so bad that 
 no Assembly left to free discussion could reconcile itself to passing 
 them unamended. That makes legislation extremely easy; and 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 455 
 
 it makes quarrelling with the House of Lords still ihore easy. 
 But easy as that policy seems, much as it saves any undue waste 
 of brain tissue on the part of the Ministers, I see no signs that it 
 is carrying great favour in the country. I think the people see 
 through this transparency. Many of them, I dare say, voted for 
 right hon. Gentiemen opposite in the mistaken view that it was 
 in the power of this Government or, indeed, of any Government, 
 to carry certain schemes, or at all events to attain to certain 
 objects which they had much at heart. Right hon. Gentlemen 
 opposite gave them to understand that they had panaceas for all 
 those evils if they came to office ; but when they had to turn those 
 panaceas from perorations into Bills they found it extremely diffi- 
 cult, if not in some cases impossible. Under these circumstances, 
 it was far easier for the Government to try to quarrel with the 
 House of Lords, to say to the people, " Oh, if you only knew 
 what wonderful schemes we have in our heads, what admirable 
 measures we have in our pigeon-holes ! But there is the House 
 of Lords, which will certainly reject them if we send them up." 
 Great is their disappointment, almost unaffected, when the House 
 of Lords passes a measure — not, indeed, the result of the brains 
 of the Government, but the result of the Labour representatives 
 — when the House of Lords, instead of doing what they were 
 intended to do, does the opposite, then the right hon. Gentleman 
 cannot control himself. Their flagitious, unscrupulous opportunism 
 moves his wrath and arouses his indignation, and for the simple 
 reason that the right hon. Gentleman's Bills, as I have said, were 
 never brought in to pass, but to be rejected. [" Oh, oh."] And I 
 think they were so drafted that there was great difficulty in some 
 cases in not rejecting the Bills. I venture to suggest to the House 
 that that is not the way to prepare a road for a great constitutional 
 change. You ought not, if you find yourself impotent in construc- 
 tive legislation, to turn round and try to curry favour with what 
 you call the democracy by pulling down a portion of the Constitu- 
 tion. . . . Sir, the whole thing is insincere from beginning to end. 
 
456 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 The right hon. Gentleman is treating the Constitution of which he 
 ought to be the guardian as a plaything of the moment, as a mere 
 political expedient, as a means for electrifying and revivifying, if 
 he can, the waning popularity of himself and his colleagues. It 
 will serve no useful end ; and even that relatively contemptible 
 object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view will not, in my 
 judgment, be fulfilled, as time will show when next he goes to that 
 people in whose name he affects to speak in this Resolution, and 
 whose confidence, if not already lost, he is losing every day. 
 
 Extract yj 
 
 THE UNDEMOCRATIC CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE OF 
 LORDS 
 
 {Mr. D. Shackleton, Commons, June 24, igof) 
 
 Mr. Shackleton ■':... We have been told that we are wast- 
 ing our time to-day. Some of us on these Benches have thought 
 that for a long time. We feel that so far as the country is con- 
 cerned the sooner it does devote a little time to attempting to 
 remove this terrible obstacle to all improvement in the condition 
 of the people the better. It may have the effect of putting off 
 other legislation for the time being, but it may make legislation 
 quicker in the future. We are not now considering the question 
 of a Single Chamber as against two Chambers, but whether we 
 are to go on forever with an hereditary Chamber. 
 
 Even the Leader of the Opposition has not attempted to defend 
 the hereditary principle. I listened most carefully to all his refer- 
 ences to the House of Lords, and he did not utter one single 
 sentence in favour of that principle. The question is whether an 
 hereditary and non-representative House shall be perpetual in this 
 country. That is the situation we have got to face. I take no other 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 176, col. 941 sqq. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS' 457 
 
 text for my remarks than the words of the Leader of the Opposi- 
 tion, who said on November 28, " I do not for one moment be- 
 lieve that the Lords, in the exercise of the high functions entrusted 
 to them by the Constitution, will waver in their duty. Their duty 
 is not to thwart the will of the nation, but to see that its will is 
 really and truly carried out." The House of Lords has no right 
 to decide what is the will of the people. Can it be said that a non- 
 representative body, composed entirely of gentlemen drawn from 
 one class, is a proper body to decide what is the will of the people 
 of this country ? What are we here for ? If we do not represent 
 the will of the people, it is time we came to some understanding 
 as to what we do represent. But a mere assertion of that kind is 
 not sufficient. That argument has gone forever, and a determined 
 House and a determined people will refuse to allow a non-repre- 
 sentative body drawn entirely from one class to decide what is 
 the will of the people. 
 
 In the early days there were struggles between this House and 
 the other; I read the other day that in 1648 a debate took place 
 as to whether Black Rod should be the supreme person. Black 
 Rod had ordered certain people to be arrested, and in the end 
 King Charles dissolved Parliament and took away from the House 
 of Commons the right to have anybody put into prison. And what 
 did the House of Commons decide ? That " The House of Peers 
 is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished." That is the 
 view to-day of the hon. Members who are sitting beside me, and 
 they believe that the Government would have done better if they 
 had proceeded on those lines. 
 
 During the last hundred years the pages of our history are full 
 of their actions against the people. In 1807 they started by throw- 
 ing out a Bill appointing a Committee of Council for Education. 
 During the last century Bills for the benefit of the people were 
 stopped and delayed. Question after question, such as Parliamen- 
 tary Reform, land reform, the Roman Catholic position, religious 
 equality, municipal and educational reform, and legal, social, and 
 
4^8 b'ritish social politics 
 
 industrial measures might be quoted in which the House of Lords 
 prevented the will of the people being carried into effect. Surely 
 it is time that those who represent the people should challenge the 
 right of the House of Lords to force the people to the verge of a 
 revolution before giving way. . . . 
 
 Hasty legislation has been referred to. Is there ever any hasty 
 legislation of a progressive character? There may be some of a 
 retrograde character. What reform have we to-day that has not 
 been talked about for years and generations before it has been 
 embodied in an Act of Parliament ? There is no chance in this 
 country of hasty legislation, for all proposed reforms are subjected 
 to long discussion in public before we hear of them in the shape 
 of legislative measures. Illustrations could be given of cases in 
 which the other House has delayed the changes in the law which 
 the people desired. No better illustration could be given than that 
 which took place between 1833 and 1857 in regard to Jewish 
 emancipation. Majorities in this House on seven occasions were 
 in favour of that reform, but the House of Lords refused to pass 
 it. In the end, in 1858, the other House passed the Bill which 
 conferred political freedom and equality on that class of our 
 countrymen. . . . 
 
 The hereditary principle is indefensible from every point of view 
 of public policy. The fact that it is not defended is its best and 
 greatest condemnation. If it is good, why not apply it to other 
 governing bodies and the various forms of business ? Why should 
 Parliament be the only place where the hereditary principle is 
 applied ? How often have we heard business men whom we have 
 known refer in sorrow to the inclinations of their sons ? The big 
 businesses set up by the fathers have been lost under the manage- 
 ment of the sons. Is that not so in regard to Parliamentary affairs 
 as well as anything else ? Surely the time has come when the right 
 to govern by birth should be abolished in this country. A caustic 
 writer puts it in this way, " We allow babies to be earmarked in 
 their cradles as future law-makers, utterly regardless as to whether 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 459 
 
 they turn out to be statesmen, or fools, or rogues." That is exactly 
 the situation put in blunt language. . . . 
 
 I am old enough to remember that on a previous occasion I had 
 the honour, along with my hon. friend the Member for Sowerby 
 Bridge, to carry a banner in 1884 in a campaign against tlje House 
 of Lords. We were in earnest then, and we are doubly in earnest 
 now, and I trust that whatever else may be said the taunt of the 
 right hon. Gentleman will not hold true that His Majesty's present 
 advisers are simply using this as a red herring. I trust that they 
 mean serious business. The recollections of 1884 are not very 
 pleasant to some of us. There was a great opportunity then, and 
 the country was ripe for legislation in regard to the House of Lords. 
 I believe that in 1893 the mistake that was made was that there 
 was too much made of " mending " and too little about " ending " 
 the House of Lords. I know the opinion of workingmen fairly well, 
 and I am confident that they are not in favour of any truckling 
 or mending. What they are in favour of is an ending process, 
 judging from the expressions of opinion given at conferences and 
 other congregations of men. They are not in favour of any mending 
 because they believe that would mean that the Lords would have 
 greater power to interfere with measures sent to them from this 
 House. If there is to be a revising Chamber, let it be on different 
 principles altogether from the present House of Lords. I hope, 
 therefore, we in this House shall determine to put our shoulders 
 to the wheel in this matter. . . . 
 
 But in regard to the propositions which have been put before 
 the House by the Prime Minister, let me say this — I think them 
 far too generous. It appears to me that once a measure is rejected, 
 if it goes a second time that ought to be sufficient. Why take up 
 the time of the House in sending it back to the Lords a third time 
 when you have the people behind you, and when you are certain 
 that your decisions are those of the country ? That is the only 
 criticism I make at the present time. I think if the House of Lords 
 gets two opportunities of considering a Bill that should be enough. 
 
460 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 7^ 
 
 DEFENCE OF TWO-CHAMBER GOVERNMENT 
 {Sir William Anson, Oxford University, Commons, June 24, igof) 
 
 Sir William Anson ^ : . . . You are practically proposing to 
 make this a Single-Chamber Constitution. Are we in accord with 
 the general experience in accepting a Constitution of that kind ? I 
 will venture to say that there is no civihsed government which has 
 not secured itself in some way or other from rash or hasty legisla- 
 tion by the popular Assembly, either by a written Constitution, or 
 by a referendum, or by a Second Chamber — by one of these three 
 methods which are universally employed for protection against this 
 undoubted risk. The object of a Second Chamber, as stated by an 
 eminent Colonial authority is, to delay great changes until the will 
 of the people has been permanently and conclusively ascertained. 
 We are not singular in retaining this precaution ; we are rather 
 singular in having so little precaution against violent and revolu- 
 tionary changes. 
 
 May I refer to other democracies and republics ? Turn to the 
 United States, and note the precaution taken against legislation 
 which runs counter to the will of the people. The Federal Govern- 
 ment is based on a written constitution and on two legislative 
 Chambers, whose powers of law-making are defined and expressly 
 limited by the constitution, and a change in the constitution can 
 only be effected by something in the nature of a referendum. Not 
 only that, but every State has a written constitution, and although 
 the legislative powers of those States are unlimited, except in so far 
 as the federal constitution prescribes, I may say that the tendency 
 of the constitution is to add to the number of subjects which are 
 excluded from the general legislative powers of the State, and in 
 which the constitution requires that there should be a referendum 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 176, col. 998 sqq. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 461 
 
 to the people of the country. And not only that, but every State 
 has two Chambers. Mr. Bryce, one of the chief authorities on this 
 subject, says, " The need of two Chambers has become an axiom 
 of political science, based on the belief that the innate tendency of 
 an Assembly to become hasty, tyrannical, or corrupt, can only be 
 checked by the co-existence of another House of equal authority." 
 He further states that " the only States that have ever tried to 
 do with one House are Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Vermont, each 
 of which gave up the system, one after four years, the other after 
 twelve years, and the third after fifty years.'' 
 
 Turn to the constitution of the French Republic. There you 
 have a Senate and a Chamber of Representatives co-ordinate in 
 respect of legislative power, except that the Senate has no initiative 
 in matters of finance. The power of demanding a dissolution of 
 the Chamber does not rest with the Prime Minister, but with the 
 President acting with the consent of the Senate. And the Senate, 
 according to a recent authority, does very valuable work in correct- 
 ing the over-hasty legislation of the Chamber, and, in case of dis- 
 agreement, often has its own way, or effects a compromise. 
 
 Lastly, I take the Australian Commonwealth. I think that the 
 democratic character of the Australian Colonies can hardly be 
 called in question. But there is a difference in the two Chambers 
 of the Australian Commonwealth. The procedure is as follows : 
 The House of Representatives passes a proposed law, and if the 
 Senate rejects or amends it in any way to which the House of 
 Representatives cannot agree, the Bill drops for the time. It comes 
 up again after three months, and if the Senate still disagrees, the 
 Governor may dissolve both Houses. If afterwards the same dif- 
 ference arises, and the disagreement still goes on, then the two 
 Houses sit together and the opinion of the majority of the whole, 
 number prevails. 
 
 There you have three great modem democracies, each of which 
 guards itself against such legislation as might well be effected by 
 this House of Commons, if it received the unlimited powers which 
 
462 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 are proposed to be given to it by the Prime Minister. I venture to 
 think that there is nothing pedantic in looking at the actions, the 
 law, and the practice of other constitutions as democratic as our 
 own. If these safeguards are necessary for them, they are neces- 
 sary for us. If they cannot trust a single Chamber, we may learn 
 from them how to guard against the possibilities of a House of 
 Commons whose powers were limitless. 
 
 But setting aside those examples, if we look simply at the pro- 
 posals of the Prime Minister, these two questions arise. What are 
 the faults of the House of Lords that they should be superseded 
 and set aside in this way, and what is the claim of the House of 
 Commons to arrogate to itself this unbounded legislative power? 
 Now, I am perfectly ready to admit that the House of Lords has 
 its faults as a Second Chamber ; but it was never constructed to 
 discharge the purposes of a Second Chamber in the modem sense ; 
 it is, historically, the estate of the baronage, a co-ordinate estate of 
 the realm with the House of Commons. It has become a Second 
 Chamber, I admit, and to my mind discharges extremely well 
 many of the duties of a Second Chamber. I admit that it is too 
 large, that it contains too many men who take no active part in 
 politics, and that, like every Second Chamber that can be devised, 
 it is conservative in its tendencies, because the very object of the 
 existence of a Second Chamber is to preserve the nation from the 
 over-hasty legislation of the other House. But I will undertake to 
 say that the House of Lords has never crossed the will of the 
 people where that will has been clearly expressed. Take any in- 
 stance since the Reform Act of 1832, which you may say is the 
 beginning of our modem constitution. Take cases in which it was 
 extremely possible that a majority of the House of Lords were not 
 wholly in accord with the legislation that was passed. Take the 
 disestablishment of the Irish Church, the Irish land legislation of 
 Mr. Gladstone, the changes in the franchise of 1884-1885, or the 
 Trade Disputes Bill of last year. On every one of these measures 
 the country had clearly expressed its opinion. . . , 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 463 
 
 Why do you not take the measures which are open to you to 
 ascertain the will of the people? The Under-Secretary for the 
 Colonies [Mr. Winston Churchill] wrote an article in the Nation 
 in which he expressed his view as to the constitution of a Sec- 
 ond Chamber, and his view is not the view of the Prime Minister. 
 The Under-Secretary thinks that the Ministry should constitute a 
 Second Chamber to suit their own purposes at the commencement 
 of every Parliament, for he wrote : 
 
 Since the political supremacy of the House of Commons must be the 
 vital characteristic of any Liberal scheme, we musfreject with regret, but 
 with decision, all proposals for enabling the House of Lords to force every 
 Liberal measure to the test of a referendum. Such a provision would be 
 contrary to the whole spirit of the British Constitution. 
 
 The Under-Secretary for the Colonies maintains that the refer- 
 endum is contrary to the spirit of the British Constitution. There 
 is a curiously undemocratic ring about that. I thought the Party 
 opposite were going to breathe a new spirit into the Constitution, 
 but it seems that while we may abolish the House of Lords with- 
 out reference to the people, yet that to consult the people on any 
 great legislative measure on which their opinion is not ascertained 
 is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. I urge hon. Members 
 opposite not to disguise the full effect of what is being proposed. 
 The proposition is this — that when the House of Commons is 
 once elected it shall do as it likes and that the people shall be 
 powerless. You say to the people, " When you have once elected 
 us the virtue is gone out of you ; for five years we are your mas- 
 ters ; at the end of that time you may enjoy a brief opportunity 
 of expressing a will of your own." 
 
 I doubt whether the country desires this great change, and I feel 
 sure that when the matter is clearly placed before them they will 
 express a very decided opinion upon it. If the Lords have trav- 
 ersed the will of the people, and resisted reasonable suggestions for 
 a reform of that Chamber, then you may appeal to the country on 
 those grounds. But what you are asking us to do is to forego the 
 
464 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 safeguards which all the democracies in the world have found to 
 be necessary ; and to have nothing between the will of the House 
 of Commons and the veto of the Crown. Put this question plainly 
 to the country ; you will get a clear answer, and I have no doubt 
 as to what the answer will be. 
 
 ■Extract 75 
 
 THE ISSUE BETWEEN THE HOUSES AND THE PARTIES 
 
 (Mr. Winston Churchill, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, 
 Commons, fune 2j, igof) 
 
 Mr. Churchill ^ : . . . We are only at the beginning of this 
 struggle. We are not necessarily committed to every detail of 
 the proposal ; we are opening the first lines for a great siege, we 
 have to sap up to the advanced parallels, to establish our batteries, 
 and at no distant date open our bombardment. It may be many 
 months before we shall be able to discern where there is a prac- 
 ticable breach, but the assault will come in due time. 
 
 The right hon. Gentleman opposite said he welcomed this con- 
 test with great confidence. I wonder if hon. Members opposite 
 realise, to use an expressive vulgarism, what they are " letting 
 themselves in for " when this question comes to be fought out on 
 every platform in every constituency in the country. They will 
 not have to defend an ideal Second Chamber; they will not be 
 able to confine themselves to airy generalities about a bi-cameral 
 system and its advantages ; they will have to defend this Second 
 Chamber as it is — one-sided, hereditary, unpurged, unrepresenta- 
 tive, irresponsible, absentee. They will have to defend it with all 
 its anomalies, all its absurdities, and all its personal bias ; they will 
 have to defend it with all its achievements that have darkened the 
 pages of the history of England. And let me say that considerable 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 176, col. 1243 sqq. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 465 
 
 constitutional authorities have not considered that the policy on 
 which we have embarked in moving this Resolution is unreason- 
 able. Mr. Bagehot says of the House of Lords : " It may lose its 
 veto as the Crown has lost its veto. If most of its members neglect 
 their duties, if all its members continue to be of one class, and that 
 not quite the best ; if its doors are shut against genius that carmot 
 found a family, and ability which has not ;^Sooo a year, its power 
 will be less year by year, and at last be gone, as so much kingly 
 power is gone — no one knows how." . . . 
 
 Has the House of Lords ever been right ? 
 
 Major Anstruther-Gray : What about Home Rule ? 
 
 Mr. Churchill : Has it ever been right in any of the great 
 settled controversies which are now beyond the reach of Party 
 argument? Was it right in delaying Catholic emancipation and 
 the removal of Jewish disabilities ? Was it right in driving this 
 country to the verge of revolution in the effort to secure the pas- 
 sage of reform ? Was it right in resisting the Ballot "Bill ? Was it 
 right in the almost innumerable efforts it made to prevent this 
 House dealing with the purity of its own electoral machinery ? 
 Was it right in endeavouring to prevent the abolition of purchase 
 in the Army? Was it right in 1880, when it rejected the Compen- 
 sation for Disturbance Bill ? I defy the Party opposite to produce 
 a single instance of a settled controversy in which the House of 
 Lords was right. 
 
 Major Anstruther-Gray : What about Home Rule ? 
 
 Mr. Churchill : I expected that interruption. That is not a 
 settled controversy. It is a matter which lies in the future. The 
 cases I have mentioned are cases where we have carried the law 
 into effect and have seen the results and found that they have 
 been good. . . . 
 
 But there is one other feature in the House of Lords which the 
 Conservative party will have to exercise their. ingenuity in defend- 
 ing in the next few years — I allude to the presence in that body 
 of those interesting Lords Spiritual. By what violation of all ideas 
 
466 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 of religious equality the leaders of one denomination only should 
 be represented I do not pause to inquire; but no doubt when 
 such very delicate and ticklish questions as Chinese labour and the 
 prevalence of intemperance, and great questions of war and the 
 treatment of native races beyond the seas come up, it is a very 
 convenient thing to have the Bishops in the House of Lords in 
 order to make quite sure that official Christianity shall be on the 
 side of the upper classes. 
 
 I proceed to inquire on what principle the House of Lords deals 
 with Liberal measures. The right hon. Member for Dover says 
 they occupy the position of the umpire. Are they even a sieve, a 
 strainer, to stop legislation if it should reveal an undue or undesir- 
 able degree of radicalism or Socialism ? Are they the complemen- 
 tary critic — the critic who sees all the things which the ordinary 
 man does not see? I say that the attitude which the House of 
 Lords adopts towards Liberal measures is purely tactical. When 
 they returned to their " gilded Chamber " after the general election 
 they found on the Woolsack and on the Treasury Bench a Lord 
 Chancellor and a Government with which they were not familiar. 
 When their eyes fell upon those objects there was a light in them 
 which meant one thing — murder ; murder tempered, no doubt, 
 by those prudential considerations which always restrain persons 
 from acts which are contrary to the general feeling of the society 
 in which they live. But their attitude towards the present Govern- 
 ment has from the beginning been to select the best and most 
 convenient opportunity of humiliating and discrediting them, and 
 finally of banishing them from power. . . . 
 
 The House of Lords as it at present exists and acts is not a 
 national institution, but a Party dodge, an apparatus and instrument 
 at the disposal of one political faction ; and it is used in the most 
 unscrupulous manner to injure and humiliate the opposite faction. 
 When hon. Gentlemen opposite go about the country defending a 
 Second Chamber, let them remember that this is the kind of Second 
 Chamber they have to defend, and when they defend the veto let 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 467 
 
 them remember that it is a veto used, not for national purposes, 
 but for the grossest and basest purposes of unscrupulous political 
 partisanship. 
 
 I have dealt with the issues between Houses, and I come to 
 that between Parties. . . . Constitutional writers have much to 
 say about the estates of the realm, and a great deal to say about 
 their relation to each other and to the Sovereign. All that is found 
 to be treated at length. But they say very little about the Party 
 system. And, after all, the Party system is the dominant fact in 
 our experience. . . . There are two great characteristics about the 
 Party institutions of this country: the equipoise between them, 
 and their almost incredible durability. We have only to look at 
 the general elections of 1900 and 1906. I do not suppose any 
 circumstances could be more depressing for a political Party than 
 the circumstances in which the Liberal party fought the election 
 in 1900, except the circumstances in which the Conservative party 
 fought the election of igo6. At those two elections, what was 
 the salient fact? The great mass of the voters of each political 
 Party stood firm by the standard of their Party, and although 
 there was an immense movement of public opinion, that move- 
 ment was actually effected by a comparatively small number of 
 votes. . . When Parties are thus evenly balanced, to place such 
 a weapon as the House of Lords in the hands of one of the 
 Parties is to doom the other to destruction. I do not speak only 
 from the Party point of view, although it explains the earnestness 
 with which we approach this question. It is a matter of life and 
 death to LiberaKsm and Radicalism. It is a question of our life 
 or the abolition of the veto of the House of Lords. But look 
 at it from a national point of view. Think of its injury to the 
 smooth working of a Liberal Government. At the present time a 
 Liberal Government, however powerful, cannot look far ahead, 
 cannot impart design into its operations, because it knows that if 
 at any moment its vigour falls below a certain point, another body, 
 over which it has no control, is ready to strike it a blow to its 
 
468 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 most serious injury. It comes to this, that no matter how great 
 the majority by which a Liberal Government is supported, it is 
 unable to pass any legislation unless it can procure the agreement 
 of its political opponents. . . . 
 
 Much might be said for and against the two-Party system. But 
 no one can doubt that it adds to the stability and cohesion of the 
 State. The alternation of Parties in power, like the rotation of 
 crops, has beneficial results. Each of the two Parties has some- 
 thing to give and services to render in the development of the 
 national life, and the succession of new and different points of 
 view is a great and real benefit to the country. The advantage 
 of such a system cannot be denied. Would not the ending of such 
 a system involve a much greater disturbance than to amend the 
 functions of the House of Lords ? Is there not a much greater 
 cataclysm involved in the breakdown of the constitutional organi- 
 sation of democracy, for that is the issue which is placed before 
 us, than would be involved in the mere curtailment of the legisla- 
 tive veto which has been given to another place ? 1 ask the House, 
 What does such a safeguard as the House of Lords mean ? Is it 
 a safeguard at all ? . . . 
 
 Great powers are already possessed by the House of Commons. 
 It has finance under its control ; it has the Executive Government ; 
 the control of foreign affairs and the great patronage of the State 
 are all in the power of the House of Commons at the present time. 
 And let me say that if you are to proceed on the basis that the 
 people of this country will elect a mad House of Commons, and 
 that the mad House of Commons will be represented by a mad ex- 
 ecutive, the House of Lords is no guarantee against any excesses 
 which such a House of Commons or such an Executive might 
 have in contemplation. Whatever you may wish or desire, you will 
 be forced to trust the people in all those vital and fundamental 
 elements of government which in every State have always been 
 held to involve the social stability of the community. 
 
 Is the House of Lords even a security for property ? Why, the 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 469 
 
 greatest weapon which a democracy possesses against property is 
 the power of taxation, and the power of taxation is wholly under 
 the control of this House. If this House chooses, for instance, to 
 suspend payment to the Sinking Fund and to utilise the money 
 for any public purpose or for any social purpose, the House of 
 Lords could not interfere. If the House of Commons chooses to 
 double taxation on the wealthy classes, the House of Lords could 
 not interfere in any respect. Understand, I am not necessarily 
 advocating these measures ; what I am endeavouring to show to 
 the House is that there is no real safeguard in the House of Lords 
 even in regard to a movement against property. 
 
 But surely there are other securities upon which the stability of 
 society depends. In the ever-increasing complexities of social prob- 
 lems, in the restrictions which are imposed from day to day with 
 increasing force on the action of individuals, above all in the dis- 
 semination of property among many classes of the population, are 
 the real elements of stability on which our modern society depends. 
 There are to-day, unlike in former ages, actually millions of people 
 who possess not merely inert property, but who possess rent- 
 earning, profit-bearing property; and the danger with which we 
 are confronted now is not at all whether we shall go too fast ; no, 
 the danger is that about three-fourths of the people of this country 
 should move on in a comfortable manner into an easy hfe, which, 
 with all its ups and downs, is not uncheered by fortune, while the 
 remainder of the people shall be left to rot and fester in the slums 
 of our cities, or in the deserted and abandoned hamlets of our 
 rural districts. That is the danger with which we are confronted 
 at the present moment, and it invests with a deep and real signifi- 
 cance the issue which is drawn between the two Parties to-night. 
 It is quite true that there are rich Members of the Liberal party, 
 and there are poor men who are Members of the Conservative 
 party, but in the main the lines of difference between the two 
 Parties are social and economic — in the main the lines of differ- 
 ence are increasingly becoming the lines of cleavage between the 
 
470 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 rich and the poor. Let that animate and inspire us in the great 
 struggle which we are now undertaking, and in which we shall 
 without rest press forward, confident of this, that, if we persevere 
 we shall wrest from the hands of privilege and wealth the evil and 
 ugly and sinister weapon of the Peers' veto, which they have used 
 so ill so long. 
 
 Extract ^6 
 
 AN ARRAIGNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 {Mr. David Lloyd George, President of the Board of Trade, 
 Commons, June 26, iQOf) 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George ■':... Then there is property. You must 
 defend property I The only Bill that I can recall which deprived 
 anybody of property without compensation was passed by the 
 Leader of the Opposition. It was valuable public property, the re- 
 version to the public of the licences, recognised by law as a vested 
 interest. True, it was only a vested interest for the benefit of the 
 public, not of a class. That property the right hon. 'Gentleman 
 wiped out, nay, he handed it over as a political bribe to a power- 
 ful section of the community. It was the greatest act of plunder 
 and confiscation since the days of Henry VIII. The House of 
 Lords consented. This is the defender of property ! This is the 
 leal and trusty mastiff which is to watch over our interests, but 
 which runs away at the first snarl of the trade unions. 
 
 Viscount Turnour : What about your Party ? 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : We did what we promised at the last 
 election. A mastiff ? It is the right hon. Gentleman's poodle. It 
 fetches and carries for him. It barks for him. It bites anybody 
 that he sets it on to. And we are told that this is a great revising 
 Chamber, the safeguard of liberty in the country. Talk about mock- 
 eries and shams. Was there ever such a sham as that ? No wonder 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. 176, col. 1429 sqq. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 471 
 
 the right hon. Gentleman scolds the naughty boys who throw stones 
 at it. The House of Lords, it seems, defends capital. Of a kind, 
 yes. But generally against whom does it defend capital ? Against 
 the House of Commons ? Why should this House destroy capital .? 
 
 Viscount Turnour interposed an observation which did not 
 reach the gallery. 
 
 Mr. Llovd George : , The noble Lord represents land, but it is 
 not the only form of capital, though it is the only form you cannot 
 scare away. The noble Lord finds some comfort in that. We are 
 told, too, that the House of Lords defends capital. Why should 
 the House of Commons be supposed to be in a conspiracy against 
 capital? The Times the other day talked about the danger to 
 property of an absolute House of Commons. 
 
 Has it ever occurred to the Times that practically every profes- 
 sion, every great trade, every great industry, no matter what Party 
 is in power, sends its very best men to the House of Commons .' I 
 can say without hesitation about the House of Commons that this 
 is true. All the great industries, the land, shipping, mining, textile 
 trades, the iron trade and every great industry and interest in this 
 country, are represented by men who have devoted their lives to 
 those particular industries before they were elected to the House of 
 Commons. The other Chamber represents substantially only one 
 form of capital. Yet it claims that it has to watch in the interest 
 of property the House of Commons, which is composed of men 
 engaged in every form of industry and commerce, to which they 
 devote their services, and out of which they make their livelihoods. 
 That being so, is it not folly and nonsense to talk of the House of 
 Lords being necessary to protect property ? 
 
 I know of only one Bill passed in the last few years which 
 represents a great inroad upon the profits of capital. That is the 
 Workmen's Compensation Act. I do not say it is unjust, save in 
 one particular; but the exception is important. Suppose there is 
 an accident in a colliery. The man who has put his capital into its 
 development may lose every penny. But the man who derives his 
 
472 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 income out of royalties from the same colliery has not to risk a 
 farthing. Is not that unfair ? Yet it is that injustice — the absence 
 of a provision to make royalties pay their fair contribution towards 
 these accidents — which enabled the Bill to pass through the As- 
 sembly which is supposed to be the special protection of capital. 
 
 It is also well known that the House of Lords has plimdere4 the 
 railways to a huge extent. Railways have cost twice more in this 
 country than in any other country in the world. .Why? Because 
 the House of Lords has piled the cost onto the railways when 
 they came to acquire land ; and now the trade and industry and 
 capital of the country have to pay heavily on account of the action of 
 this Chamber which is supposed to be our appointed guardian. . . . 
 
 The argument which the right hon. Gentleman has used in re- 
 gard to administration is doubly important when it comes to legis- 
 lation. The right hon. Gentlernan knows perfectly well what the 
 object is — no revision, no check, when a Tory Government is in 
 power, but every check when there is a Liberal Government in 
 power. He is afraid of a revolution. If there is a revolution, it is 
 not the House of Lords that will arrest it. It will be the first in- 
 stitution that will vanish without a struggle. In the English revolu- 
 tion it was the House of Commons that made the last fight. The 
 House of Lords was abolished by a Resolution. The House of 
 Commons made the fight, and when the time for a revolution 
 comes — if it ever does come — the only share which the House 
 of Lords will have in the revolution will be in creating it. 
 
 The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham 
 [Mr. Joseph Chamberlain] has pointed this out in one of his most 
 powerful passages — and this is the answer to his followers who 
 now ask when the House of Lords have done any harm — " We 
 know for our part that in the course of the last hundred years they 
 have more than once brought the country to the verge of revor 
 lution ; and that they have again and again mutilated, delayed, or 
 rejected Bills of the first importance which are now universally 
 accepted to be salutary and expedient." But the people are slow 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 473 
 
 to embark on revolutions, and the fact that it has taken fifty or 
 sixty years to curtail the powers of the House of Lords is the 
 best proof of that. They are tolerant of long-standing grievances. 
 No one can doubt their wrongs. But I know the people ; I was 
 brought up amongst them. It is only when they are driven by a 
 long course of injustice and of denial of justice that they are ever 
 exasperated into a revolution, and the surest and greatest security 
 against that is not the House of Lords, but some machinery which 
 will deal effectively, promptly, and justly with their requirements. 
 It is very remarkable that every great Liberal statesman who 
 has ruled this Empire for fifty years has always come to the same 
 conclusion about the House of Lords. I have quoted the right 
 hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Lord Rose- 
 bery, in language no less strong, came to the same conclusion, and 
 the two greatest names of all — John Bright and Mr. Gladstone — 
 who had given long service to the State and who were no revolu- 
 tionaries, were of the same opinion. John Bright, although he has 
 been denounced in language stronger than even the present Prime 
 Minister, was a prudent, cautious, and temperate man in action, 
 and always essentially anti-revolutionary. Mr. Gladstone had an 
 almost exaggerated reverence for existing institutions, especially 
 hereditary institutions. He was the last man to lift his powerful 
 arm against them, and yet after the longest and most distinguished 
 public career that this country probably has known, when he had 
 no further personal interest in the matter, and when he had no 
 responsibility for the leadership of the Party, he said that practically 
 progress was impossible until you had dealt with this barrier. The 
 present Prime Minister, who after all has had a longer experience 
 of Parliamentary life than any man here, comes and deliberately 
 asks the House of Commons, and from the Commons appeals to 
 the country, to accept the counsel given at the end of a great career 
 by a statesman who stands to-day not merely in the British Empire 
 but throughout the worid as the man who embodies the noblest and 
 the most exalted traditions of British statesmanship. 
 
474 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 77 
 
 EXPOSITION OF THE PARLIAMENT BILL 
 
 {Earl of Crewe, Lord Privy Seal and Secretary of State for India, 
 Lords, November 2i, igid) 
 
 The Earl of Crewe ^ : ... In regard to the Parliament Bill, 
 the origin of this particular controversy goes back four years. It 
 goes back to the winter of 1906 when the first Education Bill of 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Government failed to pass into 
 law. The Bill failed to pass into law after strenuous attempts to 
 arrive at a compromise, but compromise was found impossible and 
 the Bill was lost. It was lost owing to the unwillingness of your 
 Lordships' House to include in its provisions principles upon which, 
 as we believed, the mind of the country had been most clearly ex- 
 pressed at the General Election of the preceding winter, and, as 
 your Lordships will all remember, its loss was received not merely 
 with regret but with no little indignation on the part of those who 
 had its success at heart. On December 20, 1906, Sir Henry 
 Campbell-Bannerman, speaking in another place, said, "A way 
 must be found and a way will be found by which the will of the 
 people, as expressed through their elected representatives in this 
 House, will be made to prevail." Then in the King's Speech, 
 when Parliament met on February 12 in the following year, that 
 thesis was developed by the then Prime Minister in words which 
 will be found in the pages of " Hansard." The almost immedi- 
 ate sequel to that challenge, for I think I may so call it, was the 
 Resolution which the House of Commons passed on June 26 of 
 the same year. That Resolution read : 
 
 That in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by 
 their elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Lords, vol, 6, col. 777 sqq. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 47$ 
 
 House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted 
 by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final 
 decisions of the Commons shall prevail. 
 
 That Resolution was carried on a Division by 434 against 149. 
 
 Perhaps I may be permitted very briefly to remind your Lord- 
 ships of what the terms of the plan at that time were. Speaking 
 generally they were these. When a disagreement occurred between 
 the two Houses a private Conference was to take place ; and if 
 agreement was not arrived at through that Conference, the Bill was 
 lost for the time. It could be reintroduced either with or without 
 amendment after a period of six months, and if the two Houses 
 again failed to agree, a second Conference was to be called. If 
 agreement was then not reached, the Bill was to be reintroduced 
 and passed by some rapid process, and a third Conference might 
 be held, but if agreement was then not reached, the Bill was to 
 become law over the heads of your Lordships' House. The re- 
 mainder of the plan consisted in a provision for quinquennial 
 Parliaments — that is to say, Parliaments of which the ordinary 
 duration would be four years, for reasons with which your Lord- 
 ships are all familiar. 
 
 Well, my Lords, as the controversy proceeded, the relations 
 as between the two Houses I fear did not improve. The Plural 
 Voting Bill had already been rejected by your Lordships' House 
 very summarily, and not less summarily the Licensing Bill of 1908 
 received its short shrift at your Lordships' hands. In 1908, also, 
 , fresh attempts were made at a settlement of the education ques- 
 tion, but those attempts proved to be again a failure. Then 
 came the unprecedented rejection in 1909 of the whole financial 
 arrangements for the year. The General Election followed, but 
 the Government, although returned to power, found itself in no 
 degree nearer the capacity of carrying controversial Bills than it 
 had been all through the Parliament preceding. That, my Lords, 
 IS in brief the reason and the justification for the introduction of 
 this measure. 
 
476 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Now, it is desirable to explain in what essentials this Bill differs 
 from the earlier proposals which I have described. I will do so 
 by going rapidly through its operative provisions. The first clause 
 deals with finance. It gives to the other House complete control 
 over Money Bills, but it contains the important provision and makes 
 the important admission on which your Lordships laid stress in your 
 famous Standing Order of 1702 — namely, that it was not proper 
 to annex to a Money Bill matter foreign to or different from matters 
 of aid or supply. The force of that Standing Order is admitted in 
 Clause I , and the decision as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill or 
 not is left by Clause i to the Speaker of the House of Commons — ■ 
 an impartial authority, at any rate an impartial authority so far as 
 the memory of any man now alive goes back, and to whom in the 
 opinion of His Majesty's Government that immensely important 
 duty may be fitly entrusted. But I may perhaps venture to say 
 that if some other tribunal within Parliament could be found which 
 could be expected to carry out these duties with equal authority 
 and equal impartiality, that is not a matter which we should regard 
 as vital to the Bill. 
 
 The second part of the Bill deals with general legislation, and the 
 effect of its provisions is that if a measure passes in another place 
 during three successive sessions spreading over two years it will 
 become law. In the earlier proposals much was said about confer- 
 ring between the two Houses, and it is a matter upon which the late 
 Prime Minister dwelt at length when he introduced his proposals. 
 The Bill which is before us does not explicitly provide for the 
 holding of Conferences, but in the opinion of the framers of the Bill 
 the holding of Conferences is a cardinal matter in relation to the 
 whole question. Nothing, I think, is more curious to any one who 
 takes the trouble to look at the history of the relations between the 
 two Houses than the gradual decline and final disuse of the practice 
 of Conferences between the Lords and the Commons. The causes 
 may be numerous, but one cause undoubtedly was that the later 
 Conferences which were held — I am speaking for the moment of 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 477 
 
 formal Conferences — seem to have become so rigid and so un- 
 natural in their character that it was felt that the practice carried 
 with it little of value. But I do not hesitate to say that in my opin- 
 ion one of the reasons why the relations between the two Houses 
 have hardened and crystallised into their present condition — a 
 condition, that is to say, of something like perpetual conflict when 
 one Party is in power and of perpetual acquiescence when the other 
 Party is in power — may be traced to the complete abandonment of 
 this habit of conferring. Conferences between the two Houses are 
 of old date. They go back, I believe, to the reign of Edward IH ; 
 and from the time when the Commons' Journals were regularly 
 kept, I am told that within the one hundred fifty years from 1547 
 to 1702 anyone who searches the Index to these Journals will 
 find that upwards of twenty pages of the Index are given up to 
 reports of the Conferences that were held between the two Houses 
 on every variety of subject and covering the widest possible field. 
 I therefore do not hesitate to say that the revival of the custom of 
 frequent Conferences between the two Houses is of the very essence 
 of the proposals which we are placing before your Lordships to-day. 
 Then, my Lords, I would call your attention to an important 
 change from the former proposals, and it is that relating to the 
 identity of the Bill to be sent up on a later occasion — identity 
 except so far as may be agreed — as compared with the proposal 
 originally made that the Bill might be amended in another place 
 and sent up as the same Bill. It seems to me that the real issue 
 as between the two Parties — and this I gather from what has 
 been said in this House and on many platforms — the real issue 
 as between the two Parties with regard to these proposals is, 
 "What is the real value of delay and of opportunities for con- 
 sideration for the purpose of amending Bills ? " That is to say. 
 Are you more likely to get a Bill into final shape that sensible 
 men, its principle having been approved, will agree is the best 
 shape — are you more likely to get it into such a shape by delay, 
 consultation, and consideration than by a process of summary 
 
4/8 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 rejection, followed, perhaps, by a General Election, and if not 
 by a General Election by a referendum, as I understand is pro- 
 posed in a Motion on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Balfour 
 of Burleigh ? 
 
 It is useful in discussing the question of delay and consideration 
 on the one side, and a more immediate appeal to the country on the 
 other, for the purpose of improving a Bill or of deciding its fate, to 
 consider one or two concrete instances. I believe it is to the benefit 
 of both Parties, and, what is more important, to the benefit of the 
 whole country, to get out of the region of abstract Constitution- 
 making, because what the country is most interested in is, " What 
 is likely to be the effect of these proposals or of any other alterna- 
 tive proposals in their practical import and in relation to the fate of 
 Bills before Parliament ? " Now Parliament is not an end in itself ; 
 it is a means, a machine for doing certain things for the nation. 
 It is a machine for doing three things. It exists for the purpose 
 of keeping a check on the Executive ; it exists for the purpose of 
 raising money for the public service ; and it exists also, although it 
 is not its primary object of existence, for the purpose of passing 
 legislation. I ask your Lordships to consider what would have been 
 the probable fate of one or two well-known measures either under 
 our proposals, or under the proposals which I understand to be 
 generally those of the other side. 
 
 I will take the first Home Rule Bill of 1893, a favourite battle- 
 horse, I need not say, of noble Lords opposite, because it is a 
 measure which above all others is supposed to have vindicated the 
 judgment of your Lordships' House. I say without hesitation that 
 the Home Rule Bill of 1893, looking back at it from this distance 
 of time, would not have passed either test — it would not have 
 passed the test of a General Election or of a referendum, which 
 I understand would be the proposal, according to Mr. Balfour's 
 speech at Nottingham, for dealing with the question. Neither would 
 it have stood the test of the proposals under the Parliament Bill. 
 The Home Rule Bill of 1893, supported by the majority with ^yhich 
 
JRBING THE LORDS 479 
 
 it was supported, would not have stood the test in the then temper 
 of the country of three sessions of discussions. Therefore, I think 
 that we may regard ourselves as quits as to the merits of the two 
 systems on that particular question. Then I will take a Bill of noble 
 Lords opposite — the Education Act of 1902. I presume that the 
 Education Act of 1902 would have passed this House very much 
 in the form in which it did pass for the simple reason that even if 
 the House of Lords had been reformed according to the ideas of 
 noble Lords, it would not have become the subject of discussion 
 between the two Houses ; but if Lord Balfour's plan had been in 
 force, and if the Act of 1902 had had to be submitted to a refer- 
 endum, it certainly would not have been the law of the land at this 
 moment. Therefore from that point of view our proposals, I think, 
 are kinder to the legislation of noble Lords opposite than the pro- 
 posals of a distinguished member of their Party, supported, as I 
 understand, by many other distinguished members. 
 
 Next I come to the Education Bill of 1906. I say without hesi- 
 tation that if the Education Bill of 1906 had had to go through the 
 processes enjoined by this Parliament Bill, it would have come out, as 
 I believe, a satisfactory measure, and a measure which would have 
 given us a settlement of our elementary education question for many 
 years to come. But here again I am making a present to noble 
 Lords opposite, because if that Education Bill had been made the 
 subject of a General Election or of a referendum, the Bill which 
 would have been put to the country would have been the Bill in its 
 House of Commons form. That, I think, is quite evident. If you 
 differ you can only put one measure to the country, and the measure 
 which you put to the country, is, I assume, the measure as it passed 
 the House of Commons. That would have undoubtedly involved 
 the carrying of the Education Bill of 1906 in a form which would 
 have been very much more satisfactory to many of those who sup- 
 port us on this side of the House, and very much less satisfactory 
 to those who hold the views of the noble Lords opposite. I venture 
 to thmk that the ParUament Bill does not come very badly out of a 
 
48o BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 comparison of those three cases ; and I believe that noble Lords 
 opposite have not attempted to realise the immense effect upon a 
 measure of delay and discussion — long delay and repeated discus- 
 sion — both in another place and here. I believe that in this 
 country, as far as we are able to know the mind of the country, the 
 danger of anything like cataclysmic legislation is an absolute mini- 
 mum. Hurried and violent legislation is in my view thoroughly 
 foreign to our national temperament. And if noble Lords agree 
 with me, it is hard to see what danger they find in our proposals. 
 But, of course, noble Lords take some wild speech made by some 
 quite insignificant person and point to it as indicating the probability 
 that revolutionary changes — changes of the kind desired by the 
 Social Democratic Party — are likely to be the result of passing 
 into law this moderate and harmless piece of legislation. Well, my 
 Lords, I think I have shown that to describe this measure as in any 
 sense a measure for the establishment of a Single Chamber is an 
 absolute misnomer. If there is anything in what I have said — and 
 I shall be interested to see if noble Lords opposite attempt to deny 
 it — as to the power and force of delay and discussion, this is not 
 a measure for the establishment of a Single Chamber. 
 
 To this policy of delay and discussion various alternatives are 
 suggested, alternatives which may themselves involve some delay 
 and discussion, but which cannot be taken as if they would neces- 
 sarily involve the same amount of delay and discussion as we have 
 provided for in this Bill. One of these alternative methods of pro- 
 ceeding was alluded to by Mr. Balfour at Nottingham. It is what is 
 known as a joint sitting — that is, that the two Houses on the event 
 of disagreement may meet and the combined vote of both Houses 
 together decides the question. The idea of holding a joint session 
 is not a new one, and I am very far from saying that it is a bad 
 one. I ought to be the last person to say it is a bad one, because, 
 as is well known to your Lordships, the plan of a Joint Session 
 forms part of the South Africa Act, for which I had the honour 
 of being responsible last year, Section 63 of that Act provides for 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 48 1 
 
 the holding of a Joint Session in case of difference. But I am bound 
 to point out this : that when you talk of a Joint Session between the 
 House of Commons and the House of Lords, however constituted, 
 the problem which you have to face is not quite the same as that 
 which presents itself in South Africa. The two Houses in South 
 Africa are respectively 1 2 1 and 40 in number. For them to meet 
 and discuss is a comparatively simple affair. But when you come 
 to joining to a House of 670 members another House which, so far 
 as I am able to gather, may be at least 400 in number, you collect 
 together an enormous public meeting; and your difficulty is not 
 merely the physical difficulty of getting them together, but the intel- 
 lectual difficulty of carrying on a discussion between the members 
 of a body so enormous. Therefore in a country like this, where 
 both Houses are large, where the Party system prevails to the 
 extent that it does, and where both Houses are not elected Houses, 
 the system of Joint Sessions — ■ although, as I say, I do not decry 
 it — offers difficulties which I think your Lordships ought very care- 
 fully to consider before you plunge into it as a definite policy. Your 
 Lordships must also remember that when you speak of a Joint 
 Session much depends upon the numbers of the Upper and more 
 Conservative House. I say more Conservative House because, 
 without entering into the question of number or degree, it will, I 
 am sure, be admitted by noble Lords opposite that they mean the 
 Upper House to be Conservative in its complexion. Your Joint 
 Session, in that case, if the relative numbers of the Upper House 
 are very small, may come much nearer to Single-Chamber Govern- 
 ment than the proposals which we are now putting before your 
 Lordships. On the other hand, if the proportionate numbers of the 
 Conservative House are going to be very large, then there would 
 not seem to be very much difference between the future position 
 and that of which we complain to-day. 
 
 I do not propose on this occasion — I do not know whether we 
 may have the opportunity of doing so before the House rises — to 
 enter into the question of the referendum. It is a question which, 
 
482 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 as everybody knows who has attempted to study it, bristles with 
 difficulties. But here again I would just ask your Lordships to con- 
 sider this : Are you quite sure that the clean-cut operation of the 
 referendum, with the possibility, in fact, almost the probability, 
 that the question which is asked of the country for that purpose 
 will be couched in a somewhat extreme form — are you quite sure 
 that the establishment of the referendum in this country would 
 make for moderate legislation — if that is what you desire — to so 
 great an extent as the proposal which we have included in the 
 Pariiament Bill? 
 
 I have not said anything yet about the Preamble of the Bill. 
 Your Lordships are very familiar with the phrase so often spoken 
 in Committee by my noble friend the Lord Chairman, " that the 
 Preamble be postponed." That is what I have done in these few 
 observations. We have always admitted " that the Preamble be 
 postponed" is also our policy. But the postponement of the ques- 
 tion of the reform of the House of Lords, either in a speech or as 
 a matter of policy, does not mean, and cannot mean, that we are 
 unmindful of that aspect of the subject. There are more reasons 
 than one why we cannot — speaking of ourselves as a Party — 
 neglect this question of the reform of the House of Lords. When 
 the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, was speaking last Thursday he 
 stated -^ though whether he was speaking for the whole of the 
 Party opposite, or even for the Front Bench I am not certain — 
 that the Party opposite would not accept this measure, and that if 
 it became a law, and they came into power later, they would take 
 the first opportunity of reversing it. That is to say, that if the Bill 
 passed through this House in its present state, any scheme of 
 reform which noble Lords opposite might initiate would be taken, 
 as I understand, as an excuse for adding to the powers of the 
 House something which had been taken away from it by this Bill. 
 If that is so, it is from our point of view a good reason for our 
 attempting to assist in the work of reforming the House while we 
 have some voice in the matter, because in the other event I am 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 483 
 
 quite sure we should have no such voice. Then again, the Bill as 
 it stands provides a further reason for making a reform of your 
 Lordships' House desirable. We do not want to rush legislation 
 through Parliament. We know very well that any attempt so to 
 use the provisions of this Bill — even if they could be so used, 
 which I greatly doubt — would only recoil upon those who so 
 attempted to use them. 
 
 As I have said, we desire to substitute delay and revision for 
 hurried Party rejection. Delay and the function of revision mean 
 that you desire the best minds that you can find to be applied to 
 that revision. The theory of this Bill is that the delay and the 
 process of revision will, if the country does not like some particular 
 points in a measure, cause such pressure to be put upon the House 
 of Commons that at its next consideration the measure will have 
 to be modified ; and it is quite evident that if such pressure is to 
 be brought to bear, and if it is to be useful pressure, the higher 
 the character, the more brilliant the ability, and the larger the ex- 
 perience of those who sit in the Upper House, the stronger that 
 pressure will be, because the power of ultimate and final rejection 
 does not exist if this Bill becomes law. It would be as wrong to 
 say that the character of the Upper House in these circumstances 
 was no longer of importance, as it would be to say that because 
 a Constitutional Sovereign is not an absolute despot, therefore his 
 character and capacity are a matter of no importance. 
 
 There is another point. Some little time ago Mr. F. E. Smith 
 — one of the most, brilliant, though, I think, at times inconvenient 
 supporters of noble Lords opposite — stated that in his opinion 
 the measures of both Parties should be given an equal chance of 
 becoming law.. We do not attempt anything so ambitious. Our Bill 
 falls far short of Mr. Smith's ideal. Under it our measures will 
 have to go through this dragging process described in our Bill, 
 while yours, I imagine, will go through on the india-rubber tires on 
 which they have -always passed through this House. I quite admit 
 I do not think that is very fair, and if the House of Lords can be 
 
484 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 so reformed as to afford some check, I do not say as complete a 
 check as this, but at any rate some check, to the possible extreme 
 and wild legislation which may be proposed by noble Lords oppo- 
 site and their friends, and if that can be brought about by some 
 reformation of the constitution of the House, that supplies a third 
 reason why this matter of reform ought not to escape our notice. 
 We still maintain the proposal for quinquennial Parliaments — that 
 is to say, it is practically only during the first two years of a Par- 
 liament, when it may be reasonably supposed, I think, to possess 
 the confidence of the country, that the process by which meas- 
 ures can be made law during the lifetime of a single Parliament 
 will be in practical operation. 
 
 These are the proposals in the Bill. They have been, as we say, 
 and as we honestly believe, forced upon us by the repeated action 
 of your Lordships' House. It seems to us as if your Lordships 
 had of late years learned what I cannot help thinking is the fatal 
 lesson — that it is worth your while to reject our measures on Party 
 grounds in the hope that before they can come up again something 
 may have turned up. It may be a forced election — perhaps not 
 altogether a very popular thing in itself. It may be a cycle of bad 
 trade — that is all to the good. It may be a wave of unemployment 
 — also all to the good. Those things, as we all know, make any 
 Government unpopular. It may be some heavy national expendi- 
 ture involving new taxation. That again may be expected to make 
 for the unpopularity of the Government. If you can reject our 
 measures, some of these things or all of them may turn up and 
 may give you a chance that our Bills should not become law. As 
 I say, I venture to think that that is a disastrous game to play. It 
 is a game that cannot be played forever. And, admitting as you 
 do the essential unfairness of the present condition — because it 
 has been admitted in varying degree by members of the Party 
 opposite — I cannot think that this House desires to go on playing 
 it indefinitely. But I am bound to say that among the reform 
 proposals which have been brought forward from the other side of 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 485 
 
 the House I have not seen an indication of any which, so far as 
 we are able to judge, would materially alter or amend this state of 
 things. Therefore, in asking the country to support us in passing 
 this measure we have to ask — I frankly admit it — that the matter 
 should be taken out of your hands and that the power to deal with 
 it may be given to us. I only beg the House to believe that we 
 ask this in no factious spirit and we ask it with no desire to lay 
 our ancient institutions in the dust. What we do ask the country 
 to do is to restore a reasonable measure of freedom to the chosen 
 representatives of a free nation. 
 
 Extract y8 
 
 OPPOSITION TO THE PARLIAMENT BILL 
 
 [The Marquess of Lansdowne, Lords, November si, ipio) 
 
 The Marquess of Lansdowne ^ : . . . I wish to thank the 
 noble Earl for having made a speech at all this evening. I carry 
 in my mind a memorable occasion on which he moved the second 
 reading of a very important measure by a slight and graceful ges- 
 ture of hand and hat. To-night he has been more indulgent to us 
 and has given us a speech which I think must have seemed to 
 most of your Lordships a very temperate and persuasive speech. 
 I except, perhaps, one or two sentences in his peroration. I ven- 
 ture to say that if we were now commencing a long discussion, or 
 a long series of Parliamentary discussions, upon this Bill, the speech 
 of the noble Earl would have formed an invaluable introduction 
 or preface to the debate. But the noble Earl forgot that he has 
 warned us off anything like full discussion of this measure. He has 
 forgotten that terse phrase in which he told us that the Bill would 
 be here for us " to take or to leave." He has forgotten the intima- 
 tion that any alternative schemes or proposals were not to be 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Lords, vol. 6, col. 788 sqq. 
 
486 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS * 
 
 regarded as in order for the purposes of this discussion. Well, if 
 that is so, if those are the conditions under which we are to discuss 
 the Parliament Bill, are we greatly assisted by the noble Earl's 
 dissertations upon such subjects as the value of Conferences, the 
 possible use to which Joint Sittings might be put, or the desira- 
 bility of having recourse to the referendum ? All these are full 
 of interest to us, but when are we going to be allowed to talk 
 about them? 
 
 We are face to face not only with the announcements of the 
 noble Earl himself but with an even more striking and memorable 
 announcement which was made to the country on Saturday last by 
 no less a personage than the Prime Minister, who told his audience 
 that negotiations were at an end, and that war had begun. How 
 then are we to deal with this Bill ? It is, in the view of most of us 
 on this side, highly open to criticism, but it contains, nevertheless, 
 the admission of two or three principles which might very well have 
 formed the basis of discussion, if discussion had been permitted 
 — I mean the admission that it is necessary to find some machinery 
 for dealing with what we commonly speak of as deadlocks between 
 the two Houses ; the admission, which is to be found in the Pre- 
 amble, that the ultimate settlement of these great Constitutional 
 questions implies that there shall be a reform in the House of Lords; 
 and again, the claim which, within reasonable limits, many of us are 
 inclined to admit, that the other House of Parliament is entided to 
 a preponderance in the region of what I may call pure finance. 
 There is a certain amount of common ground at these points; 
 and that being so, I am under the impression that if a full and 
 free discussion of this Bill had really been open to us, if we had 
 been promised an opportunity of amending the Bill and sending 
 our Amendments down to the House of Commons, a considerable 
 number of your Lordships would have been in favour of giving 
 the measure a second reading. I should, I say frankly, have taken 
 upon myself to advise those who might care to know what my 
 opinion was to take that course. The Bill would, in that case, have 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 487 
 
 been thoroughly debated, the House of Commons would have had 
 its opportunity of commenting upon the changes which we recom- 
 mended, and an attempt would then, no doubt, have been made to 
 arrive af an understanding. The noble Earl very likely will tell me 
 that the kind of course which I had in mind is altogether too dila- 
 tory for himself and his friends. I must say that if that rejoinder 
 is made, I am bound to ask your Lordships whether there has ever 
 been in the history of Parliament a case of a Bill of the kind of 
 importance which this Bill possesses being hurried through either 
 House of Parliament within the space of seven days. Our debate, 
 therefore, must, to a certain extent, be an unreal debate, and our 
 criticisms, if we attempt any, must be in a sense perfunctory criti- 
 cisms, and all that we can do within the time at our disposal is to 
 indicate in general terms the points to which we attach the most 
 importance. 
 
 I will accordingly venture in a very few sentences to teU the 
 House how some of us are struck by the main provisions of the 
 Bill. I take, in the first place, the clauses dealing with the question 
 of finance. Now, I think it is perfectly obvious, whatever one's 
 feelings may be on this point, that the scheme of the Bill is an 
 entirely incomplete and badly thought-out scheme. We may go 
 far in the direction of admitting the preponderance of the House 
 of Commons, where the legislation is purely financial legislation, but 
 we are all of us quite aware that there are many Bills which, 
 although nominally financial measures, in reality are directed to 
 purposes quite other than financial purposes. I am speaking, of 
 course, not only of that which is known in the text-books as 
 "tacking" — that is what I take it the clause in the Bill is aimed 
 at; but we all of us must have in our minds the case of other 
 Bills in which it cannot be said that the matter complained of is, 
 strictly speaking, foreign to the purpose of the BiU, but of which it 
 can be said with perfect truth that the consequences other than mere 
 financial consequences of the BiU. entirely outweigh and overtop the 
 purely financial results. 
 
488 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 I find in this Bill in the first place what seems to me to be a 
 very inadequate attempt to guard against tacking in the stricter 
 sense of the word. If your Lordships will look at the end of the 
 first clause, you will find a definition of a Money Bill which ends 
 with these words, '" Or matters incidental to those subjects or any 
 of them." That is a loophole through which any provision, however 
 mischievous and dangerous, could easily find a way. Then to come 
 to the other kind of abuse which many of us desire to guard against. 
 There is no attempt, so far as I can see, in this Bill to deal at all 
 with the more insidious plan of presenting, under the cloak of finance, 
 measures so framed as, for instance, to discriminate unjustly between 
 one set of persons and another — to penalise a certain trade, a cer- 
 tain profession, or to bring about great social'or political changes. 
 The only safeguard I find against tacking of any kind is the refer- 
 ence of the point to the Speaker of the House of Commons. 
 I desire to express my concurrence in all that was said by the 
 noble Earl as to the respect due to that high official. No one feels 
 that respect more than I do, but what I think we have to remem- 
 ber is that the Speaker of the House of Commons is an official 
 of the House of Commons. He is not in a judicial position as one 
 who might hold the balance or whose business it was to hold the 
 balance between the two Houses of Parliament. His business is 
 to watch over the privilege of the House of Commons and when- 
 ever he sees what seems to him an invasion of that privilege to 
 stand up for his own House. If it had been possible to insert in 
 this Bill a provision which would really effectually safeguard us, not 
 only against tacking of the more technical kind, which I attempted 
 to describe, but against tacking in the broader sense, I for one 
 would have been ready to suggest that your Lordships might well 
 forego the Constitutional right which you at present possess to deal 
 with Money Bills of a purely financial character. The concession 
 would obviously be a considerable one, and it is one which could 
 not be for a moment entertained unless the kind of abuses to 
 which I have referred were effectually guarded against. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 489 
 
 Then may I say one word as to the clauses dealing not with 
 financial but with ordinary legislation ? They seem to me to fall 
 very far short indeed of anything that is due to a self-respecting 
 Second Chamber in a properly-balanced Constitution. All that 
 Clause 2 would leave to the House of Lords is an opportunity of 
 interposing comparatively brief delay when it regarded a measure 
 as inexpedient in the public interest. It is true that this House 
 would be given the right of three rejections in two years, but those 
 rejections would take place with the knowledge that there was hang- 
 ing over us, whatever happened in the third year, the inexorable 
 right of the House of Commons to end all further discussion and 
 to pass the BUI into law over our heads. I noticed in a remarkable 
 speech delivered by the Prime Minister on Saturday last that he 
 apparently attached what I conceive to be a very exaggerated im- 
 portance to this opportunity of delay which would be accorded to us. 
 He said, "Where the two Houses differ we provide for such oppor- 
 tunities of Conference and such an interposition of delay as would 
 effectually frustrate any attempt by a scratch majority to rush 
 unpopular legislation out of touch with public opinion." I confess 
 that when I read that statement I referred to my copy of the Bill, 
 and I searched it in vain for any mention of the word Conference. 
 But I have no doubt the Prime Minister had in his mind what 
 was said by the noble Earl in his speech just now. The noble 
 Earl evidently contemplates, and I think rightly contemplates, that 
 there would be more frequent and more regularised resort to pro- 
 cedure by Conference, and if that is his view, I entirely agree with 
 him, and agree that such procedure should be made as little rigid 
 and difficult as possible. 
 
 But, my Lords, just let us consider for a moment on what sort of 
 terms of equality should we confer with the other House of Par- 
 liament if it were a part of the Constitution that supposing our 
 Conferences came to nought the Bill was nevertheless to become an 
 act over our heads. The noble Eari was eloquent upon the value 
 of delay. He said that nothing, was more alien to the intenti/.^a'j 
 
490 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 of his colleagues than that a Bill should be rushed through Par- 
 liament, — if we are to talk of rushing, what are we to say of 
 this Bill being rushed through before Monday next ? — but under 
 the Bill a measure of any magnitude might be sprung upon the 
 country and, let us say, in the second or third year of a Parlia- 
 ment might be passed into law by the sole consent of the House 
 of Commons. I wonder whether the noble Earl can point to any 
 precedent for a Second Chamber constituted upon these lines — I 
 mean a Second Chamber which discharges its functions upon the 
 understanding that not only the Second Chamber itself but the con- 
 stituencies are to be of no account and that the sole power is to 
 devolve upon the popular House of Parliament. I believe that you 
 may search precedents in vain for any arrangement which would 
 thus put the entire control over public affairs in the hands of one 
 House. But if a scheme of this kind is, as I believe it to be, 
 full of danger when you are dealing with ordinary legislation, what 
 are we to think and what are we to say when we become aware 
 that the same procedure is to apply even to what I should call 
 capital legislation — I mean legislation dealing with the Constitu- 
 tion of the country, dealing with such questions as the disestablish- 
 ment of the Church and the breaking up of the Union between 
 these islands? Do not let us lose sight of the fact that this dan- 
 ger is not by any means an imaginary one. We know perfectly 
 well, and the noble Earl knows perfectly well, how we stand at 
 this moment with regard to the question of Home Rule for Ire- 
 land. The Prime Minister spoke of scratch majorities. He has 
 done so more than once during the last few months, and perhaps 
 not unnaturally, as he lives and has his being under a sense of the 
 inconvenience which may be experienced from a scratch majority. 
 Let me read another sentence spoken by Mr. Asquith early in 
 the present year. He said, "There were conceivable cases where 
 you have a scratch majority combining under the coercion of Party 
 exigencies for a particular and transient purpose." Have we not 
 just seen an announcement by the head of one of the groups upon 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 491 
 
 which His Majesty's Government depends that he has arrived here 
 from America with a large sum of money in his pocket in order to 
 take advantage of Party exigencies and the difficulties of the Gov- 
 ernment of the day ? I ask the noble Earl, How would the plan of 
 this Bill do what Mr. Asquith apparently expects it to do, namely, 
 frustrate the operation of a combination of groups, a scratch ma- 
 jority, bent upon taking advantage of the necessities of the Gov- 
 ernment of the day for a transient purpose ? One other word 
 with regard to this portion of the Bill. The whole scheme of the 
 Bill is, on the face of it, an interim arrangement. The Preamble 
 looks forward to the time when this House shall be differently 
 constituted, and evidently to a different arrangement in regard to 
 deadlocks when that time shall come. I find in this Bill no indica- 
 tion of the manner in which we are eventually to pass from that 
 interim arrangement to an arrangement of a more permanent and 
 thoroughly thought-out character. That seems to me to be a defect 
 to which attention should be called. 
 
 I come now to the question which must be present to all our 
 thoughts. Why is it that these violent things are to be done ? The 
 noble Earl gave us at the beginning of his speech a recapitulation 
 of what he regarded as the facts of the case. He went back four 
 years to what I will not call the rejection of the Education Bill, 
 but to our inability to come to terms over the Education Bill, and 
 he said that upon that occasion the House of Lords was going 
 against the principles which had been clearly expressed by the 
 country at the General Election. Was that quite the case ? What 
 happened when His Majesty's Government returned to the charge 
 and resumed their attempt to legislate on the subject of Education ? 
 Why, the whole of the principles which were supposed to have 
 been affirmed by the country at the General Election were thrown 
 overboard by His Majesty's Government. You had a Bill con- 
 nected with the name of Mr. McKenna ; you had another Bill 
 connected with the ,name of Mr. Runciman. I think there was a 
 fourth Bill which was under informal discussion but which did not 
 
492 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 see the light, or, at any rate, did not come to this House. When 
 the noble Earl cites these subsequent attempts as illustrations of 
 the difficulties interposed by the House of Lords in the way of 
 useful legislation, he forgets that neither the McKenna Bill nor the 
 Runciman Bill ever came near this House. All that those two 
 Bills prove is that His Majesty's Government on consideration 
 thought it desirable to mend their own hand very considerably. 
 Then I come to the Licensing Bill, which I need not discuss at 
 this moment. Assuming that we threw out the Licensing Bill and 
 the Education Bill, does that justify the statement made on Satur- 
 day by the Prime Minister that in almost every attempt which the 
 House of Commons made to give effect to the wishes of those 
 who elected it, it was system-atically thwarted, baffled, and defeated 
 by the House of Lords ? I should like to ask the noble Earl how 
 many Bills which the people have really shown any desire to get 
 have the House of Lords thrown out, and how many Liberal 
 measures promoted by His Majesty's Government, some of them 
 very far-reaching measures indeed, have passed into law, not only 
 without opposition by this House, but with all the assistance we 
 could give to make them into good and practicable measures ? 
 
 The Prime Minister is usually conspicuous for the sobriety of 
 his language. On this occasion it seems to me that he went rather 
 beyond his usual tether, and it is perhaps fortunate that upon the 
 particular occasion on which his speech was delivered the noble 
 Earl opposite, the Minister for Agriculture, was also present in 
 the chair. If I may put it this way, I would say that if the Prime 
 Minister supplied the poison, the noble Earl immediately supplied 
 the necessary antidote. I have read the Prime Minister's words. 
 Now I will read the noble Earl's words. The noble Earl explained 
 that the policy of His Majesty's Government was what he called 
 "a policy of results," and he added that during their five years 
 they had had peace with all its attendant blessings, loyalty and 
 contentment in South Africa, India wisely governed, the main- 
 tenance of a magnificent Navy, the creation of an Army — he did 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 493 
 
 not say a magnificent Army ; I have no doubt he had the fear of 
 the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, Lord Roberts, in his mind. 
 And then the noble Earl went on to say they had also had land 
 reform, labour legislation, old age pensions, and a temperance and 
 people's Budget. And now pray let me invite the attention of the 
 House particularly to the climax : " Two questions remained to 
 be solved, Home Rule for Ireland and the Education problem. 
 Those until quite lately were in the lap of the Lords." So that 
 this famous indictment of habitual obstruction is whittled down by 
 the noble Earl to two measures — two measures in five years. I 
 would venture to ask him whether he is quite sure that these mat- 
 ters are in the lap of the House of Lords. I do not quite know 
 whose lap the Education Bill is in — it has been in a good many 
 different laps — but I am quite sure the noble Earl knows, or, if 
 he does not, he will very soon find out, whose lap the Home Rule 
 measure lies in. 
 
 I return reluctantly to the question which I put to the House a 
 few moments ago. What is it our duty to do with this Bill ? and I 
 come to this conclusion, that all we can do is to avail ourselves of 
 the few remaining days, I might almost say the few remaining 
 hours, which are left to us in order to endeavour to put on record, 
 if we can, in a simple form and in an intelligible shape, the pro- 
 posals which we ourselves would be inclined to lay before the 
 country for the settlement of this part of the question. I say this 
 part of the question because I regard the Resolutions of the noble 
 Earl on the Cross Benches as having taken us as far as we can 
 go at present in regard to the question of the constitution of the 
 House of Lords. I thought the Prime Minister, in the same 
 speech, was perhaps unduly severe upon my noble friend. He 
 said my noble friend's scheme was to all intents and purposes a 
 " ghost," and then, by a rather splendid confusion of metaphors, 
 he said, " the parricidal pick-axes " were already at work on the 
 fabric of this House. I do not know how one could operate upon 
 a ghost with parricidal pick-axes. In the leading ghost case, which 
 
494 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 is to be found in Shakespeare's " Hamlet," the officer in command 
 of the guard proposed to attack the ghost with a partisan, whatever 
 a partisan is, but I suppose it must be something different from 
 a parricidal pick-axe. But the Prime Minister was not content to 
 leave the matter there. He charged my noble friend and your 
 Lordships' House with doing what he called applying a thin coat 
 of democratic varnish to the " ghost.'' I must say that any attempt 
 to varnish a ghost would require a considerable amount of ingenuity. 
 The Resolutions which, before our proceedings terminate this 
 evening, I shall venture to lay before the House will, then, have 
 reference not to the question of the constitution of this House, but 
 to the manner in which deadlocks between the two Houses, persistent 
 differences of opinion, might be dealt with. And let me add this 
 observation. We on this side have always been in favour of mak- 
 ing some change in our procedure for the purpose of meeting that 
 particular difficulty. I say that because the noble Earl opposite 
 told us the other evening that he had never heard, that he had not 
 the faintest idea, that that was a part of the case- we were inter- 
 ested in. I looked up the speech which I delivered in this House, 
 I think, in March of this year, and I find I then stated as clearly 
 as I possibly could that in our view both questions demanded atten- 
 tion — on the one hand, the constitution of this House ; on the 
 other, the procedure to be resorted to in case of differences between 
 the two Houses. . . . 
 
 Extract "jg 
 
 GOVERNMENT HASTE AGAINST THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 {The Earl of Rosebery , Lords, November 21, igio) 
 
 The Earl of Rosebery ^ : . . . You do not seem to realise 
 what you are doing. You bring in a Bill of this kind with the 
 trivial elegance with which you might introduce a turnpike Act or 
 the mysterious local government measures which are moved by the 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 6, col. 800 sqq. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 49S 
 
 dozen by some lower official of the Government. What you are 
 attempting to do is none of these things. You are attempting to do 
 away with one estate of the realm without substituting anything in 
 its place. You have the face to tell us that we are acting in an un- 
 precedented manner when in the last four, five, or six dying days 
 of the session you bring forward this Motion without any option 
 to us but to say Yes or No to any of the provisions of the Bill. 
 
 The noble Marquess behind me quoted a phrase from the remark- 
 able, I might almost say extraordinary, speech delivered by my 
 right hon. friend the Prime Minister at the National Liberal Club 
 on Saturday. I make every allowance for the exuberance of a 
 speech made under the hospitable auspices of the National Liberal 
 Club, where I have so often enjoyed myself in past days. But I 
 am a little shocked that the noble Marquess did not mark the most 
 significant part of that speech, which was accentuated by my noble 
 friend who spoke last. The Prime Minister quoted Dr. Johnson 
 as saying that nothing concentrates a man's mind so much as 
 the knowledge that he is going to be hanged, and he applied the 
 remark to your Lordships' House. My noble friend opposite spoke 
 of a deathbed repentance. This is the spirit apparently in which 
 this great Government approaches this vast Constitutional question. 
 They regard the House of Lords as simply a culprit to be hanged 
 without shrift and without repentance, and only with the rather 
 trite consolations of my noble friend opposite to cheer its last hour. 
 I have always understood that when a man is going to be hanged 
 he has, besides the opportunity of concentration of mind, some 
 littie mercy shown to him in the disposal of his last moments. He 
 is admitted to certain indulgences. My noble friends opposite, 
 having put on the black cap, are not inclined to any such leniency. 
 We claim that we shall ernploy the few hours which we have to 
 live to the best purpose that, in our judgment, we can, and we 
 will not allow any other necessities to override that which dictates 
 to this ancient Assembly the right to present its own case to the 
 country without being gagged by an ultra-Liberal Government. 
 
496 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 80 
 
 FUTILITY OF REFORMING THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 FROM WITHIN 
 
 {Lord Loreburn, Lord Chancellor, Lords, November 31, igio) 
 
 Lord Loreburn ^ : My Lords, the question before your Lord- 
 ships' House at this moment is that this debate be now adjourned. 
 I will only say a very few words on what I call the fringe which 
 the noble Lord added to the point under discussion. He has 
 spoken of our precipitancy and desire to avoid discussion. Let me 
 remind your Lordships what is the history of the question of the 
 reform of the House of Lords and the adjustment of the relations 
 between the two Houses. 
 
 The noble Earl has been, I admit, a pioneer, a protagonist in 
 this business all his life. He dropped it, I suppose, as an impos- 
 sible task during the period of twenty years of Conservative ascend- 
 ancy preceding 1905. In 1905 when a Liberal Government came 
 in the noble Earl took no step. The year igo6 passed. In 1907 
 Lord Newton brought the matter forward and the Committee which 
 was appointed reported in December, 1908. Why was nothing 
 said about all these proposals for reform during the year 1909 ? 
 Lord Newton put down a motion relating to the subject, but only 
 to one side of it, — namely, the constitution of the House, — and it 
 constantly disappeared from the Paper. It seemed always to vanish. 
 If I were not aware of his want of reverence for the Whips, I should 
 have supposed that the Whips had exercised some influence upon 
 him not to bring the matter forward in the year 1909. Your Lord- 
 ships will remember that at that time a raid was contemplated upon 
 the Budget, and that might not be a convenient time to draw atten- 
 tion to the supposed shortcomings of your Lordships' House ; you 
 do not go to confessional just at the time when you are about to 
 stop a mail-coach. . . . 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 6, col. Sol sqq. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 497 
 
 Extract 81 
 
 CONSERVATIVE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PARLIAMENT BILL 
 [The Marquess of Lansdowne, Lords, November 23, igio) 
 
 The Marquess of Lansdowne * rose to move — • 
 
 That this House do resolve itself into Committee in order to 
 consider the following resolutions upon the relations between the 
 two Houses of Parliament : 
 
 That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that provision 
 should be made for settling differences which may arise between the 
 House of Commons and this House, reconstituted and reduced in 
 numbers in accordance with the recent Resolutions of this House. 
 
 That as to Bills other than Money Bills, such provision should 
 be upon the following lines : 
 
 If a difference arises between the two Houses with regard to any Bill 
 other than a Money Bill in two successive Sessions, and with an interval 
 of not less than one year, and such difference cannot be adjusted by any 
 other means, it shall be settled in a Joint Sitting composed of members of 
 the two Houses. 
 
 Provided that if the difference relates to a matter which is of great 
 gravity, and has not been adequately submitted for the judgment of the 
 people, it shall not be referred to the Joint Sitting, but shall be submitted 
 for decision to the electors by Referendum. 
 
 That as to Money Bills, such provision should be upon the 
 following lines : 
 
 The Lords are prepared to forego their constitutional right to reject or 
 amend Money Bills which are purely financial in character. 
 
 Provided that effectual provision is made against tacking ; and 
 
 Provided that, if any question arises as to whether a Bill or any pro- 
 visions thereof are purely financial in character, that question be referred 
 to a Joint Committee of both Houses, with the Speaker of the House of 
 Commons as Chairman, who shall have a casting vote only. 
 
 If the Committee hold that the Bill or provisions in question are not 
 purely financial in character, they shall be dealt with forthwith in a Joint 
 Sitting of the two Houses. 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 6, col. 83S. 
 
498 BRITISH SOCIAL' POLITICS 
 
 Extract 82 
 
 SUPPORT OF THE LANSDOWNE RESOLUTIONS 
 {Lord Ribblesdale, Lords, November 23, igio) 
 
 Lord Ribblesdale-': My Lords, I think I shall follow the advice 
 of my noble friend below me and not make a dash into the refer- 
 endum, which the noble Lord [EUenborough] who has just sat 
 down explained to us much more clearly than I have ever heard 
 it explained before. Neither do I propose to follow the noble Lord 
 into Lough Swilly or the deeply indented coast of Ireland in a 
 gunboat or in any other way. What he said about our being sur- 
 rounded by Jacobins and Girondists would have made me feel 
 thoroughly uncomfortable were it not for the extremely pleasant 
 smile with which he accompanied this disagreeable piece of news. 
 
 I was very sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, towards 
 the end of his interesting speech, when he got to closer quarters 
 with the Resolutions before us to-night, complained of suffering 
 from a feehng of want of reality. To my mind these Resolutions 
 of the noble Marquess and their full discussion by this House at 
 the present moment are as real a thing on as real an issue for us 
 all in this country as we have had before us since the Home Rule 
 Bill of 1892 or 1893. 
 
 Whatever may be the measure of consent, or quasi consent, or 
 qualified consent on the two sides of the House, I think we may 
 all agree that we are getting on wonderfully pleasantly with this 
 debate. It is evidently possible, as Mr. Carlyle once said, to agree 
 very tolerably except in opinion. I do not suppose that the two 
 sides of the House to-night are agreed in opinion, but even if noble 
 Lords below me are right in saying that it is quite impossible that 
 this great Constitutional difficulty in which we now find ourselves 
 can be settled by consent, it is quite clear that in this House, 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 6, col. 895 sqq. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 499 
 
 at all events, the matter can be agreed in a cordial and generous 
 and fair spirit. Now on Monday night I thought we were on the 
 verge of getting a little cross. I know that I suffered myself — 
 and my noble friend below me, Earl Beauchamp, wiU perhaps cor- 
 roborate it — from two or three spasms of noble irritation. But 
 to-night an intelligent foreigner with Virgil at his fingers' ends and 
 with two or three selected tributes of the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, 
 to your Lordships' House in his mind as well, could not possibly 
 say Tantaene animis caelestibus irae i as he might have done on 
 Monday night. 
 
 Now I proceed to the Resolutions, and let me say at once that 
 not only do I welcome them and thank the noble Marquess for 
 putting them on the Paper and bringing them forward, but, speak- 
 ing for myself, I am prepared to swallow them whole. That, no 
 doubt, sounds a hardy and indigestible proceeding, but, after all, 
 I am taking this course on Lord Crewe's advice to us to do the 
 same thing with the Parliament Bill, which, as Lord St. Aldwyn 
 and Lord Weardale pointed out with great force, has not even 
 been discussed in the House of Commons except in a rudimentary 
 way, and has only just flitted as it were into this House, but the 
 clauses and Preamble of which are the Party ticket and the grounds 
 for the General Election upon which the country is to be fought. 
 When I say that I am prepared to swallow the Resolutions whole, 
 I think it is also right to say that as regards the Government Bill 
 I must admit myself to have become rather a waverer. Whatever 
 the Conference did, it gave us considerable time for reflection, and 
 I became so convinced that we should have to find some sort of 
 constitutional adjustment of the relations of the two Houses that, 
 speaking for myself, I was prepared to go a very long way for the 
 sake of a settlement by consent towards the Government Bill. 
 But I am bound to say that holding those views, I greatly prefer 
 the Resolutions which the noble Marquess has put upon the Paper, 
 and I prefer them for this reason : I feel that these Resolutions 
 are altogether a more decorous and proper approach towards the 
 
500 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 solution of this great Constitutional question, and I prefer them 
 very much to the Parliament Bill for the further reason that they 
 are not stamped with the hall-mark, as that Bill is, of a particular 
 majority in this particular Parliament and in particular relation to 
 the Irish vote and the Irish demand. 
 
 I feel now that I should like to put myself right with the noble 
 Earl who sits on the Cross Benches [Lord Rosebery] and perhaps 
 with the House for the line I took the other night when Lord 
 Rosebery's Resolutions were discussed and when he said that I 
 had not made it clear to him what I meant. I should be sorry to 
 think that I had in any way taken a wayward or an ungracious 
 line that evening — wayward in the sense of being out of harmony 
 with the self-denying ordinance which we have all affirmed by pass- 
 ing these Reform Resolutions. My mind has been much concen- 
 trated upon the present difficulties in which we find ourselves, and 
 I have felt all along that the immediate crux of the situation did 
 not lie in domestic reform from within, but in presenting to the 
 electorate alternative proposals which would bring about a Con- 
 stitutional readjustment. It seemed to me that in the very short 
 time at our disposal, owing to what I can only call this electioneer- 
 ing General Election, this could only be done by giving a second 
 reading to the Parliament Bill and going into Committee. But 
 now that these Resolutions have been put forward I quite admit 
 I was wrong. I did not know at the time that the Resolutions 
 were coming forward, and I was nervous lest in our passion for 
 self-reform from within we should do anything which should jeop- 
 ardise our time and our chance of getting alternative proposals, by 
 way of arriving at some agreement by consent, put fully before 
 the constituencies before the 28 th, when the Dissolution has been 
 fixed. . . . 
 
 Speaking for myself, I am not, I am afraid, a very ardent re- 
 former. I have no desire to strike any doleful note, or to sing any 
 sort of Swan Song. I hope we are a long way off from that yet. 
 The Resolutions which were passed the other night must inevitably 
 
CURBING THE LORDS JOI 
 
 have very great effect. Here again I make my amende to the 
 noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, for if he had not gone on with them, 
 those Resolutions could not have been grafted on to the Resolu- 
 tions which the noble Marquess has now moved, thus providing 
 for a reformed Second Chamber. It is quite clear that under these 
 Resolutions, as Lord Newton said the other night, a large number of 
 us will have to go, and personally I shall miss a great many things 
 which I associate with the House of Lords and of which I have 
 become fond. I do not want to be sentimental, but I shall miss 
 the stationery, the quill pens, and even the superlative coal fires 
 and draughts of your Lordships' House. I have been here all my 
 life, but whether or not it is due to some inherited aptitude, I have 
 intuitions about the House of Commons which make me put all 
 these personal feelings on one side and desire above all things to 
 secure a settlement of this question. I do not know that the 
 Resolutions can effect that, but I believe, as one or two speakers 
 have said this evening and as even the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, 
 said, they do provide a basis for settlement by consent which I do 
 not believe any Government or any constituency will altogether 
 put aside. 
 
 The Resolutions of the noble Marquess seem to me to have this 
 very considerable advantage over the Parliament Bill, even the 
 Parliament Bill taken at its very best, that they do not lay us open 
 now, — ■ thanks, as I have just said, to Lord Rosebery for having 
 stuck to his Resolutions, — they do not lay us open to the charge 
 or to the actuality of a Single-Chamber Government, whereas, 
 whatever the result may be in practice, there is no sort of doubt 
 that the Government proposals are logically open to the charge 
 not of adjusting Constitutional relations but of substituting till such 
 good time as in the Government view may best suit them a Single- 
 Chamber for d Double-Chamber Government. Under these circum- 
 stances the noble Marquess and his friends will have my hearty 
 support in these Resolutions. 
 
S02 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Extract 8j 
 
 PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911 
 
 (7 &-» 2 Geo. 5, ch. ij) 
 
 An Act to make provision with respect to the powers of the House 
 of Lords in relation to those of the House of Commons, and 
 to limit the duration of Parliament. (i8th August 191 1) 
 
 Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regu- 
 lating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament : 
 
 And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords 
 as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular 
 instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be imme- 
 diately brought into operation : 
 
 And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by 
 Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting 
 and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber, but it is 
 expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for re- 
 stricting the existing powers of the House of Lords : 
 
 Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, 
 by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and 
 Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, 
 and by the authority of the same, as follows : 
 
 I. Power of House of Lords as to Money Bills 
 
 (i) If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Com- 
 mons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month 
 before the end of the session, is not passed by the House of Lords 
 without amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that 
 House, the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the 
 contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parlia- 
 ment on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the 
 House of Lords have not consented to the Bill. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 503 
 
 (2) A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the 
 Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing 
 with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, 
 repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation ; the imposition 
 for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on 
 the Consolidated Fund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the 
 variation or repeal of any such charges ; supply ; the appropriation, 
 receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money ; the 
 raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof ; or sub- 
 ordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In 
 this subsection the expressions " taxation," " public money," and 
 " loan " respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan 
 raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes. 
 
 (3) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is 
 sent up to the House of Lords and when it is presented to His 
 Majesty for assent the certificate of the Speaker of the House of 
 Commons signed by him that it is a Money Bill. Before giving 
 his certificate, the Speaker shall consult, if practicable, two mem- 
 bers to be appointed from the Chairmen's Panel at the beginning 
 of each Session by the Committee of Selection. 
 
 2. Restriction of Powers of House of Lords as to Bills 
 other than Money Bills 
 
 (i) If any Public Bill (other than a Money Bill or a Bill contain- 
 ing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament 
 beyond five years) is passed by the House of Commons in three 
 successive sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not), and, 
 having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one, month 
 before the end of the session, is rejected by the House of Lords in 
 each of those sessions, that Bill shall, on its rejection for the third 
 time by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct 
 to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of 
 Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto, notwith- 
 standing that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill : 
 
504 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Provided that this provision shall not take effect unless two years 
 have elapsed between the date of the second reading in the first of 
 those sessions of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on 
 which it passes the House of Commons in the third of those sessions. 
 
 (2) When a Bill is presented to His Majesty for assent in pur- 
 suance of the provisions of this section, there shall be endorsed on 
 the Bill the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons 
 signed by him that the provisions of this section have been duly 
 complied with. 
 
 (3) A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords 
 if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without amendment 
 or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses. 
 
 (4) A Bill shall be deemed to be the same Bill as a former Bill 
 sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding session if, when 
 it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the former 
 Bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker 
 of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the time which 
 has elapsed since the date of the former Bill, or to represent any 
 amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the 
 former Bill in the preceding session, and any amendments which 
 are certified by the Speaker to have been made by the House of 
 Lords in the third session and agreed to by the House of Commons 
 shall be inserted in the Bill as presented for Royal Assent in pur- 
 suance of this section : 
 
 Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on 
 the passage of such a Bill through the House in the second or third 
 session, suggest any further amendments without inserting the 
 amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall 
 be considered by the House of Lords, and, if agreed to by that 
 House, shall be treated as amendments made by the House of 
 Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons ; but the exercise 
 of this power by the House of Commons shall not affect the oper- 
 ation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the 
 House of Lords. 
 
CURBING THE LORDS 505 
 
 J. Certificate of Speaker 
 
 Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given 
 under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be 
 questioned in any court of law. 
 
 4.. Enacting Words 
 
 (i) In every Bill presented to His Majesty under the preceding 
 provisions of this Act, the words of enactment shall be as follows, 
 that is to say : 
 
 Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the 
 advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, 
 in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, and by 
 authority of the same, as follows. 
 
 (2) Any alteration of a Bill necessary to give effect to this sec- 
 tion shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Bill. 
 
 5. Provisional Order Bills Excluded 
 
 In this Act the expression "" Public BiU " does not include any 
 Bill for confirming a Provisional Order. 
 
 6. Saving Clause 
 
 Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights 
 and privileges of the House of Commons. 
 
 7. Duration of Parliament 
 
 Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed 
 for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act, 
 1715-' 
 
 8. Title 
 
 This Act may be cited as the Parliament Act, 191 1. 
 
 1 1 Geo. 1, Stat. 2, ch. 38. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 NATIONAL INSURANCE 
 
 [Since the Liberal Government came into power in 1906, they 
 had promoted, as has been seen, a large number of social reforms, 
 such as the protection of the legal rights of labourers and trade 
 unions, assurance of child welfare, regulation of sweated labour, 
 establishment of labour exchanges, old age pensions, housing and 
 town planning schemes and almost revolutionary tax arrangements. 
 Their efforts, interrupted and possibly imperilled for a while in 19 10 
 on account of the two General Elections and the accompanying 
 struggle to reduce the political power of the House of Lords, were 
 put forth again in 1911 to secure the passage of what is perhaps 
 the most important measure of social betterment ever introduced 
 in the British Parliament — "an Act to provide for insurance against 
 loss of life and for the prevention and cure of sickness and for 
 insurance against unemployment." 
 
 In the German Empire, a system of national compulsory insur- 
 ance of workingmen against. sickness and unemployment had been 
 in successful operation for many years, but despite considerable 
 agitation and many promises, similar action in Great Britain had 
 been long delayed. However, in the course of the debate in igo6 
 on the Workmen's Compensation Bill, several speakers, notably 
 Sir Charles Dilke,^ urged the fundamental character of such an in- 
 surance. Again, the discussion on old age pensions served in the 
 main to support the contention that insurance was a natural corol- 
 lary to pensions. ° And in outlining the Government's plans for 
 the establishment of labour exchanges, Mr. Winston Churchill 
 
 1 C£. supra, p. 38. 2 Cf. supra, p. 142. 
 
 506 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE SO/ 
 
 declared ' that that would constitute a beginning in the preparation 
 and perfecting of a program for general state insurance. 
 
 From igo8 to 1911 various officials and committees of Govern- 
 ment departments worked on the problem, which proved most 
 knotty and intricate. At length, on May 4, 191 1, Mr. David 
 Lloyd George, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought in the 
 Bill, containing eighty-seven clauses and nine schedules; and, in 
 a remarkably clear speech {Extract 84), sketched its purpose and 
 explained its chief provisions. The Chancellor's appeal was well 
 received by the leaders of the other parties. Mr. Austen Cham- 
 berlain, of the Opposition, would have preferred to deal separately 
 with insurance against sickness and that against unemployment, but 
 expressed general sympathy with the objects. Mr. John Redmond, 
 leader of the Irish Nationalists, assured the Government of his 
 support (Extract 8s) ; and the Labour Members, while express- 
 ing some fear as to the details of the measure, were naturally 
 favourable. 
 
 The Bill came up for second reading in the Commons on May 24. 
 It had been much discussed in the interval, and the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer had invited and encouraged criticisms. Though the 
 general public reception appeared favourable, misgivings were 
 expressed by some employers and some representatives of the 
 friendly, or benefit, societies. The most active criticism came from 
 the medical profession and its organisation. They held that they 
 would lose practice among the lower middle and artisan classes, 
 and that the fees fixed by the Bill for medical attendance upon the 
 insured were altogether too low. Mr. Sydney Buxton, President 
 of the Board of Trade, in moving second reading, explained the 
 general principles of the Bill and answered several criticisms (£x- 
 tract 86). Speaking for the official Opposition, Mr. H. W.'Forster 
 complained about the coupling of sickness and unemployment in 
 one measure, the creation of a debt of ;£'63,ooo,ooo to start the 
 scheme, the increased contribution from employers where wages 
 
 1 Cf . supra, p. 200. 
 
So8 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 were low, and the possible effect upon the doctors and friendly 
 societies ; the Opposition hoped, however, that the second reading 
 would be passed without a single dissentient vote. The National- 
 ists and the Labour party again welcomed the Bill, though with 
 considerable reserve as to certain points. After a number of other 
 speechfes, Mr. Rufus Isaacs, the Attorney-General, cited several 
 important lessons that might be drawn from German experience 
 along similar lines {Extract Sf). 
 
 In the course of the debate on second reading, Mr. Ramsay 
 Macdonald, the leader of the Labour party, pointed out that the 
 Insurance Bill marked a fundamental change in public opinion, 
 both larger parties now accepting the principle that social welfare 
 was the care of the state — social affairs the main business of 
 politics (Extract 88). His criticisms suggested the desire of his 
 party for alternative provisions to certain ones in the Govern- 
 ment Bill. 
 
 Committee stage was begun on July 5 and continued intermit- 
 tently into November. Several hundreds of amendments were 
 adopted, the chief of which may be roughly outlined as follows : ^ 
 Sick pay (los. per week for men, 7 s. 6d. for women) was to con- 
 tinue for twenty-six weeks instead of thirteen. Maternity benefit 
 was extended to the wife of an insured person even if she herself 
 was an insured person. Sanatorium for consumption might be 
 extended to the dependants of the insured consumptive. Married 
 women might now come in during their husband's lifetime as vol- 
 untary contributors with reduced payments, receiving sickness and 
 disablement benefit. Soldiers, sailors and other naval men, and 
 mercantile seamen, might come in under special provisions ; so 
 might fishermen co-partners under regulations to be made by the 
 Commissioners according to varying local customs. Where it was 
 the custom for the employer to pay full wages during sickness the 
 contributions of both employers and employed might be reduced 
 
 1 Cf. The Annual Register, igii, p. 281. The same volume gives, in various 
 places, details of the debate, whose incorporation in this work space precludes. 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 509 
 
 and the sickness benefit likewise if the employer would agree to 
 pay wages for six weeks of illness. Persons earning less than 9s. 
 a week paid no contribution, those between 9s. and 12s., id. per 
 week less than under the original Bill. The local Health Commit- 
 tees were to be called Insurance Committees, and their numbers 
 and powers had been considerably increased. The " Post Office " 
 part of the Bill was made distinctly provisional. There were to be 
 separate Commissioners for Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The 
 provisions for Ireland were considerably altered ; inter alia the 
 employer's contribution was reduced to 2\A. a week ; migratory 
 labourers and outworkers whose work was done in leisure time 
 were exempted, medical benefit was withdravni in view of. the ex- 
 istence of the dispensary system and the constitution of Health 
 Committees adapted to Irish conditions. Part II (Unemployment) 
 was but little altered in the Standing Committee. The weekly 
 benefits in the building trades were raised to 7s., the minimum 
 age reduced from eighteen to sixteen, with reduced contributions 
 and benefits below eighteen ; apprentices were exempted ; an em- 
 ployer giving regular employment would be rewarded by rebates, 
 not by a reduction of contributions ; and employers were prohibited 
 from deducting their own contribution from wages. 
 
 On December 6 the Bill reached third reading in the House of 
 Commons. In the meanwhile, protests against it had been multi- 
 plying from the medical profession, representatives of hospitals, 
 and clerks ; the General Federation of Trade Unions had protested 
 against the severance of the four kingdoms ; and many domestic 
 servants had been organised by their employers to resist the pro- 
 visions which affected their relations. It was rumoured that the 
 Conservatives would utilise this agitation in order to oppose a 
 measure which at heart very few of them really favoured, despite 
 the support that they had promised on first and second readings. 
 
 At any rate, the Opposition met the motion for the third reading 
 with an amendment to the effect that, under the part dealing with 
 health insurance, public and individual contributions would not be 
 
SIO BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 used to the best advantage, that the discussion and explanation of 
 the Bill had been defective, and that its operation would be un- 
 equal, and that it should therefore be again considered in 191 2, 
 draft regulations for its operation being published meanwhile. This 
 was moved by Mr. H. W. Forster, who disclaimed any intention 
 of wrecking the measure. His speech {Extract 8g) explained the 
 changed attitude of the Conservatives. 
 
 Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, re-entering the debate, said that mis- 
 givings were certainly widespread, but that the choice was between 
 partly satisfactory legislation and none at all. Mr. Lloyd George 
 bitterly assailed the Conservative position. Postponement, he stated, 
 would upset the business of the friendly societies and insurance 
 companies and reopen unfortunate controversies ; and he espe- 
 cially assailed Lord Robert Cecil, who replied with his usual plea 
 in behalf of individualism (Extract go). 
 
 Mr. Bonar Law, the new Leader of the Opposition, closed the 
 debate for his party, insisting that the amendment did not neces- 
 sarily mean the rejection of the Bill and reviewing the main 
 Conservative objections (Extract gi). Mr. Asquith replied in an 
 eloquent speech (Extract g2). The amendment was defeated by 
 320 to 223, and the third reading carried by 324 to 21. In the 
 first division two Unionists voted with the Government, seven 
 Independent Nationalists with the Opposition ; the minority in 
 the second division comprised three Labour members, the seven 
 Independent Nationalists, and eleven Unionists. 
 
 The progress of the Bill through the House of Lords was un- 
 eventful, and it received the royal assent on December 16, igii. 
 The extraordinary length of the National Insurance Act (i & 2 
 Geo. 5, ch. 5s) — it covers one hundred and fifteen pages of the 
 Statute Book — prevents its inclusion in this volume.^ 
 
 1 An excellent edition of the full act, together with explanatory notes, tables, and 
 examples, is that of Orme Clark, with an introduction by Sir John Simon, Solicitor- 
 General (1912). For analyses and explanations, cf. L. G. Chiozza Money, A Nation 
 Insured (1912) ; Carr and Taylor, National Insurance (1912) ; and E. Porritt, "The 
 British National Insurance Act," in Political Science Quarterly, June, 1912. 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 51I 
 
 Extract 8^ 
 
 EXPOSITION OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL 
 
 {Mr. David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 Commons, May 4, igii) 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George ^ : . . . I think it must be a relief to the 
 Members of the House of Commons to turn from controversial 
 questions for a moment to a question which, at any rate, has never 
 been the subject of controversy between the parties in the State. 
 I believe there is a general agreement as to the evil which has to 
 be remedied. There is a general agreement as to its urgency, and 
 I think I can go beyond that and say there is a general agree- 
 ment as to the main proposals upon which the remedy ought to 
 be based. 
 
 In this country ... 30 per cent of the pauperism is attributable 
 to sickness. A considerable percentage would probably have to be 
 added to that for unemployment. The administration of the Old 
 Age Pensions Act has revealed the fact that there is a mass of 
 poverty and destitution in this country which is too proud to wear 
 the badge of pauperism and which declines to pin that badge to 
 its children. They would rather suffer from deprivation than do 
 so. I am perfectly certain if this is the fact with regard to persons 
 of seventy years of age, there must be a multitude of people of 
 that kind before they reach that age. 
 
 The efforts made by the working classes to insure against the 
 troubles of life indicate they are fully alive to the need of some 
 provision being made. There are three contingencies against which 
 they insure — death, sickness, and unemployment. Taking them in 
 the order of urgency which the working classes attach to them, 
 death would come first. There are 42,000,000 industrial policies 
 of insurance against death issued in this country of small amounts 
 
 ^ Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 25, col. 609 sqq. 
 
512 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 where the payments are either weekly, monthly, or occasionally 
 quarterly. The friendly societies, without exception, have funeral 
 benefits, , and that accounts for about 6,000,000. The collecting 
 societies are about 7,000,000, and those are also death benefits. 
 Then the great industrial insurance companies have something like 
 30,000,000 policies. There is hardly a household in this country 
 where there is not a policy of insurance against death. I will not 
 stop to account for it. After all, the oldest friendly societies in the 
 world are burial societies. All I would say here is we do not pro- 
 pose to deal with insurance against death. It is no part of our 
 scheme at all, partly because the ground has been very thoroughly 
 covered, although not very satisfactorily covered, and also because 
 this, at any rate, is the easiest part of the problem and is a part of 
 the problem which is not beset with the difficulties of vested inter- 
 ests. Fortunately, all the vested interests which deal with sickness 
 and unemployment are of a thoroughly unselfish and beneficent 
 character, and we shall be abte, I think, to assist them, not merely 
 without interfering with their rights and privileges, but by encour- 
 aging them to do the excellent work they have commenced and 
 which they are doing so well. 
 
 Sickness comes in the next order of urgency in the working- 
 class mind. There are over 6,000,000 policies — that is hardly the 
 word, perhaps, for friendly societies, but there is provision made by 
 6,000,000 people against sickness. Most of it includes a provision 
 for medical aid. There are, I think, about 300,000 or 400,000 mem- 
 bers who have insured for medical aid alone, but I think almost 
 without exception the friendly societies include medical relief in the 
 provisions which they make. That is not, I think, the case with 
 the trade unions. There are 700,000 members in the trade unions 
 insured for sick benefits, but I do not think that includes medical 
 relief. In addition to those, there are a good many unregistered 
 assurances at works, where a man leaves a shilling a month at the 
 office for the purpose of paying the works' doctor. I should say, 
 therefore, that between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 people in this 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 513 
 
 country have made some provision against sickness, not all of it 
 adequate, and a good deal of it defective. 
 
 Then comes the third class, the insurance against unemployment. 
 Here not a tenth of the working classes have made any provision 
 at all. You have got only 1,400,000 workmen who have insured 
 against unemployment. It is true that perhaps about half of the 
 employment of this country is not affected by the fluctuations of 
 trade. I do not think agricultural labourers or railway servants 
 are affected quite to the same extent. Then there is provision for 
 short time in some of the trades. Taking the precarious trades 
 affected by unemployment, I do not believe more than one-third 
 or one-quarter of the people engaged in them are insured against 
 unemployment. That is the provision which is made at the present 
 moment by the working classes: 42,000,000 policies against death, 
 about 6,100,000 who have made some kind of provision against 
 sickness, and 1,400,000 who have made some provision against 
 unemployment. 
 
 Now comes the question which leads up to the decision of the 
 Government to take action. What is the explanation that only a 
 portion of the working classes have made provision against sickness 
 and unemployment? Is it that they consider it not necessary? Quite 
 the reverse, as I shall prove by figures. In fact, those who stand 
 most in need of it make up the bulk of the uninsured. Why ? . . . 
 The first explanation is that their wages are too low. I am talking 
 now about the uninsured portion. Their wages are too low to enable 
 them to insure without some assistance. The second difficulty, and 
 it is the greatest of all, is that during a period of sickness or unem- 
 ployment, when they are earning nothing, they cannot keep up the 
 premiums. They may be able to do it for a fortnight or three weeks, 
 but when times of very bad trade come, when a man is out of work 
 for weeks and weeks at a time, arrears run up with the friendly 
 societies, and when a man gets work, it may be at the end of two 
 or three months, those are not the first arrears which have to be 
 met. There are arrears of rent, arrears of the grocery bill, and 
 
514 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 arrears for the necessaries of life. At any rate he cannot consider 
 his friendly society only. The result is that a very considerable 
 number of workmen find themselves quite unable to keep up the 
 premiums when they have a family to look after. 
 
 Undoubtedly there is another reason. It is no use shirking the 
 fact that a proportion of workmen with good wages spend them in 
 other ways and therefore have nothing to spare with which to pay 
 premiums to friendly societies. It has come to my notice, in many 
 of these cases, that the women of the family make most heroic 
 efforts to keep up the premiums to the friendly societies, and the 
 officers of the friendly societies whom I have seen, have amazed 
 me by telling the proportion of premiums of this kind paid by 
 women out of the very wretched allowance given them to keep 
 the household together. 
 
 .1 think it is well we should look all the facts in the face before 
 we come to consider the remedy. What does it mean in the way of 
 lapses ? I have inquired of friendly societies, and, as far as I could 
 get at it, there are 250,000 lapses in a year. That is a very consid- 
 erable proportion of the 6,000,000 policies. The expectation of life 
 at twenty is, I think, a little over forty years, and it means that in 
 twenty years' time there are 5,000,000 lapses ; that is, people who 
 supported and joined friendly societies, and who have gone on pay- 
 ing the premiums for weeks, months, and even years, struggling 
 along at last, when a very bad time of unemployment comes, drop 
 out and the premium lapses. It runs to millions in the course of a 
 generation. What does that mean ? It means that the vast major- 
 ity of the workingmen of this country at one time or other have 
 been members of friendly societies, have felt the need for provision 
 of this kind, and it is only because they have been driven - — some- 
 times by their own habits, but in the majority of cases by circum- 
 stances over which they have no control — to abandon their policies. 
 That is the reason why, at the present moment, not one-half the 
 workmen of this country have made any provision for sickness 
 and not one-tenth for unemployment. I think it necessary to state 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE SIS 
 
 these facts in order to show that there is a real need for some 
 system which would aid the workmen over these difficulties. I do 
 not think there is any better method, or one more practical at the- 
 present moment, than a system of national insurance which would 
 invoke the aid of the State and the aid of the employer to enable 
 the workman to get over all these difficulties and make provision 
 for himself for sickness, and as far as the most precarious trades • 
 are concerned, against unemployment. 
 
 I come at once to the plan of the Government. The measure 
 of the Government is divided into two parts r the first will deal 
 with sickness and the second with unemployment. The sickness 
 branch of the Bill will also be in two sections : one will be compul- 
 sory, and the other voluntary. The compulsory part of the Bill in- 
 volves a compulsory deduction from the wages of all the employed 
 classes who earn weekly wages, or whose earnings are under the 
 Income Tax limit. There will be a contribution from the employer 
 and a further contribution from the State. 
 
 There are exceptions from the compulsory clause. The first will 
 be in the Army and Navy. We are making special provision for 
 soldiers and sailors. It is a crying scandal, I think, that at the 
 present moment there are so many soldiers and sailors who have 
 placed their lives at the disposal of the country and are quite ready 
 to sacrifice them, as we know from past experience — not merely 
 that they should be liable to, but that, as a matter of fact, hundreds 
 and thousands do actually leave the Army and Navy broken through 
 ill-health. I am talking now of ill-health not due to misconduct. 
 These men leave the Army without any provision from either pub- 
 lic or private charity, and they, are broken men for the rest of 
 their lives. I think it is a crying scandal that that should occur in 
 a country like this, and I hope this scheme will put an end to it. 
 There will be special provision made for that. But these men will not 
 be regarded as in the employed class for the purposes I am about 
 to explain. The same thing applies to the teachers, and I hope to 
 be able, with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the President 
 
5l6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 of the Board of Education [Mr. Walter Runciman], to largely 
 strengthen their present position. I think their provision is very 
 inadequate, and, compared with the provisions made in other coun- 
 tries, I think a very paltry allowance is made for their superannuation. 
 
 Mr. John Redmond : Does that apply to Ireland ? 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : Certainly, I think the Irish case a very 
 bad case. I have had a number of Irish teachers before me, and 
 some of them told me that they were getting about ;£'r a week. 
 There are about 300 of them in the workhouses. They are doing 
 their work for the Empire under very trying conditions, and I shall 
 certainly consider it the duty of the Government in any scheme 
 of superannuation to include the Irish teachers as well. 
 
 Mr. John Redmond : When ? 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : I hope it will be possible this year. We 
 propose excepting all people employed under the Crown or under 
 municipalities where, at the present moment, there is no deduction 
 from their wages when they are ill, and where there is some super- 
 annuation allowance. There is no need to make provision for them 
 because provision is already made. The same thing will apply to 
 commission agents employed by more than one person. There is 
 also an exception in the case of casual labour employed otherwise 
 than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business. We think 
 it is vital that casual labour should be included. Otherwise the same 
 thing may happen here as I am told happens in Germany, where 
 the exclusion of casual labour is rather encouraging its growth. 
 That is a very bad thing in itself, and there is really no class 
 which it is more important to include than casual labour. 
 
 Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke : Does that include casual labour in 
 dockyards ? 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : Casual labour at dockyards and in ware- 
 houses will be included. I think, too, that casual labour such as 
 that of golf caddies should be brought in. I am making special pro- 
 vision for labour of that kind. Hotel waiters will be another dif- 
 ficulty. They are not paid salaries. I am told that they very often 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 517 
 
 pay for the privilege of waiting, and we have to make special pro- 
 vision for them. Cab drivers are another class we propose to in- 
 clude. All casual labour of this kind will be included, as well as 
 casual labour of the kind referred to by the hon. Member oppo- 
 site. The man who offers to carry your bag for sixpence you can 
 never draw in, but it is our intention to attract all casual labour 
 possible within the ambit of our Bill. 
 
 Mr. Austen Chamberlain : Are we to understand, that all the 
 classes which the right hon. Gentleman has enumerated are ex- 
 ceptions to the compulsory provisions which he is about to describe ? 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : Certainly they can come in the voluntary 
 part if they like, so long as they answer to the definition which I 
 have given. I think that is rather anticipating, but the right hon. 
 Gentleman will later on find what class of persons will come in. I 
 come to the amount of contribution. The workman now pays to 
 his friendly society 6d. or is. The usual contribution to a friendly 
 society is something between 6d. and gd. as far as I have been 
 able to discover, and anything under that produces benefits which 
 are benefits I do not think it would be worth our while to include 
 in an Act of Parliament. The House will be interested to know 
 what German workmen have to pay, because that was the first 
 great scientific experiment in insurance on a national scale. It 
 has been enormously successful. That is the testimony borne by 
 all classes of Germans. I have taken some trouble to inquire, and 
 the German Government have been exceedingly kind and helpful 
 in placing information at our disposal. They have shown every 
 disposition to be helpful throughout, and their testimony is that 
 all classes of the community are very much benefited by it. In 
 Germany the payment is in proportion to wages, and the benefits 
 are also in proportion to wages, so that the higher class of work- 
 man, who pays a very high contribution, gets a very substantial 
 benefit. There are in Germany, I think, five classes of individual 
 contributors, and for sickness every man pays according to his in- 
 come. They divide their insurance into two separate branches of 
 
5l8 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 sickness and invalidity. There are two separate branches, but we 
 propose to include them in one branch. In Germany a man who 
 earns 30 s. pays lofd. weekly for sickness and invalidity. There are 
 not many of these. The man who is paid 24s. a week, which I 
 think is about the average wage in this country, if you were to 
 strike an average, which is a difficult thing to do — the man who is 
 paid 24s. a week pays gd. a week. For that gd. the benefits he 
 gets will not be equal to the benefits we shall be able to give under 
 our Bill twenty years hence. The 20s. a week man pays 7jd., the 
 i8s. man 6fd., the 15s. man sfd., the 12s. man 4|d., and the 9s. 
 man 3fd. 
 
 That is what the workman pays in Germany, and when you 
 come down to these lower classes, the benefits are so small that the 
 workmen in Germany say they prefer to resort to parish relief, as 
 the benefits are much too inadequate. For that reason we have de- 
 cided in favour of one class, because if you have a scale which is 
 proportionate, it would be very difficult to give benefits to the lower 
 class except by making special conditions which it would not be 
 worth our while to make. It would certainly not give them a mini- 
 mum allowance to keep their families from want. So we have de- 
 cided to have one scale for all classes, with a provision for the low- 
 est wages. Therefore, we have decided to propose a deduction of 
 4d. for men and 3d. for women. That is about a halfpenny a day 
 and a penny on Saturday, or, as somebody told me, about the price 
 of two pints of the cheapest beer per week, or the price of an ounce 
 of tobacco. Now comes the difficulty of the man who is earning 
 15s. a week and under, and who finds it rather difficult to pay 4d. 
 a week. We meet that case by saying that a man or a woman who 
 earns 2s. 6d. a day or less shall pay 3d., 2s. or less, 2d., and is. 
 6d. a day or less, id. a week. Let me make a very important ex- 
 ception. That would not include the cases where there is board 
 and lodging in addition to the wage. These cases are excluded 
 altogether. This is purely the case where the wage represents 
 the whole payment 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE ^1$ 
 
 Who will pay the difference ? If you make the State pay the 
 difference, then it means that the employers who pay high wages 
 to their workmen will be taxed for the purpose of making up the 
 diminished charge for the workmen of other employers who are 
 paying less, and I do not think that would be fair. We have come 
 to the conclusion that the difference ought to be made up by the 
 employer who profits by cheap labour, and therefore in the lowest 
 case (in the case of 153. a week and downwards) the employer will 
 pay more. I hope I have made it clear that our scale of deduction 
 for the workmen is a uniform one, with the exception of that 
 descending scale when you come to the very lowest wages and 
 where you cannot really expect a man to pay 4d. a week. 
 
 There is another difficulty. Are we going to include in the bene- 
 fits of the scheme men of all ages at the present moment ? If we 
 are, on what scale ? Are we going to charge the man of fifty more 
 than the man of twenty-five ? That is a question which of course 
 presents itself the moment you begin to consider the actuarial posi- 
 tion, because, after all, sickness doubles, trebles, and quadruples as 
 you get along in life, until when you get between sixty-five and sev- 
 enty the average sickness in five years is fifty-two weeks. It begins 
 with three or four days, then on to a week, then to a fortnight, 
 and a man as he gets on in life becomes a heavier charge upon 
 his friendly society, and no society can possibly take a man at fifty 
 or fifty-five on the same terms as if he were only sixteen or twenty 
 unless they make special provision. Of course, we are now starting 
 a new scheme, and the Government have decided to do this — to 
 charge a perfectly uniform rate throughout. . . . The only differ- 
 ence we make is with regard to men over fifty. We then propose 
 to pay them reduced benefits. Men who are over sixty-five at the 
 present moment we do not propose should join the scheme at all, 
 because that is an impossible undertaking ; the burden would be 
 much too heavy, and, after all, we must be fair to the man who 
 comes in young with his money. He must be encouraged, he must 
 get his reward for it, and if we take over too heavy a burden in 
 
S20 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the way of those who are at present very old, the young people 
 will suffer. I am told that is the criticism in Germany — that the 
 young people do not get full value for their own money and the 
 money of their employers. We propose to admit everyone up to 
 sixty-five to insurance so long as it is done within twelve months 
 after the passing of the Act. We are going to give twelve months' 
 grace. If they come in after twelve months, they will come in on 
 the terms either of paying a rate appropriate to their age or of 
 taking reduced benefits, which comes to practically the same thing. 
 So much for the contribution by the employee. Now we come to 
 the contribution of the employer. What interest has the employer 
 in the matter .' His interest is the efficiency of his workmen, and 
 there is no doubt at all that a great insurance scheme of this kind 
 removes a strain of pressing burden and anxiety from the shoulders 
 of the working classes and increases the efficiency of the workmen 
 enormously. The workingmen whom I met during the trades-union 
 movement told me that many a time they used to go on working 
 at their business because they dared not give it up, as they could 
 not afford to, and it would have been better for them to have been 
 in the doctor's hands. This procedure generally brings about a very 
 bad breakdown, and not only that, when a man is below par neither 
 the quantity nor the quality of his work is very good. I have taken 
 the trouble to make some inquiry from the German employers as 
 to their experience of insurance from this point of view, and 1 have 
 got a number of answers which, perhaps, later on the House would 
 be interested in having circulated. Here is one instance I had out 
 of many. It is the opinion of an employer engaged in the steel 
 industry. He said, "' There can be no doubt that the Insurance 
 Laws, together with the increase of wages, have exercised an enor- 
 mously beneficial influence upon the health, standard of living, and 
 the efficiency of workers." Another great employer of labour says 
 that " from the employers' standpoint these laws pay, since the 
 efficiency of the workman is increased." And now there is this 
 very curious position in Germany that the employers, and the 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 521 
 
 largest employers, are voluntarily offering to increase their contri- 
 butions to national insurance for increased benefits. That is the 
 view taken by the employer in Germany. What does he pay for 
 sickness and invalidity insurance? He pays for a 30s. a week man 
 7jd. For a 24s. a week man the employer would pay 5|d. and 
 for an i8s. a week man he pays 4^d. ; then when it goes down 
 below that the contribution is very much lower, and the benefits are 
 very poor. We propose that the employer should pay 3d. a week ; 
 the workman will pay 4d., or 3d. for "a woman, and the employer 
 will pay 3d. for man and woman alike. That is our proposal. 
 
 I come to the contribution of the State. The advantage of the 
 scheme to the State is, of course, in happy, contented, and pros- 
 perous people. The German contribution is not a very large one. 
 I believe it is about ^2,500,000, and that includes Old Age Pen- 
 sions. We have already got a burden of ^13,000,000 a year for 
 Old Age Pensions. But let me point this out to the House — that 
 payment is equivalent to something like 5d. a week for employer 
 and labourer under this scheme — and it makes matters very much 
 easier. We certainly could not have offered the benefits which we 
 are offering in this measure — 4d. for a workman and 3d. for an em- 
 ployer — had it not been that the whole burden of pensions over 
 seventy years of age had been taken over by the State. That is 
 the first actuarial fact which was borne in upon me the moment I 
 came in contact with the actualities — what an enormous difference 
 that made in the scheme, and how it eased matters. Had it not 
 been for that I should have proposed very much dearer and sterner 
 terms both for the employer and the employed. We do not propose 
 that the State contribution should end with that ^13,000,000. We 
 propose that the State contribution shall be the equivalent of 2d. a 
 member — 4d. from a workman, 3d. from an employer, and 2d. from 
 the State. . . . 
 
 What is the workman to do when he is out of work ? How is 
 he to pay his contributions ? We propose allowing a 6 per cent 
 margin for unemployed ; that means three weeks a year. As long 
 
522 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 as a man is employed you deduct 4d., but we allow a margin of 
 three weeks a year for unemployment. That means in a cycle, say, 
 of four years — bad times may come once every four years let us 
 say — a margin of twelve weeks of unemployment. We propose 
 to do more than that. After he has exhausted his twelve weeks, if 
 he still is unemployed, then up to 2_5 per cent — that means thirteen 
 weeks a year — we still allow him, but at reduced benefits. . . . 
 
 I now come to the voluntary contributors. There are two classes 
 of voluntary contributors. There are persons who, whilst not 
 working for an employer, are engaged in some regular occupation 
 and are mainly dependent on their earnings for their livelihood. 
 Take the village blacksmith who is not working for any employer, 
 but is depending on his earnings for his livelihood. The same thing 
 will apply to the small tradesman. I find looking through the lists 
 of the friendly societies, in some of them there is a very high per- 
 centage of men who do not belpng to the employed class in the 
 ordinary sense of the term. For instance, in rural districts you 
 will find that all the publicans, all the tradesmen, the schoolmaster, 
 the village blacksmith, and the man who is joinering on his own, 
 who is not anybody's man, are members of the friendly societies. 
 We propose that they should be allowed to be members of this 
 insurance scheme. They are really a great source of strength to 
 the friendly societies. They help them in the management, and 
 their business knowledge is of infinite value. It would be a great 
 accession of strength to any scheme of this kind that we should 
 still retain in it men of that type. 
 
 Then there is the other class of men — those who have been 
 employed working for others and have ceased to do so, and are 
 working on their own account. So long as they have been contrib- 
 utors for five years, we allow them still' to join. With regard to 
 this class, there is a difficulty in allowing them to come in at any 
 age. . . . We propose that all those of that class who wish to join 
 within six months, and who are forty-five years of age and under, 
 can join at a rate which covers the 4d. or 3d., as the case may be, 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 523 
 
 whether they are men or women, they themselves paying the em- 
 ployers' contribution. That would mean that they would pay yd. 
 for men and 6d. for women, and they, of course, get the benefit 
 of the State contribution. Those over forty-five join at rates appro- 
 priate to their ages, but they also get the benefit of the State 
 contribution for what it is worth to them, and, of course, it is 
 worth a good deal. 
 
 Another exception we are bound to make to this class of vol- 
 untary contributors. I do not think it would be advisable to allow 
 married women who are not workers to join. . . . You have, I 
 think, about 700,000 married women who are workers and come 
 into the compulsory scheme as workers, but I do not think we can 
 possibly agree to married women unless they are workers. . . . 
 
 As to employed contributors, we anticipate that 9,200,000 men 
 will be in the compulsory class, and there will be 3,900,000 women, 
 making a total of 13,100,000 in that' class. Then the voluntary 
 contributors will number6oo,ooo men and 200,000 women, making 
 a total of 800,000. . . . With the 800,000 voluntary contribu- 
 tors, the total will be 9,800,000 men, 4,100,000 women, making 
 13,900,000 altogether. But to that has got to be added 800,000 
 persons under sixteen years of age, consisting of soo,ooc5 boys and 
 300,000 girls. That makes a grand total of 14,700,000 persons 
 who shall, we hope, enjoy the insurance scheme. 
 
 Now I come to benefits. These will be distributed under three 
 or four different heads. There will be medical relief. There will be 
 the curing side of the benefit, and there will also be allowance for 
 the maintenance of a man and his family during the time of his 
 sickness. . . .If one of the 14,700,000 persons, who practically 
 include all the industrial population of this country, falls ill, he can 
 command the service of a competent doctor, and command it with 
 the knowledge that he can pay. But not only that, the doctor 
 whose service he commands will know also that he will be paid. 
 That is going to make a very great difference in the doctoring of 
 these people. . . . 
 
S24 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 The second branch of medical attention will be in cases of mater- 
 nity. There are only one or two friendly societies at the present 
 moment which allow any maternity benefit, but they are all alive 
 to the necessity of it, and they are gradually going to establish 
 branches for maternity benefit. Undoubtedly there is no more 
 urgent need. Women of the working classes in critical cases are 
 neglected sadly, sometimes through carelessness but oftener through 
 poverty, and that is an injury not only to the woman herself, but 
 to the children who are bom. A good deal of infant mortality and 
 a good deal of anaemic and rickety disease among the poorer class 
 of children is very often due to the neglect in motherhood. . . . 
 We propose that there should be a 30s. benefit in those cases 
 which would cover the doctoring and the nursing, but only con- 
 ditional upon those who are women workers not returning to work 
 for four weeks, for I am told that in the mills you have very 
 often cases where the women work up to the last moment and 
 the maternity is over in a comparatively few days. . . . 
 
 I have now to refer to another branch of medical benefit. We 
 propose to do something to deal with the terrible scourge of con- 
 sumption. There are, I believe, in this country about four or five 
 hundred thousand persons suffering from tubercular disease. . . . 
 There are 75,000 deaths every year in Great Britain and Ireland 
 from tuberculosis and, a much more serious matter, if you take the 
 ages between fourteen and fifty-five among males, one out of three 
 dies of tuberculosis between those ages in what should be the very 
 period of greatest strength and vigour and service. It is a very 
 sinister fact that at the very period which is responsible for the 
 continued life of the race one out of three between those ages is 
 stricken down by tuberculosis. It kills as many in the kingdom in 
 a single year as all the zymotic diseases put together, and a very 
 terrible fact in connection with it is that the moment a man is' 
 attacked and compromised he becomes a recruit in the destruc- 
 tive army and proceeds to injure mortally even those to whom he 
 is most attached and to scatter infection and death in his own 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 52$ 
 
 household. ... The proposal of the Government is that we should 
 first of aU assist local charities and local authorities to buUd sanatoria 
 throughout the country. We propose to set aside ;£-i,soo,ooo of a 
 capital sum for the purpose ... and a fund of a miUion a year 
 for the purpose of maintaining these institutions. . . . 
 
 I come next to the sick allowance for the purpose of maintaining 
 the families of the sick persons who are insured. In the friendly 
 societies I think the allowance is six months, then it is dropped 
 again to half. In some societies it is still further dropped, generally 
 at twelve months. I propose that the first stage should be a three 
 months' grant, because the real reason why six months' allowance 
 is given is because of tubercular patients. They are the people who 
 take over three months on the fund. Outside of them a man is 
 generally cured or off the funds before that period. I propose that 
 in the first three months there should be an allowance of los. per 
 week. Power will be given to the society to extend that to twenty- 
 six weeks if they think it necessary. I point out later on that there 
 are funds for that purpose, but, perhaps, at anyrate, a start should 
 be made with three months at jos. Afterwards the allowance will 
 be reduced to 5 s. for another three months. After that, at the end 
 of six months, if a man is broken down altogether, there is a per- 
 manent disablement allowance of .i;s; as long as he is unable to earn 
 his living in any way. That is for men. For women the contribu- 
 tion is lower, and, as we are keeping the accounts separate, the 
 actuaries say we would not be justified in giving more than 7s. 6d. 
 per week for the first three months, and then 5 s. We do not pro- 
 pose to make the allowance less in that case. 
 
 There will be a waiting period of six months in the case of 
 sickness. No man will be allowed to get his sickness allowance 
 within six months after he has joined the society. No man is en- 
 titled to claim for a disablement allowance unless he has paid for 
 two years. In Germany that has been extended to five years. The 
 allowance is conditional in every case on the patient obeying the 
 doctor's orders — a very difficult thing to do. But at any rate you 
 
526 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 cannot allow a man artificially to perpetuate his sickness at the ex- 
 pense of the community by defying every rule that is laid down for 
 his cure by the professional gentleman who is in charge of him. In 
 Gerrnany they have this power. They give instructions as to what 
 a man is to do, and if he does not obey them, his allowance is docked, 
 and I think it is a very salutary rule. I have no doubt that it will 
 be very liberally interpreted, but still it is a very necessary rule. 
 There is another rule. The friendly societies do not admit sick 
 allowance to any man whose illness is due to his own misconduct. 
 What we have done in that case is this. If a man's illness is due 
 to his own misconduct, we do not allow him sick pay, but he is en- 
 titled to a doctor, not merely for his own sake, but for the sake of 
 the community, and because eventually he will come back again, 
 and he will fall on the sick fund, and the burden will be much 
 heavier. Now I come to the exceptions. In the case of persons 
 fifty years of age at the date of insurance the men will only be en- 
 titled to 7 s. a week and the women to 6s. a week, unless they have 
 paid 500 contributions. -Men and women over sixty years of age 
 will only be entitled to 5 s. Persons under twenty-one years of age, 
 if unmarried, will be entitled to ss., if males, and to 4s., if females. 
 There is another very important exception from the point of view 
 of checking malingering. When you come to the lower rate of 
 wages you must not give a sick allowance which would make it 
 more profitable for a man to be sick than to be working. There- 
 fore, we propose that where the sick benefit is more than two-thirds 
 of the wages the amount shall be reduced. . . . 
 
 After paying for the doctor, after paying for the sanatorium, after 
 paying maternity benefit, after paying los. a week and 5s. sick 
 allowance, and 7s. 6d. for women, there will be left a balance of 
 ^1,750,000 in the hands of those who administer the funds. That 
 is the actuarial calculation. We do not now propose to distribute 
 those benefits, because we want to give an interest to those who 
 are administering the funds, to administer them economically and 
 to declare alternative benefits, if they save the amounts which we 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 527 
 
 anticipate they can save. We propose, therefore, to have a list of 
 alternative benefits, optional benefits, and additional benefits. The 
 first benefits, as I have indicated, will be the compulsory minimum 
 benefits. They will be in every scheme. I now come to the addi- 
 tional benefits from which the society may choose, with this surplus 
 at their disposal. This surplus will be ;£'i, 750,000 immediately the 
 scheme begins to work, but at the end of fifteen years and a half, 
 when the loss on the older persons has 'been wiped out, you will 
 then have an addition of something like ;^5, 500,000 to the fund, 
 and, of course, that will involve a further contribution from the 
 State of ;^i, 500,000 per annum. That means ;^7,ooo,ooo. . . . 
 I have a long list of additional benefits which they can choose, but 
 I think the most interesting of all would be that when the fifteen 
 and a half years had elapsed, when the loss has been paid off, and 
 when you have released a fund of ;^7,ooo,ooo between the State 
 and the contributors, we shall then be within sight of declaring 
 either a pension at sixty-five, or, what I think would be better still 
 — and I propose this as an alternative — if a man does not choose 
 to take his pension at sixty-five, but prefers to go on working, he 
 shall increase his pension at a later stage in proportion to each ad- 
 ditional year he goes on working. So much for the benefits. 
 
 I now come to the machinery of the Bill we have got to work. 
 Collection is the first thing. We shall collect our funds by means 
 of stamps. That is purely the German system. A card is given 
 to a workman ; he takes it to his employer at the end of the week ; 
 the employer puts on the workman's 4d. stamp and his own 3d. 
 stamp ; he deducts the 4d. out of the wages of the man, and he 
 pays the 3d. himself; the card is in the possession of the man, 
 who takes it to the post office, whence it is transmitted to the cen- 
 tral office. The employer does not necessarily know — there is noth- 
 ing on the face of the card to say — what society the man belongs 
 to. It is entirely a matter for himself. The card is sent along to the 
 central office, and the whole of the money is paid to the central 
 office. 
 
528 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Then comes the question, Who is to dispense the benefits ? In 
 this country we have fortunately a number of well-organised, well- 
 managed, well-conducted benefit societies who have a great tradi- 
 tion behind them and an accumulation of experience which is very 
 valuable when you come to deal with questions like malingering. 
 We propose, as far as we possibly can, to work through those 
 societies. We propose that all the benefits shall be dispensed 
 through what the Bill would call " approved societies." 
 
 What are the conditions attaching to an approved society.' It 
 must be a society with at least 10,000 members ; otherwise, it be- 
 comes a matter of very great complication, which is much more 
 difficult to manage from the actuarial and financial point of view. 
 It must be precluded by its constitution from distributing any of 
 its funds otherwise than by the way of benefits, whether benefits 
 under this Act or not, amongst its members. It must not be a 
 dividing society ; it must be a benefit society which provides for 
 sickness and for old age. Therefore it cannot be a society that 
 divides its profits at the end of each year. It cannot be a society 
 that allows anybody to make a profit out of this branch of its 
 business, and it must be mutual so far as this branch of its business 
 is concerned. Its affairs must be subject to the absolute control of 
 its own members ; it must be self-governing, and its constitution 
 must provide for the election of its committees, representatives, 
 and officers. There are other conditions. It must provide a rea- 
 sonable security that the funds will be dispensed in the way the 
 Act provides. It must have local committees. There are several 
 societies, as hon. Members know very well, which have branches. 
 There are other societies which are purely central. Both are very 
 excellent societies in their way. The Hearts of Oak, I believe, is 
 a centrahsed society. The Foresters, I believe, is a society with 
 branches, and the Odd Fellows the same. But the societies which 
 have central control and no branches must have some sort of local 
 committees and management ; otherwise it will be quite impossible 
 to distribute the benefits, and it will be very difficult to arrange 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 529 
 
 about doctoring and other matters. There are other things about 
 keeping books and so forth. . . . 
 
 You may find men who say, " We will not join any society." 
 You cannot compel a man to join a society. If he chooses to 
 remain outside, he can do so, but he does it at his own cost. Every 
 inducement is offered to a man in this scheme to join a society, 
 and I will show how that works. We propose that all the men in 
 a county who have not joined a society should be collected together 
 in a body called Post Office Contributors. You will form a fund 
 of those people. Most of the people who remain outside will be 
 uninsurable lives, men who would be rejected by all sorts of socie- 
 ties, because really they are ill at the time or display symptoms of 
 illness and therefore are quite uninsurable, or they may be drunk- 
 ards. Those are the sort of reasons for which a society now 
 excludes them. That must necessarily make it impossible for us 
 to pay the same benefits to the Post Office Contributors as would 
 be paid to the men who are in the friendly societies, because they 
 contain pretty much all the bad lives. It will be largely a temporary 
 difficulty and a dwindling one, for the simple reason that in future 
 men will be taken on at the age of sixteen, and at that age the 
 vast majority of people have not developed any kind of disease. 
 Therefore it will dwindle almost to nothing in the future, and this 
 difficulty is purely temporary. It will be a body of people who are 
 not a very good insurable proposition. . . . 
 
 I now come to the finance of the scheme. In the first year the 
 sums paid by all classes of contributors will amount to nearly 
 ;^2o,ooo,ooo, of which employers will contribute nearly ;^9,ooo,- 
 000, and the employees, ;^ 11,000,000. The expenditure on benefits 
 and administration will, in consequence of the waiting periods, be 
 only ;^7, 000,000 in 1912-13, but will have risen to ^20,000,000 
 in 1915-16, when the additional benefits begin to be granted. By 
 1922-23 the State contribution will also have risen. In the first 
 year there will be no charge, because the Act does not come into 
 operation until May i next year. There must be time to make 
 
S30 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 arrangements. There will be only a charge for the necessary 
 expenses of making preparation. But in 1912-13 the charge on 
 the State will be ;£'i, 742,000 ; in 1913-14, ;£^3,3S9,ooo ; and in 
 1915-16 — a full year — ^4,563,000. That is the expense, as 
 far as the State and the contributors are concerned, of that part 
 of the scheme. 
 
 I will now briefly outline the unemployment insurance. My ex- 
 planation will be considerably curtailed, owing to the fact that the 
 Home Secretary [Mr. Winston Churchill] very fully explained^ to 
 the House year before last the principles upon which the Govern- 
 ment intended to proceed. The scheme only applies to one-sixth 
 of the industrial population. We propose to apply it only to the 
 precarious trades, which are liable to very considerable fluctuations. 
 The benefit will be of a very simple character ; it is purely a weekly 
 allowance. The machinery is already set up ; therefore it will not 
 be necessary to explain that. The machinery will be the Labour 
 Exchanges and the existing unions which deal with unemployment. 
 I will not say anything about the suffering caused by unemploy- 
 ment. All I will say is that, whoever is to blame for these great 
 fluctuations in trade, the workman is the least to blame. He does 
 not guide or gear the machine of commerce and industry; the 
 direction and speed is left almost entirely to others. Therefore, he 
 is not responsible, although he bears almost all the real privation. 
 I think it is about time we did something in this matter, because 
 it is not something which has happened once or twice, but some- 
 thing that comes regularly every so many years. We know it will 
 come, and know that distress will come with it ; therefore, we ought 
 to take some means to alleviate the misery caused by phenomena 
 which we can reckon on almost with certainty within a year or 
 two of its advent. 
 
 No real effort has been made except by the 'trades unions. 
 That, of course, is a purely voluntary matter, and the burden is a 
 very heavy one. It only applies, in their case, to very few trades, 
 1 Cf. supra, p. 199. 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 531 
 
 and I think to only about 14,000,000 workmen altogether. The 
 others cannot afford it. Other trades have attempted it, but have 
 laid it down because they could not afford the expense. On the 
 Continent many efforts have been made, mostly failures, because 
 they all were on the voluntary principle. In Cologne there was a 
 great effort. It ended in about 1800 people being insured out of 
 a population of 200,000 or 300,000. There it meant people who 
 knew they would be out of work, and who insured against almost 
 certain unemployment in the winter. That is very little good. I 
 came back, after examining some of these schemes, with the con- 
 viction that you must have, at any rate, three or four conditions. 
 You must have a trade basis, to begin with. A municipal basis will 
 not do ; it must be a trade basis, because the fluctuations are ac- 
 cording to trades. You must start with the more precarious trades. 
 The 'scheme must be compulsory. I also came to the conclu- 
 sion that the workmen's unsupported efforts are quite useless. 
 These are the principles we have incorporated in our Bill. We 
 have started, first of all, by taking two groups of trades, and we 
 propose to organise them individually — the engineering group and 
 the building group. They include building, construction of works, 
 shipbuilding, mechanical engineering, and the construction of vehi- 
 cles. These are the trades in which you have the most serious 
 fluctuations — I think for a very good reason. The depression 
 seems to fall more heavily on these trades ; it seems to concentrate 
 upon them, because they produce the permanent instruments of 
 industry. We propose that in these trades a fund shall be raised 
 for the purpose of paying an unemployment distress allowance. 
 
 I ought to say here that you have not the same basis for actua- 
 rial calculation that you have in reference to sickness. It is very 
 necessary to warn, not merely the House, but rather more espe- 
 cially the workmen upon this point. You cannot say with the 
 almost certainty that you can in sickness that a certain fund will 
 produce such and such benefits. In the case of sickness you have 
 nearly one hundred years' experience behind you, and you have 
 
532 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the facts with regard to sickness and death. You have not got 
 the facts with regard to unemployment, and the question is very 
 difficult. All we know is that in certain branches of trade unem- 
 ployment is prevalent and appalling. Some trades meet it by short 
 time, but in other trades you cannot do that. As a matter of fact, 
 in the building trade you may get men working overtime in one 
 place at the very time 20 per cent of the workmen are out of work 
 in another. 
 
 We propose that the workmen should pay 2^d. per week and 
 the employer 2^d., and that the State should take upon itself one- 
 fourth of the total income. We propose that there should be an 
 abatement to those employers who choose to pay for their work 
 by the year. I will show the extent of that abatement ; it is very 
 considerable. If you take the two contributions of employers and 
 workmen at 2jd., they come to 21s. 8d. per annum; we propose 
 that the employer who will undertake to insure a workman for the 
 whole of a year can do so for i5d. He will get the whole benefit 
 of the reduction. It is proposed that the workman shall pay the 
 full 2^d., but that the employer should get the whole benefit of the 
 abatement. It seems a very serious abatement. It is practically 
 telling him that he can take one-half if he undertakes to insure 
 the workman for a year at a time. It is an inducement to him to 
 give regular employment ; it is a discouragement of casual labour ; 
 it is a reward to the employer who keeps his workmen for a whole 
 year. It is a very heavy one, but I think it is worth while. That 
 is the only exception made by the employer. 
 
 We propose, by way of benefits, to give in the engineering 
 trade 7s. per week unemployed pay, and in the building trade 6s., 
 for a maximum of fifteen weeks. The number of weeks is limited 
 to fifteen, because, I again say here, there is no basis of actuarial 
 calculation, and you will have to watch the thing. Now you will 
 have a huge distress fund, to which the employers will contribute 
 very nearly ^r, 000, 000 and the State, ;£"7oo,ooo or ;^8oo,ooo for 
 the purpose of relieving the distress, and to enable the workmen 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 533 
 
 to insure where otherwise they could not do it. But you cannot 
 guarantee that it will work out at these figures. All we can say, 
 having consulted the best actuaries at our disposal, is that we are 
 firmly convinced that the fund will work out in this way. What 
 will happen ? The workman who is out of work will go to the 
 Labour Exchange. We want someone there to check him, so that 
 you will not have a man who is not genuinely unemployed getting 
 unemployed pay. Therefore you have to do this through the Labour 
 Exchanges. The man will take his card and they will offer him a 
 job. If he refuses a job, then comes the question. Who will decide 
 whether he is unemployed or not ? We have appointed an impar- 
 tial court of referees to decide this ; we cannot leave it to the Labour 
 Exchanges entirely, or to the workmen, to decide whether the man 
 is to take a job or the 7s. unemployed ienefit. There will be no 
 payment for a workman dismissed through his own misconduct. 
 There will be no payment under this scheme where there is unem- 
 ployment by reason of strikes or lockouts, because this scheme 
 has absolutely nothing to do with them. It is purely a relief scheme 
 for unemployment which is due to fluctuations of trade. 
 
 I now take the trade unions which insure themselves against 
 unemployment. We propose in that case that they should reap the 
 benefit, but we cannot possibly hand over State funds — certainly 
 not employers' funds — to an organisation, the object of which, in 
 the main, is to fight out questions of wages and conditions of 
 labour with the employers. What we propose is this, that the 
 trade union shall pay its unemployed benefit to the men and 
 claim from the fund repayment in respect to the amount which 
 the men would have been entitled to draw had they gone direct to 
 the Labour Exchanges. The State in effect allows trade unions to 
 spend this money, and at the same time it protects against the 
 unfairness of subsidising what, after all, is a war-chest, — as the 
 trade unions admit. . . . 
 
 If any other trade wishes to come in, they are to have, what I 
 think they call in the Court of Chancery, " liberty to apply." If 
 
S34 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 they make out their case and are prepared to make their contribu- 
 tion, it will be possible to include them in our scheme. But for the 
 moment -we propose to begin the experiment with these trades, 
 which are the very worst trades from the point of view of unem- 
 ployment. This scheme will apply to over 2,400,000 workmen. The 
 contributions of the workmen will be ;^i, 100,000. The contribu- 
 tions of the employers will be ;^9oo,ooo. The cost to the State — 
 
 Mr. Austen Chamberlain : But you said the contributions 
 from the workmen and the employers are to be the same. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George : I thought I had made it quite clear that 
 there is a very considerable abatement to the employer. It is equiv- 
 alent to ;^2 00,000 on the whole scheme to the employers if they 
 undertake the responsibility of insuring the whole of -their work- 
 men by the year. The cost to the State will be approximately 
 ^750,000 a year. The expenditure will undoubtedly fluctuate with 
 the state of trade, and a fund will therefore have to be created for 
 the purpose of dealing with times of very great distress. That is 
 the position as far as both of these branches are concerned. The 
 total sum to be raised in the first year is ;^24,5oo,ooo, of which 
 the State will contribute ;^2,5oo,ooo. By the fourth year the 
 State's contribution will have risen to nearly ;^5, 5 00,000. That is 
 the finance of the scheme. 
 
 I have explained to the House as best I could this great matter, 
 and I thank Members for the courtesy with which they have lis- 
 tened to me. I have explained as best I could the details of our 
 scheme — the system of contributions and of benefits and the 
 machinery whereby something like 15,000,000 people will be in- 
 sured, at any rate against the acute distress which now darkens 
 the homes of the workmen wherever there is sickness and unem- 
 ployment. I do not pretend that this is a complete remedy. Before 
 you get a complete remedy for these evils you will have to cut in 
 deeper. But I think it is partly a remedy. I think it does more. 
 It lays bare a good many of those social evils, and forces the State, 
 as a State, to pay attention to them. 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 535 
 
 Meantime till the advent of complete remedy, this scheme does 
 alleviate an immense mass of human suffering, and I am going to 
 appeal, not merely to those who support the Government in this 
 House, but to the House as a whole, to the men of all parties, to 
 assist us. I can honestly say that I have endeavoured to eliminate 
 from the scheme any matter which would cause legitimate offence 
 to the reasonable susceptibilities of any party in the House. I feel 
 that otherwise I would have no right to appeal, not only for sup- 
 port, but for co-operation. I appeal to the House of Commons to 
 help the Government not merely to carry this Bill through, but to 
 fashion it ; to strengthen it where it is weak, to improve it where 
 it is faulty. I am sure if this is done we shall have achieved some- 
 thing which will be worthy of our labours. 
 
 Here we are in the year of the crowning of the King. We have 
 men from all parts of this great Empire coming not merely to 
 celebrate the present splendour of the Empire, but also to take 
 counsel together as to the best means of promoting its future wel- 
 fare. I think that now would be a very opportune moment for us 
 in the Homeland to carry through a measure that will relieve untold 
 misery in myriads of homes — misery that is undeserved ; that will 
 help to prevent a good deal of wretchedness, and which will arm 
 the nation to fight until it conquers " the pestilence that walketh in 
 darkness, and the destruction that wasteth at noonday." 
 
 Extract <?5 
 
 IRISH SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL 
 
 {Mr. John Redmond, Commons, May 4, igii) 
 
 Mr. Redmond^: . . I would like to say that there are no men 
 in this House who for the last thirty years have more consistently 
 supported every effort which has been made by any party in this 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 25, col. 652. 
 
536 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 House to redress the balance which has for so long been against 
 the poor in our modern civilisation. No hon. Members have more 
 consistently supported all measures of that kind than the Irish 
 Members. I entirely agree with the opening words of the right 
 hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire [Mr. Austen 
 Chamberlain]. I think it would be impossible, and, indeed, it would 
 be "a bad compliment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for any 
 one to attempt to deliver anything like a considered opinion with 
 reference to this measure at the present moment. AU one can do 
 is to take a view of the general aspect of it. It is on the face of 
 it a great and comprehensive measure ; it must be judged very 
 largely after an examination of its details. With the objects the 
 right hon. Gentleman has in view every portion of the House 
 must sympathise. So far as we in Ireland are concerned, we have 
 special reason to sympathise with objects of this kind. Ireland is 
 a poor country. In Ireland there are mor-e of the poor and of the 
 very poor than in any other portion of the United Kingdom. There- 
 fore Ireland stands in a special degree to benefit by measures of 
 this kind, if only they are so constructed and adapted as to suit 
 the peculiar circumstances and conditions of Ireland. . . . 
 
 Extract 86 
 
 DEFENCE OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL 
 
 (Mr. Sydney Buxton, President of the Board of Trade, Commons, 
 May 24., igii) 
 
 Mr. Buxton ' : . . . The Bill, apparently, is a somewhat com- 
 plex Bill ; but, as a matter of fact, the principles involved are simple. 
 The idea on which it is based is that under existing conditions the 
 whole burden of sickness, invalidity, and unemployment over which 
 the workingman has no control, falls directly with crushing force 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 26, col. 270 sqq. 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 537 
 
 on the individual, whether he be provident or improvident, and I 
 think the House is generally agreed that it is time that the employer 
 and the State should enter into partnership with the workingman 
 in order as far as possible to mitigate the severity of the burden 
 which falls upon him. The principle on which these two schemes 
 is based is that the burden of insurance against sickness and un- 
 employment should be shared by workmen, employers, and the 
 State. The system must be contributory and compulsory, and it 
 should not, as far as can be avoided, interfere with existing volun- 
 tary machinery. It should also aid as far as it can towards the 
 diminution and prevention of sickness and unemployment as well 
 as towards their alleviation. It is important also that both sections 
 of the Bill should bring into touch and into partnership the various 
 interests concerned, so that they may have a direct interest in the 
 efficient carrying out of this scheme. 
 
 The question is whether a scheme of insurance against invalidity 
 and unemployment is a feasible one. The principle of the insur- 
 ance of late years has enormously increased. You can insure prac- 
 tically against anything. I believe there were insurances given 
 against the effects of the Budget of my right hon. Friend ^ a year 
 or two ago. I believe you can now get an insurance against the 
 House of Lords throwing out the Veto Bill, though what premium 
 is charged at the present moment I have been unable to ascertain. 
 The two parts of the scheme — the invalidity part and the unem- 
 ployment part — are practically interdependent, though in some 
 respects they are naturally worked differently. The scheme is a 
 large one, and, with the permission of the House, I shall desire to 
 confine myself largely to the consideration of the second part of 
 the Bill. 
 
 I make this personal observation. I do not desire, in moving the 
 second reading of the Bill, especially in regard to Part II, to claim 
 its parentage. The first idea was that of my right hon. Friend 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Mr. David Lloyd George]. The 
 
 I The Lloyd George Budget. Cf. supra, ch, viii. 
 
538 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 details were carefully worked out by my right hon. Friend the Home 
 Secretary [Mr. Winston Churchill], assisted, as I am sure he will 
 be the first to agree, by the very able staff which the country for- 
 tunately possesses at the Board of Trade, and I know that one of 
 his principal regrets when he was leaving the Board of Trade was 
 that he had to leave it before he had been able to bring this par- 
 . ticular proposal to fruition. I took it over at the Board of Trade, 
 and with the assistance of my advisers I hope I have done some- 
 thing to improve the Bill. It is now presented to the House, as 
 we believe, as a workable and water-tight proposal. I can say for 
 myself that, although I am only the foster-parent, I have a pro- 
 found interest in this question, and a profound belief that the 
 proposals we are making will do something towards the solution 
 of the question. 
 
 The point is. Will this scheme actually carry out the object we 
 have in view ? We believe it will. We believe, further, that it will 
 not only prove a palliative, but, by the various provisions of the 
 Bill, especially in connection with our Labour Exchanges,' which 
 are, after all, the corollary of the Unemployed Bill, we shall be able 
 to do something, by organising in various ways, towards the steady- 
 ing of labour and the regularity of employment. 
 
 Let me deal with some of the criticisms which have been directed 
 against the Bill since it came before the country. There are two 
 points of great importance — one is a criticism, the other a sug- 
 gestion. Both are of serious moment to the life of the Bill. The 
 criticism is this — that the unemployment part of the Bill is a haz-: 
 ardous experiment. The suggestion is that it is premature, and that 
 it ought to be divided from the other part of the Bill and taken 
 at a later stage. . . . 
 
 It was assumed on the first reading, I think, that we had no 
 substantial available data on which we could found our proposals ; 
 but the very able report of the very able actuary, Mr. Ackland, to 
 whom the matter was referred, has, I think, dispelled the illusion, 
 
 1 Cf. supra, p. 213. 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 539 
 
 and shows that we have sufficient information and that the safe- 
 guards which we present in the Bill are sufficient to enable us to 
 offer the proposal as an acceptable one to the House of Commons. 
 May I point out this, that the postponement of the proposals would 
 give us no further information than we have at the present time. 
 Such data as we have, such bases for calculation as we have at the 
 present moment, will speedily increase ; and we hope if the Bill is 
 passed, and these insurance proposals are introduced and applied to 
 certain trades, before long we shall have better experience in order, 
 if necessary, to extend the system still further. I would point out, 
 and I think it is an important point, that the data on which we 
 are acting — the data of our actuaiy on which he proceeded — are 
 based on the actual experience for many years past of the great 
 trade unions, including in insured trades something like 300,000 
 persons, and the data seem to me to be very sound, direct data, 
 founded entirely on the payment of unemployed benefits. . . . 
 
 Then there is a further argument, perhaps of a rather more spe- 
 cious character, which has been raised on the first reading and 
 since. It is that we should not carry out the compulsory part of 
 this scheme, but make a beginning with voluntary insurance alone. 
 That also, I hope, will be strenuously resisted by the House, because 
 
 without the compulsory part we cannot make a real effort we 
 
 cannot carry out a comprehensive system of National Insurance 
 against unemployment. All the experience abroad goes to show 
 that a purely voluntary scheme will not really be of an effective 
 .character. It naturally includes bad risks, and almost from the be- 
 ginning it is bound to be more or less financially unsound. The only 
 scheme— a scheme which has some supporters, and which no 
 doubt in itself has had some success — is what is called the Ghent 
 system. That scheme we have already adopted in our Bill as re- 
 gards the voluntary part of it, but, as the sole contribution of this 
 great question, it is totally and wholly ineffective. The Ghent sys- 
 tem IS this : it is a simple and direct contribution of recognised 
 associations, which in these cases means trade unions alone, and of 
 
540 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 a State contribution to such unemployment benefits as they give. 
 We desire to encourage not only those who are at present able 
 to insure for themselves, but we are even more desirous by com- 
 pulsion to secure the provision of unemployed benefits for those 
 who for any reason at present are unable or unwilling to insure 
 themselves. . . . 
 
 The scheme is obviously confined to certain classes of the popu- 
 lation, and it would certainly be fatal to any scheme of insurance 
 to say that it must not be applied to limited cases. That has never 
 deterred us from attempting any social reform or any social legis- 
 lation which, in the first instance, applied to a limited class. I 
 contend, on the other hand, that we are entitled — and we are 
 doing it every day — to utihse the resources of the community for 
 the purpose of instituting such reforms, even though of a limited 
 character, and applying them only to limited classes. I think we 
 can say that, although in a sense this contribution is to a limited 
 class and a limited number, it is really a contribution benefiting all 
 trades and all classes of the community. . . . 
 
 Allegations have been made in many quarters that the scheme 
 of the Bill as a whole is going to throw great additional burdens on 
 workmen, employers, and the State. That I deny altogether. In- 
 surance against sickness and unemployment will involve no new 
 burden. The burden exists at present, but in future it will be better 
 distributed and more easily and equitably borne, and more people 
 will be benefited by this system of insurance. Take the case of un- 
 employment. At present the burden appears in the national ledger 
 as pauperising Poor Law expenditure, as systems of State or mu- 
 nicipal doles, and as sudden emergency works which very often 
 are a waste of money. So far as the provident workman is con- 
 cerned, it is met by the contribution to the trade union, and where 
 he is improvident, it is met by the neighborly assistance he receives, 
 and which is so freely and ungrudgingly given among the working 
 classes, and by the costly realisation of his belongings, costly credit, 
 and costly arrears, In connection with these operations, the man 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 54 1 
 
 is subjected both mentally and physically to the suffering which the 
 unemployment brings in its train. I think it will stand to reason 
 that it must be infinitely better to have permanent machinery to 
 anticipate the " rainy day " and to distribute the money more equi- 
 tably over various interests and more uniformly over the period. I 
 think one can safely assert that the burden, far from being greater, 
 would really be less than before. 
 
 There is one other objection to the scheme upon which the House 
 will allow me to say a word. We are told that we ought to differ- 
 entiate — this is an important point — our contributions and bene- 
 fits according to the risks of a trade as a whole, and that we ought 
 to distinguish more between trade and trade, and even distinguish 
 between various sections of a trade. I do not think that will receive 
 the support of my hon. Friends below the gangway. Trade union- 
 ism has always preached the solidarity of labour, and that, so far 
 as it goes, the regular man and the irregular man should be put 
 together. We are providing in this Bill for certain differentiation, 
 and as our experience extends we may be able to provide that still 
 further, but I think, at all events, in the first instance, it is very 
 important that we should, as far as possible, take what is called 
 the flat rate and apply it to engineering and shipbuilding and to 
 the other trades in the building construction group, and see how 
 it will work out, and with what justice, to the various interests 
 concerned. . . . 
 
 I wish to refer to another point upon which I think there has 
 been on the part of my hon. Friends below the gangway consider- 
 able apprehension, and that is in regard to the effect this Bill may 
 have upon trade unions — whether the provisions are drafted suf- 
 ficiendy wide to enable a trade union to become and remain an 
 approved society without necessitating any effective alteration in its 
 practice, or in its ordinary functions as a trade union. I can well 
 understand the anxiety that all trade union men have if they feel 
 that the real effect of this Bill is going to undermine or destroy trade 
 unions. These great organisations, built up during many years in 
 
S42 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the past, and whose position has become so strong, might very well 
 feel that any proposal whereby their general position was in any 
 way weakened or undermined would be indefensible, and that no 
 such Bill ought to be put on the Statute Book. I am one of those 
 — I have always said so publicly — who believe, and I believe it 
 is the opinion of the House now, that it is not only in the interest 
 of labour itself, but in the interest of employers as well, that these 
 trade unions should be strong, representative, and independent, and 
 I can assure my hon. Friends and the House generally that nothing 
 is further from the object and desire of the framers of the Bill than 
 that when it becomes an Act it should be used as a disruptive force 
 against any trade union. . . . 
 
 I have endeavoured to deal with the chief criticism, most of 
 which has been directed against Part II, and some of which has 
 been directed against Part I of the Bill. There is just one other 
 point which I may refer to incidentally. I have seen the scheme 
 criticised with reference to its being too bureaucratic. We are, 
 after all, going to deal with it through the Labour Exchanges, and 
 the voluntary associations through the combination, and we hope 
 co-operation, by means of joint committees of representative em- 
 ployers and workmen. If it can be shown in any way that those 
 panels of referees can be made more representative than those 
 proposed by this Bill, we shall very much welcome any suggestions 
 that can be made ; but I can assure the House that our sole desire 
 is to put the system, as far as we can, on a representative basis. . . . 
 
 This is our proposal, and this is our contribution to social reform. 
 I am sure that my right hon. Friend, and certainly I, would be the 
 last to claim that in any sense this is a final solution of the problem 
 of sickness or unemployment, but I think it has this great merit, 
 that while it is a considerable step forward in the direction which 
 we all desire to follow, it is not only no obstacle to, but I think it is 
 an avenue towards, the extension of various other systems, also in 
 the same direction. We have founded it, as we believe, on a busi- 
 ness basis and on sound actuarial calculations, and we offer it to 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 543 
 
 the House as a great and beneficent step forward, which, if the 
 House accepts it, will do much to achieve that which we all desire 
 — the improvement of the social condition of the working classes. 
 
 Extract Sy 
 
 LESSONS FROM GERMAN EXPERIENCE 
 
 {Sir Rufus Isaacs, Attorney-General, Commons, May 24, igil) 
 
 Sir Rufus Isaacs ^ : . . . In the framing of this measure the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who have been privileged 
 to take part at all in the discussion of the details of this measure 
 have had the incalculable advantage of the experience of the 
 German Empire in relation to this compulsory insurance. Germany- 
 has gradually built up a system which by common consent is of a 
 most beneficent character and is working to the advantage not only 
 of the employer, but also of the employed. The White Paper which 
 has been circulated quite recently contains the opinions of a number 
 of German employers which really are most valuable in considering 
 what we can anticipate as the probable result of this measure, 
 certainly upon employers. I am not going to attempt to read them 
 or quote them to this House, but I will summarise them in two or 
 three sentences, and I believe fairly, having regard to the opinions 
 therein expressed. The general opinion in Germany is that by 
 freeing the working classes from anxiety by reason of sickness 
 infirmity, and accidents, their conditions of life have been materially 
 bettered and, from the employers' standpoint, the contributions 
 hey make have proved an excellent investment. The insurance 
 aw has tended to improve the relations between the employer and 
 the employed, without impairing the independence of the workers 
 Indeed, if you study the history of the last twenty-five years, the 
 period covered by the insurance legislation in Germany, it will be 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Commons, vol. 26, col. 368 sqq. 
 
544 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 discovered that trade unions have flourished and multiplied exceed- 
 ingly in the German Empire, concurrently with the progress and 
 development of this industrial legislation. On the other hand, so 
 satisfied are the employers with the result of this legislation that it 
 is roundly asserted by one prominent employer, speaking, as he 
 believes, on behalf of the employers, or the majority of the em- 
 f)loyers in Germany, that they do not desire, and indeed would 
 oppose, the repeal of these insurance laws, which, nevertheless, 
 necessitate their making a contribution to certain funds according 
 to the legislation of the country. 
 
 At one time, as was naturally to be expected, when this scheme 
 was launched or mooted in 1881 by Prince Bismarck, there was 
 the greatest anxiety among German employers as to what was to 
 be expected as a result of this proposal. It was said, at first, that 
 it would fine employers, that it would tend to cripple industry, and 
 that the cost of production would be increased without any correl- 
 ative advantage. It was explained, according to their views, that 
 these new contributions to be made by the German employer would 
 act injuriously upon the employers' interests, and that it would con- 
 sequently react to the disadvantage of the employed. But all 
 these apprehensions have long since disappeared, and Germany 
 has continued to develop under this insurance legislation, and at 
 the present moment — it is a curious coincidence worthy of obser- 
 vation that during this very week, in the German Reichstag, there 
 has taken place a debate on the second reading of a measure for 
 the consolidation and codification of the German insurance laws, 
 running, I believe, to something like 1 5 1 7 paragraphs. That is the 
 position at the present moment. 
 
 Mr. Booth : It has been in Committee for twelve months. 
 
 Sir Rufus Isaacs : Of course, if there are from 1500 to 1700 
 clauses, I am not at all surprised that it has been in Committee for 
 twelve months. But we, during these twenty-five years, have not 
 progressed along the same line as Germany. But, nevertheless, we 
 have made great strides. We have ourselves instituted workmen's 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 545 
 
 compensation. We have instituted — it was originally introduced 
 by the present Opposition and developed and extended by the 
 Liberal Government since igo6 — old age pensions, which in thic 
 country are on a non-contributory basis. In Germany, as no doubt 
 the House is aware, it is on a contributory basis. The difference 
 is that at the present moment, for the year 1911-12, the Govern- 
 ment requirement for old age pensions is ;^i 2,840,000, whereas 
 in Germany there will be required of the State as its contribution 
 to old age pensions, ;£"2,575,ooo, which is a contribution to the 
 ;^7, 500,000, which is the total amount provided under old age 
 pensions for the working classes in Germany. The average old 
 age pension under the scheme in Germany works out at 3s. id. 
 per head. It is not surprising, therefore, to know that, notwith- 
 standing that there is this scheme of old age pensions, very often 
 the working classes who are in receipt of old age pensions have 
 to have recourse to the Poor Law. 
 
 One of the striking features of the system in Germany to which 
 I desire to call attention is this, that the compulsory provisions for 
 sickness and disablement insurance have proved a stimulus to thrift 
 in other directions. This is confirmatory to the views which we hold. 
 It shows that the habit of saving increases as you make provision, 
 and as you help by contributions either from the employer or the 
 State, so you induce the worker to make further insurance for his 
 own benefit. He comes to realise what is the true advantage of 
 insurance. He would, further, appreciate that, in the case of sick- 
 ness or temporary destitution, when he has either to withdraw or to 
 exhaust the fund which he has managed to accumulate with great 
 difficulty and great trouble because of the receipt of sick benefit or 
 disablement in insurance benefit, the money which he has managed 
 to save for himself is still there in the savings bank, still accumu- 
 lating from day to day, increasing in amount, and to which he can 
 add his little store from week to week, and month to month. The 
 desire to save becomes greater and the appetite for it increases 
 daily, and consequently, as we believe, if we can only manage in this 
 
546 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 country, by reason of these contributions, to instil into our people 
 the desire to save, not only by those contributions that they have 
 te make under the Insurance Law, but to save in order that they 
 •may be able to make their own provision, to create their own inde- 
 pendence altogether apart from this scheme, I do believe that we 
 shall have taken a most notable step along the path of progress, 
 the self-respect and the independence of the workpeople of this 
 country. 
 
 One further point which we learn from Germany is that the 
 curative and preventive effect of the treatment of disease by means 
 of sanatoria and other institutions, such as convalescent homes and 
 kindred establishments, in Germany, have not only succeeded in 
 arresting the ravages of the disease of consumption, but have helped 
 to prevent it. . . . 
 
 I think that it is a great satisfaction to us to find that Germany, 
 which has been the pioneer in this movement, and which has 
 hitherto held tlie leading place in the world for social legislation 
 of this kind, is itself much impressed with the measure which has 
 been introduced by my right hon. Friend. I notice in reading the 
 German newspaper dealing with the inductory speech of my right 
 hon. Friend that the German criticism of the measure is that, ow- 
 ing to its directness, its simplicity, and its comprehensiveness, it 
 will excel what one German newspaper, the Tageblatt, calls the 
 " bureaucratic hotchpotch of the German insurance system." Let 
 us note, as we pass, the compliment that is paid to my right hon. 
 Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In German press articles 
 German experts are advised to study the measure which has been 
 introduced by my right hon. Friend, lest they should be left behind, 
 and, indeed, one German newspaper I happened to read, said that 
 the introduction of this measure had earned for my right hon. 
 Friend a statue in Westminster Abbey. I hope the time is long 
 distant before we shall have to consider whether it will be desirable 
 to erect a statue for him in Westminster Abbey. . . . 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 547 
 
 Extract 88 
 
 ATTITUDE OF THE LABOUR PARTY TOWARD NATIONAL 
 INSURANCE 
 
 {Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Commons, May 2g, igri) 
 
 Mr. Macdonald '^ : By the consent of everybody in this House, 
 I think I may say that the Bill, the second reading of which we 
 are now discussing, is a very unique Bill. More than that, the 
 debate which has. taken place upon it has been a very unique 
 debate. If this Bill had been introduced ten years ago, it would 
 not have found, I think, a single supporter from either of the Front 
 Benches. The point of view which the Chancellor and the Govern- 
 ment have taken is one which is quite new, and which marks a 
 fundamental change of public opinion, and the most extraordinary 
 thing for those who are sitting on these Benches is to find that that 
 point of view is not challenged by any section of this House. 
 
 The old assumption upon which we used to approach questions 
 of legislation, by which State aid and State organisations were 
 regarded as something which ought to be suspected by every wise 
 man, has been thrown over, thrown over not only by those who 
 sit in this quarter of the House, but thrown over by everybody. 
 That is a very substantial advance, one of those advances which 
 one finds in public opinion happening periodically about once every 
 century, and I think it is an indication that to-day in the times that 
 have come upon us the old political parties are largely losing their 
 significance ; and the combination which has taken place, during- 
 the last week or two, on both sides of the House, to praise this 
 Bill and facilitate its passage is one that is welcomed, at any rate, 
 very heartily and most sincerely by those who sit with me here. 
 
 The purpose of this Bill is twofold. First of all, it proposes to 
 fill up the gaps in the life of the industrial classes that have been 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Commons, vol. 26, col. 718 sqq. 
 
548 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 only too frequent. What has happened has been something like 
 this: Very often when going along long roads in mountainous 
 districts, the wayfarer finds that a heavy fall or an avalanche of 
 snow has completely broken the road which, up to that point, had 
 been smooth and easy walking. Every now and again the wage- 
 earner has come to points like that on his way ; sickness, unem- 
 ployment, or misfortune of some kind seems completely to have 
 smashed the road right away in front of him, and he has been left 
 behind struggling for existence, severely handicapped, and without 
 any chance of using the opportunities which otherwise would be at 
 his disposal. For the first time in a clear, unmistakable, sympa- 
 thetic way a Government has come before the country and has said 
 that the repair of these breaches in the way of life is a responsibility 
 imposed upon the Government, and an Opposition has also offered 
 to say to the Government, " We support you in your efforts and 
 agree with your general position." 
 
 The second point of the Bill is one which is equally of impor- 
 tance. Its idea is so to improve the general public health that 
 those gaps will be less frequent than they have been. The inten- 
 tion of the Bill is not only to repair gaps that have been effected, 
 but to repair the road against those avalanches that fall from time 
 to time. 
 
 I wish to ask the indulgence of the House to examine the Bill in 
 a more or less general way from those two points of view. I shall 
 take the public health point of view first. When one sits down and 
 thinks of it seriously, and apart from one's own experience, it really 
 is the most extraordinary thing that up to now our doctors have 
 been paid for attending disease. The more diseases, the better it 
 has been for the medical fatuity of this country. That is absurd, 
 absolutely absurd. 
 
 The whole medical service had been so disorganised that, in so 
 far as it has been prompted by economic considerations only, the 
 intiPrest of every doctor was to get as many diseases, as much 
 illness, as he could possibly create amongst the people. A doctor 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 549 
 
 attending a sick person only drew fees when the persons were 
 sick. My name might be on my doctor's list of possible patients, 
 but so long as I am well, my doctor is making nothing out of me. 
 The moment I become ill, then my doctor begins to regard me in 
 the light of an income. I understand the protest was raised from the 
 other side. I know perfectly well that of no profession in the whole 
 country is it truer to say that their economic interests have never 
 regulated their conduct. It has been one of the most encouraging 
 and remarkable manifestations, that, on account of humanitarian 
 considerations, and on account of the intellectual interest they 
 have taken in their profession, our doctors have never allowed 
 their economic interests to dictate their relationship to the gen- 
 eral public. But there the facts remain, and until this Bill has been 
 brought before the House there has not been any attempt to es- 
 tablish a system of social organisation which used the doctor not 
 merely for the purpose of attending disease but for the purpose 
 of eliminating disease altogether. 
 
 With that general point of view before us, it becomes very 
 necessary that medical men under this Bill should have the very 
 fairest treatment. I am not quite sure how far the claims made by 
 medical men up to now are well founded. It is a remarkable fact 
 that the medical faculty, speaking of them as a whole, feel them- 
 selves injured, or possibly injured, by this Bill. I think they are 
 very wise to take the gloomiest view of their prospects under the 
 Bill. We ought not to object to their taking that point of view, 
 because they know enough of life to come to the conclusion that 
 if they do not take that view, nobody else will. Therefore I, for 
 one, do not regard the doctors as being hostile to the Bill because 
 they are putting in claims that the scale of fees and the financial 
 provision made for them are not at all adequate. I hope the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer will very seriously consider that 
 matter. . . . 
 
 Let me take the second point, which I mentioned first of all, and 
 which is the main purpose of the Bill — the purpose of filling up 
 
5 so BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the gaps in life and making them less frequent. In that connection 
 I think the House should be very careful not to use two very 
 erroneous expressions that have been employed frequently by the 
 previous speakers. The Bill proposes, they say, to make deductions 
 from wages and give free medical attendance. Both those expres- 
 sions are absolutely wrong, and if the public once gets it into its 
 mind that these expressions adequately and accurately represent 
 what the Bill proposes, enormous difficulties will be raised in con- 
 sequence. As a matter of fact there is no deduction from wages 
 at all. In the proper sense of the term " deduction " there is no 
 deduction from wages, because sooner or later the chances are that 
 everyone of us will have to pay a doctor's bill, and what is done by 
 this Bill is simply, instead of paying the doctor's bill in the lump we 
 are asked to pay it in instalments. But that is not a deduction 
 from wages. Accurate words, I think, would conduce to accurate 
 thinking in this respect, and would enable the public to appreciate 
 much more than I am afraid it now appreciates what is precisely 
 the effect of this Bill. Again, free medical attendance is not given 
 under this Bill. Why, one might as well say that if one insures 
 one's life, and one's heirs put in a claim against the insurance so- 
 ciety to which one belonged, that this insurance society is making 
 a free gift to one's heirs. As a matter of fact that is not the case at 
 all. There is no free medical attendance proposed under this Bill. 
 It is simply the application of the method and principle of insurance 
 against certain events which overtake most of us during our life. 
 
 The Bill, if I may say so without being misunderstood, is, after 
 all, superficial ; it deals with the problem of poverty when that 
 poverty has arisen. If we all had ;£'2oo per year, and if the 
 average income of the working classes was something like ;£^2 5o 
 per year, this Bill would be unnecessary. It would be necessary 
 to organise public health, it would still be necessary to consider 
 the conditions under which the individual lives, but so far as in- 
 surance is concerned of the individual in respect to his doctor's 
 bill this Bill would not be at all necessary. 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 55 1 
 
 That being so, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must expect 
 that every step he takes to meet special hardships will have grave 
 danger of only creating hardships. Take, for instance, the cases 
 of those with from 9s. to 15s. per week. It is perfectly evident, 
 and I do not think anybody will dispute this proposition, that a 
 man or woman with 9s. a week as an income has not a sufficiently 
 big income to enable him or her to live a decent life, and certainly 
 not a sufficiently big income to justify the State taking 46. per 
 week. We all agree that that is not a disputable proposition at all, 
 but I am not at all sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is 
 able to devise any exemption or any system of gradation that will 
 not to a certain extent have the effect of stereotyping the present 
 bad conditions. We must do our very best by careful consideration 
 of the economic circumstances to make these too low-paid forms 
 of labour, such a very striking and rather common feature of 
 modem society — we must do our level best not to stereotype them 
 by anything of a humanitarian character and in the character of a 
 concession which this Bill may give. . . . 
 
 It is unfair to ask the man whose strength is below the average, 
 to bear his own burdens. I do not think anybody will dispute that. 
 If we proceed upon the insurance method and apply the insurance 
 principle, we must strike an average, and that average ought not 
 to be struck merely on the workmen themselves, but ought to be 
 an average in which other responsibilities and other interests than 
 those of the workman can find adequate place. Moreover, the 
 State is going to organise health, and health must not be organised 
 at the charge of the individual workman. Therefore the workman's 
 contribution ought to be supplemented by other contributions, and 
 there we will leave it for the moment. 
 
 What about the employers ? I am bound to say, from my point 
 of view, and I am trying to argue the thing down from general 
 principles, it is more difficult to impose, and to discover justification 
 for imposing, responsibility upon the employer than either upon the 
 workman or the State in this respect. What is the responsibility of 
 
552 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 the employer ? It is, first of all, to provide good conditions for his 
 workmen, but that is secured by legislation. Then there are em- 
 ployers working especially dangerous trades, and yet that again is 
 secured by special legislation. . . . The employer has got a third 
 responsibility, and that is to pay proper wages. If the employer 
 pays proper wages, or, in other words, if the workers' share of the 
 national income is adequate, then we do not want charity and we 
 do not want assistance at all. Therefore the employers' main 
 responsibilities are to obey the law and pay good wages. Still he 
 does come in in one way. If the BiU operates and produces the 
 results which we expect it will produce, then it will undoubtedly 
 mean that it will give to the employer a more and more efficient 
 body of workers than he has got now, and it will enable him to run 
 his machinery more efficiently than machinery is now being run. 
 It will enable him to use his capital more economically than his 
 capital is being used now. . . . 
 
 The third partner is the State. The State is going to receive 
 enormous benefits from this Bill; rates are going to be lowered, 
 taxes are going to be made less, all sorts of public charges, neces- 
 sary on account of the low state of vitality and bad state of health 
 of a large section of the people, are going to be eased if this Bill 
 is going to do what it is expected it will do. 
 
 When you come to apportionment it is quite impossible to trans- 
 late into mathematical relationship and ratio the various benefits to 
 the workman, the employer, and the State respectively. But I am 
 perfectly certain of this — that if gd. is required, then 4d. for the 
 workman, 3d. from the employer, and 3d. from the State is not a 
 fair apportionment. I am perfectly certain of that, and that can- 
 not be justified, but we are quite willing to accept, during the ex- 
 perimental stages at any rate, an equal apportionment of 3d., 3d., 
 and 3d. That is fair play, and at all events, on the face of it, 
 substantially it is a nearer approach to fair play than 4d., 3d., and 
 2d. I think that we shall have in Committee to move Amendments 
 which will effect that redistribution of premiums. 
 
 I 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE ' 553 
 
 Those of us who sit here must also scrutinise the Bill very 
 carefully, very systematically I hope, but still very carefully, as to 
 what the effect on wages is going to be. The prime consideration 
 of everybody who is concerned in raising the status of the working 
 classes is the amount of wages the working class get. You cannot 
 get out of that. We do not want charity and we do not want doles, 
 and we do not want Grants-in-Aid, and we do not want relief, and 
 this is necessary at the present moment, simply because things are 
 as they are, and in order to cure our present evils. I do not believe 
 that the trade-union movement, the members of the trade unions, 
 and the wage-earners, as a whole, will look twice at any proposal 
 that will make it more difficult for them than it is now to increase 
 the general wages of the general group of wage-earners of the 
 country. . . . 
 
 We must be very careful about our economic facts. We cannot 
 carry out high and dry economics. That is absurd. We are not in 
 a vacuum. We are living under conditions which compel us to 
 modify and change those broader abstract dogmas which in the 
 abstract are perfectly true, but which in everyday life cannot quite 
 be applied. I hope the House when it gets into Committee, in 
 making a departure from sound economics will make that departure 
 as little as the circumstances will allow. I feel perfectly certain that 
 the great mass of trade unionists in the country will agree with me 
 in that statement. It is so important that there should be no 
 shadow of doubt about it that I repeat it. We are not here for 
 aids for wages, but we are here for better wages. We are here 
 to raise the wages, and not to make it easier for low-paid labour 
 to exist at all. 
 
 With this. in mind I should like to draw the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer's attention to the effect of one of its beneficent provi- 
 sions. We all understand why he has provided in the Bill that 
 every worker under twenty-one years of age shall pay the full 
 premium, but that when the age of twenty-one is reached, the 
 graded scale is to come into operation. Nobody will quarrel with 
 
5S4 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 this intention. But what will happen ? There are scores of thou- 
 sands of women in the country employed at mechanical labour. 
 One has simply to go to Birmingham and see women working in 
 front of big punching presses. The only thing they do is to feed 
 them ; sometimes they do not even do that ; they only watch cer- 
 tain long carefully prepared strips of brass or iron going through 
 the presses. They simply pull away baskets when they are filled 
 and put empty baskets in their place. What will happen with 
 regard to these women ? Up to the age of twenty-one they will 
 have to pay 3d., but when they reach the age of twenty-one and 
 their 3d. becomes 2d. or id., ^nd the contribution of the employer' 
 becomes 4d. or 5d., they will be discharged. There is no doubt 
 about that. I think that must be taken into account because that, 
 again, would be an exceedingly unfortunate result of this Bill. . . . 
 
 With reference to the unemployment section of the Bill I need 
 say very little. We all admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 has gone upon ground which has not been statistically explored. 
 The very interesting actuarial report is admirable proof of that. 
 The experiment is going to be carried out for five years in accord- 
 ance with the provisions of the Bill. During that time readjust- 
 ments are to be made, and observations made in regard to the 
 various risks, and so on. I think the House and the Committee 
 will be very well advised not to try to make this Bill verbally per- 
 fect. You cannot do it. We have not got the experience to do it. 
 It will be far better to let it go through with the certain admitted 
 defects and shortcomings so that we may not establish too elabo- 
 rate a system now. It is much easier to change a simple system 
 and make it more perfect after we have had the requisite experi- 
 ence than to begin with a very elaborate system and then to 
 change it five years from now. . . . 
 
 I believe that we all can foresee that the tightness of time may 
 endanger this Bill, but I think we can candidly confess to ourselves 
 that fact and approach this question with the assumption that this 
 Bill cannot be made perfect because we have not got the material 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE SSS 
 
 which will make it perfect, that every anomaly cannot be elimi- 
 nated from the Bill, and that it must contain some injustice to some 
 section or the other. If we will begin with the assumption .and 
 supplement that by the other assumption that we are producing 
 something that is going to enable us to construct tables from 
 experience which in a few years to come will permit the House of 
 Commons to construct a measure of insurance against sickness, 
 invalidity, and unemployment that will be fair, and will, of course, 
 be constructed from top to bottom, we will not allow this Bill to 
 be stifled, strangled, or dropped because the time is rather short. 
 With the consent, good-will, and co-operation of all sections of the 
 House, I hope, I believe, that this Bill can be put upon the Stat- 
 ute Book this year, and this beneficent provision be brought into 
 operation about twelve months from now. 
 
 Extract 8g 
 
 ATTITUDE OF THE UNIONIST PARTY TOWARD NATIONAL 
 INSURANCE 
 
 {Mr. H. W. Forster, Commons, December 6, igii') 
 
 Mr. Forster ' : I beg to move to leave out all the words after 
 the word " That," and to insert instead thereof the words, " while 
 approving the objects of national insurance, this House is of opin- 
 ion that under Part I of the Bill public funds and individual con- 
 tributions will not be used to the best advantage of those most 
 closely affected, and that, as the Bill has been neither adequately 
 discussed in this House nor fully explained to the country and 
 would in its present form be unequal in its operation, steps should 
 be taken to enable further consideration of Part I to be resumed 
 next Session, and in the meanwhile to have the draft regulations 
 published." . . . 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Commons, vol. 32, col. 1419 sqq. 
 
5S6 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 What is the meaning of the Amendment ? The meaning is pat- 
 ent on the face of it, and any man who reads the Amendment can 
 see .precisely what it means.' This is the object of it, that the de- 
 tailed discussion of this Bill should not now be closed. I ask that 
 further opportunity should be given, both to the House and to 
 the country, for further consideration of the measure before it is 
 passed into law. The part of the Bill to which I refer especially 
 is Part I, which, in my view, stands in a totally different category 
 from Part II, and I am bound to say that the House has always 
 treated it almost as if it were a different Bill. . . . This is not a 
 wrecking Amendment. I wanf the Government and the House to 
 understand that this is not a wrecking Amendment, and it is not 
 intended to be a wrecking Amendment. It is a demand for 
 further time; it is a demand that the Government might accede 
 to without loss of prestige to themselves ; it is a demand which, if 
 they grant it, will carry great benefit to the BiU upon which we 
 are engaged. 
 
 If I may turn from justification for my Amendment to its terms, 
 I would like to say a few words with reference to some questions 
 which are specifically raised by the Amendment itself. We begin 
 by declaring that we approve of the objects of National Insurance. 
 That is a perfectly genuine and a perfectly honest statement, and 
 a statement that I heed not labour. Indeed, right hon. Gentlemen 
 and the House generally know enough of us to believe what we 
 say in this regard is perfectly sincere and perfectly genuine, and I 
 do not think this requires further elaboration. 
 
 In the second place, we say that, in our opinion at any rate, the 
 public funds and individual contributions are not used to the best 
 advantage. In the course of the debates in Committee attempts 
 have been made to suggest alternative schemes. Those attempts 
 have not met with a very large measure of success. We were met 
 with difficulties whenever we endeavoured to move them. The 
 rules of the House, the rules of our debates, the rules under 
 which we conduct our debates, the strict and narrow terms of 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 557 
 
 the Financial Resolution, all combined to make it impossible for 
 us to. develop, as we should have wished to develop, alternative 
 proposals. . . . 
 
 This matter is a matter which, of course, very largely affects the 
 taxpayers, and there is one particular class of taxpayers who, I 
 think, are very closely affected by the proposals, and that is the 
 class of persons drawn from the same stratum as the employed 
 contributors will be drawn from, the persons who, because they 
 are working on their own account, will have to contribute towards 
 the provision of benefits for their neighbors, benefits that they do 
 not receive themselves. And I could show, if opportunity offered, 
 that it would be quite possible to have given to those people re- 
 duced benefits in return for a reduced voluntary contribution, so 
 that they would hot have been left out in the cold altogether, and 
 they would have been brought within the beneficent sphere of the 
 proposals of this Bill. The class of persons I have in mind are 
 persons like the smaller trader, the costermonger, the waterman 
 plying for hire in his own boat, the small tailor, the bootmaker, 
 the window cleaner, and the jobbing gardener, who are sections 
 of the population that may not be very large in themselves, but 
 which, added together, form a not inconsiderable portion of the 
 population. . . . 
 
 I pass from that part of my Amendment to consider the sugges- 
 tion that is made in another part, that this Bill is unequal in its op- 
 eration. Surely, I think it will be admitted in all quarters of the 
 Houfee that it is desirable where you are creating a national scheme 
 that the scheme should affect all classes of contributors equally. 
 All employed persons in this country are brought within the sphere 
 of this Bill. Are they all treated equally ? I think they are not, and 
 J think there is one class of person the inequality of whose treat- 
 ment is so patent that it requires no argument from me, and that 
 is the class of deposit contributors. What the deposit contributor 
 is doing in an Insurance Bill I have never been able to discover, and 
 X should have thought that while the Bill was still in Committee, 
 
558 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 or at any rate before we reached the present stage, the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer might have changed the wholly fictitious name, 
 the wholly fictitious title, which stands at the head of that section 
 of the Bill, and that he would no longer have continued to describe 
 this as deposit insurance, for insurance it undoubtedly is not. 
 
 I am not at all satisfied that women under the Bill are going 
 to be treated on the same terms as men ; I will say very briefly 
 why. It depends very largely on what effect the separation of the 
 women's from the men's funds is going to have upon the security 
 of the women's insurance. I am rather inclined to doubt whether 
 the divisions of the funds will not make the position of women far 
 less secure under the Bill than it would have been if the fund had 
 remained united. . . . 
 
 There is another way in which, I think, the various contributors 
 will be unequally dealt with. ... I hold, in common with many 
 other people, that the effect of this Bill, giving, as you are bound 
 to do, to the societies the free choice of their members, will be to 
 throw into the ranks of the strongest societies the most valuable 
 risks from the societies' point of view. You will gradually find the 
 second-class risk going into the second-class societies, and so forth, 
 until you come to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls the 
 uninsurable risk of the deposit contributor. The effect of that will 
 be that the less desirable the life the more unstable will be the in- 
 surance. That is a prospect which we cannot face without consid- 
 erable misgiving. 
 
 One further aspect of the question that I should like to touch 
 upon is the creation of the so-called National fund. When the Bill 
 was introduced it was intended to be a great national scheme, em- 
 bracing all parts of the United Kingdom, carrying " the rare and 
 refreshing fruit to the parched lips " of the employed contributors 
 in whatever part of the country they, lived, under precisely the same 
 conditions and administered by precisely the same authorities. Since 
 then we have seen this great national scheme split up into four 
 sections, to my mind to great disadvantage to the insured people, 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 559 
 
 and with greatly increased cost for administration. One further 
 result is that there is no sort of guarantee that we shall have the 
 same kind of scheme in operation in any one of these sub-divisions 
 of our nationalities that we have in another. Under the new pro- 
 visions of the Bill the Insurance Commissioners in Ireland will be 
 given a practically free hand to create almost a different system of 
 insurance altogether from that which obtains in this country. . . . 
 
 I come now to the assertion in the Amendment that the Bill has 
 been neither adequately discussed in this House nor fully explained 
 to the country. I have only to enumerate the Clauses which were 
 passed without discussion to show how ruthlessly our debates have 
 been curtailed and how incomplete our work is as it stands at pres- 
 ent. ... In Part I thirty-two Clauses have been passed without 
 a word of detailed discussion. Eighteen were passed in one night 
 under the guillotine in Committee. As evidence of the haste with 
 which these new Clauses were drawn, we may point to the fact that 
 two of them were struck out of the Bill by the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer himself as soon as we came to the Report stage. . . . 
 
 It is not only in Committee that we have been denied the oppor- 
 tunity to discuss the Clauses of the Bill. What happened on Report ? 
 When we came to the Report stage the Bill was practically recast, 
 but we have never had any hand in the discussion of it. Out of 
 the first seventy-seven Clauses as passed through Committee the 
 two Clauses to which I have already referred were struck out, and 
 sixty-eight were amended, though not one of them was discussed. 
 The Report stage of the Bill which suffered this treatment came to 
 an end on Monday last, and we are now invited to read it a third 
 time, after only one day's interval. I think it is absolutely impos- 
 sible for anyone who has not — it is difficult enough for those who 
 have — followed the debates on this Bill hour by hour, almost 
 minute by minute, to say how closely "this Bill resembles the Bill 
 which was first introduced, or how widely it differs from it 1 . . . 
 
 I have referred to the question of the division of the Irish, Scot- 
 tish, and Welsh funds from the English funds. I have pointed out 
 
56o BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 that that formed no part of the original scheme. It weakens the 
 stability of the fund ; it leads to administrative difficulties, as the 
 trade unions will find. This alteration has found no favour with 
 those who have looked at this Bill as a method of insurance and 
 not as an indirect method of initiating a policy of Home Rule all 
 round. . . . 
 
 People have spoken on the Committee stage, and people still 
 speak in the country, as if the Bill we are discussing contained the 
 whole scheme. It does not. The great mass of regulations are just 
 as important. I am not sure they are not even more far-reaching 
 than the provisions of the Bill itself, and we cannot judge fairly of 
 the scheme as a whole until we see in print the regulations as well 
 as the Bill itself. 
 
 In the earlier part of what I said I invited the House to consider 
 the whole meaning of the Amendment I am moving. We ask in 
 that Amendment that the door should be kept open for further 
 discussion, believing that further discussion would lead to further 
 improvements — to improvements that would be the outcome of 
 matured thought, of sober reflection, and of quiet and considered 
 judgment. . . . 
 
 On the night of the introduction of the scheme, when the whole 
 House lay under the spell of the magic eloquence of the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer — I very well remember the effect it produced — 
 I ventured to make a very short speech. I do not think it lasted 
 five minutes, and I think its brevity was, perhaps, its chief merit, 
 but in the course of what I said I laid down for my own guidance 
 a distinct line of policy, which I, at any rate, intend to follow in 
 regard to this Bill, and perhaps the House will allow me to quote 
 a few words from what I said : 
 
 This is not a scheme of charity ; the right hon. Gentleman advanced it 
 as a business proposition. If you advance it as a business proposition, and 
 such proposition it undoubtedly is, it lies with you to justify the claim you 
 make upon each constituent party in the tripartite partnership — the work- 
 man, the employer, and the State. As you are able to justify the contribution 
 
NATIONAL I-NSURANCE 56 1 
 
 that you invoke, so shall you receive the support of all classes of the com- 
 munity. Speaking, if I may, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of 
 the House, I will say that believing as we do that you are animated by the 
 sole desire to confer a lasting benefit upon all classes of the community, so 
 we will aid you in the perfection of the details of the scheme with all the 
 zeal and all the energy and all the good will we can give it. 
 
 To the line of policy indicated in these few sentences we have 
 adhered strictly and constantly. Discussion has not always been 
 easy. The temptation to wander into the field of controversy and 
 to enter into the joy of fight has not always been so easy to escape, 
 and I am bound to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has 
 occasionally strewn temptations in our path. On the whole, our 
 action from the first has been clearly consistent. We have sought 
 by all the means in our power to improve this Bill. . . . 
 
 I believe, with full and free discussion, with full and fair Amend- 
 ments, this Bill could be made into a most potent instrument of 
 good, touching as it does at every point the lives and the fortunes 
 of the poorer members of our community, the men and women who 
 have the least opportunity of striking a fair balance between its 
 merits and defects which cry aloud for further consideration and 
 further amendment, and it is in part that spirit and with that object 
 that I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. 
 
 Extract go 
 
 NATIONAL INSURANCE AND SELF-RELIANCE 
 
 (Lord Robert Cecil, Commons, December 6, iQii) 
 
 Lord R. Cecil ^: ... If you once make the State a partner 
 in private enterprise, it means the absorption of that private enter- 
 prise by the State. I believe that to be a principle which scarcely 
 requires to be defended. If you want to see it in full operation, you 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Commons, vol. 32, col. 1476-1477. 
 
562 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 have merely got to look at the history of the voluntary schools of 
 this country. A partnership was created between the State and the 
 voluntary schools in the matter of elementary education, and that 
 principle was advanced in 1870. What has been its history since 
 then?' Every decade has seen a further advance of the State and 
 a further retirement of the voluntary principle, until at the present 
 time the State schools are all compulsory, aU free, and practically 
 they are absolutely under the control and management of the State. 
 The voluntary principle has practically expired, and if the right 
 hon. Gentlemen and their Friends had their way, they would give it 
 its death blow. Therefore, anyone who considers the history of the 
 voluntary schools under the legislation which began in 1870 will see 
 what will inevitably happen to the friendly societies under the legis- 
 lation which has now begun. More than that, the voluntary schools 
 have been — rightly or wrongly — kept alive by a strong religious 
 sentiment. You have no such sentiment — at all events not of that 
 strength — to keep alive friendly societies. Depend upon it, this Bill 
 when it passes is the death warrant of the friendly societies of this 
 country. 
 
 For those reasons I am strongly opposed to a compulsory scheme. 
 Finally — and this is the one reason which moves me most of all — 
 I regard it as a very dangerous precedent to liberty and independ- 
 ence in this country, and that, undoubtedly, however the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer may sneer at domestic servants, is the backbone 
 of the agitation against this Bill. This is not a question of particular 
 figures, or of particular discussions, or of argumentative leaflets, or 
 whether this or that person pays. The backbone of the agitation 
 against this Bill is that the people bitterly resent in this country 
 being made to apply their own money for the benefits in a way they 
 do not approve. It is defended by the German example ; but that 
 example is wholly irrelevant. The whole history of Germany is the 
 history of the control of the individual by the State. Frederick 
 William established an elaborate system of State control over the 
 whole lives of everyone of his subjects. That has been the history 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 563 
 
 of Germany, and that cannot be transplanted to this country with- 
 out great injury to the institutions of this country. 
 
 I have a fanatical belief in individual freedom. I believe it is a 
 vital thing for this country, and I believe it is the cornerstone upon 
 which our prosperity and our existence is built, and, for my part, I 
 believe that the civic qualities of self-control, self-reliance, and 
 self-respect depend upon individual liberty and the freedom and 
 independence of the people of this country. We all remember a 
 great phrase of a great prelate, M^ho said he would sooner see Eng- 
 land free than England sober. It has been greatly misrepresented, 
 but properly understood I agree with that proposition. I think it 
 could be put more thoroughly by saying that you cannot have so- 
 briety without freedom. The essence of the virtue of sobriety and 
 all civic virtues is self-control and self-reliance, and you cannot have 
 these without freedom. And it is because I believe that in its pres- 
 ent form this Bill is a great danger to liberty, and was so regarded 
 by the electors I had the honour of addressing during the three or 
 four weeks of my election campaign, that I think it is vital it should 
 be further considered, and that the country should have a further 
 opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it and of saying whether 
 it desires to have these German shackles put upon it, or whether it 
 would not prefer to have a scheme founded upon the principle of 
 liberty and independence. 
 
 Extract gi 
 
 DEFECTS IN THE GOVERNMENT BILL 
 
 (Mr. Bonar Law, Commons, December 6, iQii) 
 
 Mr. Bonar Law ■":... Whatever may be the opinion of the 
 House of Commons, I am perfectly certain of this, that three- 
 fourths, and I believe nine-tenths, of the people of this country 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, vol. 32, col. 1504 sqq. 
 
564 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 take our view to-day. They are not hostile to the proposals of the 
 Bill, neither are we ; but they are convinced that it has not been 
 either properly considered by this House or properly understood 
 in the country, and that further time should be given for both pur- 
 poses. That is our Amendment, and when we have voted for it, 
 so far as I am concerned, I shall take no further part in any further 
 Amendment. I shall leave to the Government the responsibility, 
 and it is a very big responsibility, of forcing an immense scheme 
 like this upon the country, when there is not a man in this House 
 who does not know that it has not been properly considered and 
 is not a measure which, in its present form, can be otherwise than 
 disadvantageous to the people of this coimtry. . . . 
 
 I hardly venture to mention the trade unions, because I remem- 
 ber the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very sarcastic about my 
 hon. Friend who was leading the Opposition [Mr. Arthur J. Balfour], 
 because he took an interest in these bodies. I venture, with all 
 humility, to say that I also am interested in them. Is there any 
 member of a trade union who doubts that, judging by the pounds, 
 shillings, and pence interest, it will be to the advantage of members 
 of trade unions to leave their societies (for they cannot give the 
 same benefits), and join societies which will give higher benefits ? 
 It must be so. I do not mean to say that trade unionists may not 
 be actuated by other motives. I am the first to acknowledge that 
 the working-class have always shown a readiness to sacrifice them- 
 selves for the interests of their class as a whole. I admit that, and 
 I do not say that actuated by these unselfish motives they may 
 not still continue to be members of trade unions. But if they do, 
 it will be against their interests, and the temptation will be very 
 great for the best lives to leave the trade unions and join societies 
 where they will get better benefits. 
 
 If that is true, even within the limits of approved societies, what 
 is it when you come down to the wretched outcasts who are deposit 
 contributors ? We have been accused a great deal this afternoon 
 of a change of front, more or less, on this Bill. I am not going 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 5^5 
 
 to say anything stronger on this subject than I said on the second 
 reading. I pointed out, as every Member of the House recog- 
 nised, that the condition of these deposit contributors is an utterly 
 unjustifiable one. The right hon. Gendeman, I remember, inter- 
 rupted me while I was speaking and asked me what we would 
 propose. I said that it was not my business to propose, but that 
 if I were on that bench I would be glad to do so. . . . 
 
 I do not think the House in the least realises what this Bill 
 means from the financial side. The right hon. Gentleman always 
 states the matter in connection with the old age pensions. When 
 these two schemes are in full operation, the amount of money which 
 will be deposited in this way will be, — I have not made a calcu- 
 lation of what then will be the amount of the National Debt, — I 
 think, two or three times the annual charge on our National Debt. 
 I am sure it will amount to a larger sum of money than the whole 
 of the revenue of any country in the world except the first six or 
 seven great countries. I speak of the whole of the money dealt 
 with. It is a prodigious sum and surely worth while spending a little 
 time on to be assured that it is dealt with in the best manner. There 
 is something else to be said. The- right hon. Gentleman has always 
 spoken of the charge of those two burdens on the State as some- 
 thing like ;^i 8,000,000. It is nothing like that, and he knows it. 
 
 Take old age pensions alone. They began under the present 
 Prime Minister at ;£'6,ooo,ooo. That amount has now doubled. 
 [An Hon. Member: More than doubled.] More than doubled, 
 but that is only the beginning. Thirty years hence that charge 
 will be more than double what it is now. That is not an estimate. 
 [An Hon. Member : Oh ! ] Hon. Members below the gangway 
 misunderstand my argument. I do not say the money is not well 
 spent. All I say is that we should realise what the amount of it is. 
 This is not an estimate. It does not depend upon the growth of the 
 population. Our population thirty years hence may be precisely 
 as to-day, yet the charge for old age pensions will be doubled. 
 [An Hon. Member : How ? ] I think that ought to be pretty 
 
S66 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 obvious. It is obvious to those who have followed the subject. 
 It depends upon the number of people bom at the time which 
 will bring them under the Pension Act, and it will depend upon 
 the mortality rate. The number of people born forty years ago 
 who will become old age pensioners thirty years hence, coupled 
 with the steady decrease in the rate of mortality, means that there 
 will be double the charge whatever happens. 
 
 The Old Age Pension Act is a fact. I do not suggest that any 
 change should be made about it. The country has got to face the 
 burden. But surely, as men of common sense, anyone responsible 
 for this new scheme would say, inasmuch as the old age pensions 
 are rolling up a debt for posterity, it is our duty in this scheme to 
 see that we pay our full share to-day ; and if there is any shifting 
 of the scale, it should be in favour of coming generations and against 
 ourselves. Is that not common sense ? That is naturally what would 
 have been done if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given his 
 honest 2d. a week from the beginning in the same way as the 
 employer and the employed have given theirs. He does not do it. 
 I can conceive no earthly reason why, except that by his present 
 method he is able to say that the State is giving 2d. when it is 
 giving nothing of the kind. Had this Bill been introduced by any 
 other Minister except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it his duty to do so, — 
 and we have all thought it was the duty of the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer to look after the stability of the national finances, — 
 whatever else might have been done, this Bill would not have been 
 financed in the way it has been financed. In private business the 
 method which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted is everywhere 
 recognised as the most rotten method that anyone could conceive. 
 It is the method adopted by directors of companies who pay big 
 dividends without looking at the liabilities which they know are 
 confronting them. It is the method which brings such companies 
 into the Bankruptcy Court, and very often brings the directors to 
 the prison cell. . . . 
 
' NATIONAL INSURANCE 567 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer has squared hon. Gentlemen 
 below the gangway. That is not a very difficult thing to do. The 
 right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary for the Treasury is 
 one of the most astute politicians we have got, and he made some 
 remarks at the annual meeting of the Liberal party which I think 
 were very instructive. They were to this effect. I have got his 
 actual words if necessary. " I think it is to our interest as a party 
 that the Labour party should be quite independent of us in the 
 constituencies, but their co-operation in the House has been most 
 useful and most fruitful." In other words, let them appear to be 
 independent outside, but let them be in our pockets inside. That 
 is an ideal arrangement, but I do not think it will last long. He 
 squared these Gentlemen, and surely they are easily squared. . . . 
 
 At the Hull election in June the following leaflet was sent by the 
 Liberal headquarters to that election, and I have made inquiries 
 about it. Until after that no leaflet of any kind against the Insur- 
 ance Bill was sent from our central office. What is this leaflet? 
 It is the picture of a workingman ill in bed and the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer with a copy of the Insurance Bill. If you look only 
 at the picture we have no reason to take offence, but I think the 
 right hon. Gentleman could bring a successful action against the 
 artist, because looking at the picture alone one would be more 
 inclined to think he had come to pick his pocket. That was not, 
 of course, the intention of the picture, and this is what it said, 
 " The Dawn of Hope." And this is the moral of it, " Support the 
 Liberal Government." ... 
 
 That is the Gentleman who accuses us of using the Insurance 
 Bill for electioneering purposes. Obviously that was not the reason 
 for the second nature coming into play. We all know it is one of 
 the penalties the country has to pay for having a Government in 
 office and not in power. They have signed their bond. For two 
 years they have been allowed to swagger about like free agents, 
 but next year the bond has to be redeemed and for that reason, 
 whatever the effect of the Bill on the millions of people in this 
 
S68 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 country, it must be shoved aside so that the bond may be paid. 
 Now the right hen. Gentleman is coming to prophesy about the 
 future. He gave a hint of it to-night at the end of his speech. 
 He put it more clearly in his sermon at the Tabernacle. He says 
 that we who are refusing to shut our eyes and open our mouths 
 and swallow , whatever he gives us — I am not giving his exact 
 words — will be praying soon for the cloud of oblivion to come 
 down and cover our heads. That is the prophecy. Carlyle once 
 said, " You cannot argue with a prophet. You can only refuse to 
 believe him." I do refuse to believe him. I have never, certainly 
 in my time in this House, given any vote with more absolute cer- 
 tainty that I was consulting the best interests of the country than 
 I shall give to-night, and if a cloud of oblivion is required, it will 
 not be for those who have decided in, as near as I can recall, the 
 words of the Amendment that this Bill is unequal in its operatibn 
 and should be further considered by this House. 
 
 Extract g2 
 
 FINAL PLEA FOR NATIONAL INSURANCE 
 
 {Mr. H. H. Asguith, Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, 
 Commons, December 6, igii) 
 
 Mr. Asquith ^ : . . . Here is a great party on a great occasion 
 dealing with a great Bill, and they are going to follow their leader 
 and say neither "Yes" nor "No." That is the new programme 
 of the Tory party. I wish them joy of it. The right hon. Gentle- 
 man must give me leave to say to him that peoples' intentions are 
 to be judged not by the motives which in the more or less nebular 
 background operate upon their minds. They must be judged by 
 the consequences of their conduct. All this lip service and zeal for 
 insurance against sickness and unemployment, all this loud-mouthed 
 
 1 Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Commons, vol. 32, col. 15 18 sqq. 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE 5^9 
 
 profession of a desire to attain the ends of this BiU, and to accept 
 its principle, will be construed, and construed rightly, by the elec- 
 torate of this country by action which you are taking to-night. Let 
 us assume, — and we are bound to assume it for the purposes of 
 argument, although it is not likely to happen in fact, — let us as- 
 sume that the Amendment is carried. What becomes of the Insur- 
 ance Bill ? Everybody knows that it is dead. [Hon. Members : 
 Why?] For the very sufificient Parliamentary reason [Hon. 
 Members: No, no.] that whenever an Amendment on the 
 third reading is carried, a Bill ceases to exist. I say quite plainly 
 to this House, and I shall say it to the country, that the persons 
 responsible for the framing of this Amendment and those who go 
 into the Lobby in support of it are people who have killed the 
 greatest scheme for the social benefit of the people of this country 
 that has ever yet been conceived. They Will not understand your 
 fine distinctions between Yes and No, seeing that the adoption of 
 this Amendment would be fatal to the carrying of any insurance 
 scheme for an indefinite time. 
 
 Let me examine the reasons which have been alleged for this 
 delay. I have heard the Committee criticisms of this Bill. No one 
 has attacked its central principle. Its central principle is this — that 
 as regards both sickness, invalidity, and unemployment there shall 
 be a compulsory contribution to which the employer, the workman, 
 and the State shall be party. When we brought forward our pro- 
 posals for old age pensions three years ago, that principle was very 
 strongly advocated, and by no one more strongly than the Leader 
 of the Opposition. I think we were perfectly right not to adopt 
 the principle of contribution in regard to old age pensions, because 
 I am satisfied — as I was then — that a system of old age pen- 
 sion based upon contribution would have been futile and a failure. 
 But three years ago we laid the ground without which this Bill 
 would not have been possible. 
 
 As regards the principle of compulsory contribution for the pur- 
 poses which are contemplated under this Bill, I am not the least 
 
570 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 ashamed to confess — my words have been quoted — that I was 
 a somewhat reluctant, although I am now a completely convinced, 
 convert. I do not think that there is any other way in which we 
 can provide for the risks and hazards of industrial life. 
 
 The real and only ground, apart from the criticisms, alleged in 
 support of this Amendment, is the insufficiency of the time which 
 has been given to the consideration of it. Let me just look into 
 that. On the question of time, when the Bill was first introduced, 
 what was the demand ? It was that the unemployment part — 
 Part II — should be dropped on the ground that it was experi- 
 mental in its character. It was never suggested that there would 
 not be time for the discussion of the sickness and invalidity insur- 
 ance. As a matter of fact, the twenty-five Clauses which compose 
 Part II were passed upstairs after a very full and very friendly 
 discussion practically without qpposition, and they were only briefly 
 dealt with on Report. I do not think that in any quarter of the 
 House there is any doubt as to the desirability of Part II passing 
 into law. If this Amendment is carried, that will not be carried out ; 
 it will be indefinitely postponed. 
 
 In regard to Part I let us see how the case stands. I caimot 
 follow the right hon. Gentleman in some of the points taken. But 
 there were four important points with regard to this vital and most 
 important part of the Bill. The points were who was to be insured, 
 what contributions were to be paid, what benefits were to be given, 
 and what provision ought to be made for those who are called 
 Post Office contributors and who are left outside the general 
 scheme of insurance. I have gone most carefully — and if time 
 permitted I could demonstrate to the House by evidence what I am 
 going to say — into the amount of time which has actually been 
 spent on each one of these four points, and I will venture to say 
 that if there had been no guillotine at all, if there had been no allo- 
 cation of time, and no curtailment of debate, there is not one of 
 them which could, under reasonable conditions, have been more 
 fully and more amply discussed than they have been. 
 
NATIONAL INSURANCE S7l 
 
 Looking forward to the future, let me ask the House, and ask the 
 right Hon. Gentleman himself, what would be the effect of carrying 
 an Amendment for the postponement of the further consideration 
 of this BiU ? In the first place, if you accept the principle of com- 
 pulsory contributions and the desirability of the scheme as a whole, 
 it is of the utmost importance that the machinery — the Commis- 
 sioners and so forth — should at once be set into operation, and 
 that they should be able to bring about what I believe to be the 
 essential condition for the successful working of a scheme like this, 
 namely, co-operation between the Commissioners, the Joint Com- 
 mittee, the friendly societies, the trade unions, the doctors, and all 
 the other interests concerned, in order that when misunderstand- 
 ings have been removed, they should all combine together, as I 
 believe they will in the course of a very few months, to make this 
 not only a workable, but a successful scheme. All that is to be 
 thrown away and to be postponed to the remote future if this 
 Amendment is carried. 
 
 Further, I cannot, in view oJ what the right hen. Gentleman has 
 said, ignore, and nobody can ignore, what would be the results of 
 leaving this matter open as a subject of public controversy for 
 months or even years. I am not going into the recriminations 
 which have been legitimately and naturally interchanged [Laughter. j_ 
 — I hope that is a remark free from offence — both upon the one 
 side and the other, or what has been said at bye-elections in regard to 
 this particular Bill, but, without going into the rights or wrongs of 
 that matter, is there a single man, in whatever quarter of the House 
 he sits, who is really anxious for a settlement of this great social 
 problem, at any rate upon the general lines of the Bill, who would 
 not lament if at bye-elections for the next twelve or twenty-four 
 months it should be cast into the forefront of political controversy 
 and become the subject of the more envenomed interchange of 
 amenities such as we have heard read out ? Is there anyone who 
 has really the interests of society at heart who thinks it is likely to 
 contribute to a permanent and considered settlement ? I wiU say 
 
S72 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 nothing as to the campaign of misrepresentation which has been 
 carried on in certain quarters and which is certain to be carried on 
 with increased intensity and virulence so long as the question re- 
 mains open and which happily will be brought to an end if the 
 question is settled. I would like to make, in an entirely — if I may 
 say so for the moment — non-party spirit, before the House comes 
 to a decision, one final appeal. 
 
 We are nearing the close of an exceptionally arduous Session. 
 I think it ought to be to Members an adequate and even an ample 
 reward for their long and assiduous labours that the same Parlia- 
 mentary year which has already witnessed the close of a great con- 
 stitutional struggle [Hon. Members : No, no ; the beginning.] — 
 well, the close of one stage of the great constitutional struggle, 
 fought upon purely political ground — when this Bill has passed 
 into law, as I believe it will, witnesses also the statutory enactment 
 of a second and a larger instalment of that policy of social reform 
 of which old age pensions was the first chapter. 
 
 I have said before, and certainly history proves, while it is pos- 
 sible, while it is even easy to put down the mighty from their seats 
 without exalting the humble and the meek, the most ardent spirit 
 among us in the cause of political equality, still far short of com- 
 plete achievement, will be the first to recognise that political ma- 
 chinery is only valuable and is only worth having if it is adapted 
 to and used for worthy social ends. 
 
 I brush aside, and I hope the House will brush aside, this Amend- 
 ment — this halting, faltering, paltering Amendment — and I say the 
 House, in reading this Bill a third time, are conferring upon mil- 
 lions of our fellow countrymen by the joint operation of self-help 
 and of State help, the greatest alleviation of the risks and sufferings 
 of life that Parliament has ever conferred upon any people. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 THE BRITISH CABINET, 1905-1912 
 
 Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury: Arthur J. 
 
 Balfour (U), 1902; Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (L), 1905; 
 
 Herbert H. Asquith (L), 1908. 
 Lord President of the Council: Marquess of Londonderry (U), 
 
 1903; Earl of Crewe (L), 1905; Viscount Wolverhampton (L), 
 
 1908 ; Viscount Morley of Blackburn (L), 1908. 
 Lord High Chancellor: Earl of Halsbury (U), 1895; Lord Lore- 
 burn (L), 1905; Viscount Haldane (L), 1912. 
 Lord Privy Seal: Marquess of Salisbury (U), 1903; Marquess of 
 
 Ripon (L), 1905 ; Earl of Crewe (L), 1908 ; Earl Carrington (L), 
 
 191 1 ; Marquess of Crewe (L), 191 2. 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer : J. Austen Chamberlain (U), 1902 ; 
 
 Herbert H. Asquith (L), 1905 ; David Lloyd George (L), 1908. 
 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs : Marquess of Lans- 
 
 downe (U), 1900; Sir Edward Grey (L), 1905. 
 Secretary of State for the Home Department : A. Akers- 
 
 Douglas (U), 1902; Herbert J. Gladstone (L), 1905; Winston S. 
 
 Churchill (L), 1910; Reginald McKenna (L), 191 1. 
 Secretary of State for India : St. John Brodrick, Viscount 
 
 Midleton (U), 1903 ; John Morley (L), 1905 ; Earl of Crewe (L), 
 
 1910. 
 Secretary of State for the Colonies: Alfred Lyttelton (U), 
 
 1903; Earl of Elgin (L), 1905; Earl of Crewe (L), 1908; Lewis 
 
 Harcourt (L), 1910. 
 Secretary of State for War: H. O. Arnold- Forster (U), 1903; 
 
 Viscount Haldane (L), 1905; Col. J. E. B. Seely (L), 191 2. 
 First Lord of the Admiralty: Earl of Selborne (U), 1900; Lord 
 
 Tweedmouth (L), 1905; Reginald McKenna (L), 1908; Winston 
 
 S. Churchill (L), 191 1. 
 
 573 
 
574 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland : George 
 
 Wyndham (U), 1900 ; Walter H. Long (U), 1905 ; James Bryce 
 
 (L), 1905; Augustine Birrell (L), 1907. 
 President of the Board of Trade : Gerald W. Balfour (U), 1900 ; 
 
 Marquess of Salisbury (U), 1905 ; David Lloyd George (L), 1905 ; 
 
 Winston S. Churchill (L), 1908; Sydney Buxton (L), 1910. 
 President of the Local Government Board: Walter H. Long 
 
 (U), 1900; Gerald W. Balfour (U), 1905; John Burns (L), 1905. 
 President of the Board of Education : Marquess of Londonderry 
 
 (U), 1902; Augustine Birrell (L), 1905; Reginald McKenna (L), 
 
 1907; Walter Runciman (L), 1908; Joseph Albert Pease (L), 1911. 
 President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries : Earl 
 
 of Onslow (U), 1903; Earl Carrington (L), 1905; Walter Runci- 
 man (L), 1911. 
 Secretary for Scotland : Marquess of Linlithgow (U), 1895 ; Lord 
 
 Pentland (L), 1905; T. McKinnon Wood (L), 191 2. 
 Postmaster-General: Earl of Derby (U), 1903 ; Sydney Buxton -(L), 
 
 1905; Herbert Samuel (L), 1910. 
 Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster : Sir Henry Fowler (L), 
 
 1905; Lord Fitzmaurice (L), 1908; Herbert Samuel (L), 1909; 
 
 Joseph Albert Pease (L), 1910; C. E. Hobhouse (L), igii. 
 First Commissioner of Works: Lewis Harcourt (L), 1907; Earl 
 
 Beauchamp (L), 1910. 
 Attorney-General. Sir R. B. Finlay (U), 1900; J. Lawson Walton 
 
 (L), 1905; William S. Robson (L), 1908; Sir Rufus Isaacs (L), 
 
 1910. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Afforestation, 315, 335, 367 
 
 Agriculture, 315 sqq., 335 sqq., 368 
 sq. 
 
 Akers-Douglas, A., on workmen's 
 compensation, 20, 32 sqq. 
 
 Alden, Percy, 3, 19, 185 
 
 Anglican Church, in House of Lords, 
 5, 7, 388 sq., 390 sq. 
 
 Anglo-French Convention on work- 
 ingmen's insurance, 72 sqq. 
 
 Anson, Sir William, on the Lords' 
 veto, 421, 460 sqq. 
 
 Asquith, H. H., 14; on child welfare, 
 107; on old age pensions, 131, 134 
 sqq., 138 sqq. ; on the budget, 350 
 sq. ; on the Lords' veto of the bud- 
 get, 358 sq. ; on the Lords, 423 ; 
 on parUament bill, 426 sqq., 430, 
 432 sq., 436 sq; and the parlia- 
 mentary conference, 430 sq. ; on 
 national insurance, 510, 568 sqq. 
 
 Australia, social politics in, 3 ; Sec- 
 ond Chamber in, 461 
 
 Austria, sweated labour in, 233 ; town 
 planning in, 286 sq. 
 
 Baboeuf, z 
 
 Back-to-back houses, 275 sqq., 284 
 sq. 
 
 Balfour, A. J., 11 ; on old age pen- 
 sions, 133, 151 sqq. ; on minimum 
 wage for sweated industries, 219, 
 236 sq. ; on the budget, 349 ; on 
 
 —the Lords' veto of the budget, 
 359; on powers of the House of 
 Lords, 421, 449 sqq.; on parlia- 
 ment bill, 428 sq., 433 ; and the 
 parliamentary conference, 431 
 
 Banbury, Sir Frederick, on labour 
 exchanges, 186; on minimum 
 wage, 218, 225 sq., 230; on de- 
 velopment bill, 325 sq. 
 
 Bankers, protest against the budget, 
 
 351 sq., 394 sq. 
 
 Barnes, G. N., on workmen's com- 
 pensation, 20, 34 sqq. ; on land 
 development, 268, 329 sq. ; on the 
 budget, 349 
 
 Beauchamp, Earl, on housing, 266, 
 278 sqq. 
 
 Birmingham, Bishop of. See Gore, 
 Charles 
 
 Birrell, Augustine, 14 ; on meals for 
 school children, 109, 116 sqq.; 
 and the parliamentary conference, 
 
 431 
 Bismarck, 3, 363, 544 
 Bonar Law, A. See Law, A. Bonar 
 Boyd-Carpenter, William, onold age 
 
 pensions, 133, 165 sqq. 
 Bristol, Bishop of. See Browne, 
 
 G. F. 
 Browne, G. F., on the budget, 357, 
 
 388 sqq. 
 Bryce, James, 14 
 Budget of 1909, introduction of, 361 
 
 sqq. ; adopted provisions of, 408 
 
 sqq. ; public demonstrations on, 
 
 352 sqq. ; and land monopoly, 265 
 sqq. ; and the Lords' veto, 423 
 
 Bureaucracy, dangers of, 285 sq., 
 288, 562 sq. 
 
 Burns, John, 14; on old age pen- 
 sions, 131 ; on housing and town 
 planning, 265, 269 sqq. 
 
 Buxton, Sydney, 14 ; on old age 
 pensions, 132 ; on national insur- 
 ance, 507, 536 sqq. 
 
 Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, 
 14, 18, 131 ; on trade unions, 78; 
 on land development, 330 ; on 
 powers of House of Lords, 421, 
 438 sqq. 
 
 S7S 
 
S76 
 
 British social politics 
 
 Canterbury, Archbishop of. See 
 Davidson, R. T. 
 
 Carrington, Earl, :4; on land devel- 
 opment, 269, 330 sqq. ; on reform 
 of House of Lords, 426 
 
 Carson, Sir Edward, 13 ; on trade 
 unions, 77 sq. ; on parliament bill, 
 
 436 
 
 Cecil, Lord Robert, on trade unions, 
 77; on infant mortality, log, 122 
 sqq. ; on old age pensions, 132, 
 149 sqq. ; on land development, 
 268, 314 sqq. ; on national insur- 
 ance, 510, 561 sqq. 
 
 Chamberlain, Austen, on the budget, 
 351, 356; on parliamentary con- 
 ference, 431 ; on national insur- 
 ance, 507 
 
 Chamberlain, Joseph, on workmen's 
 compensation, 20, 36 sqq. ; on old 
 age pensions, 130, 164; on tariff 
 reform, 347 ; on the House of 
 Lords, 472 
 
 Children Act (1908), 109, 124 sqq. 
 
 Child welfare, 107 sqq., 136 
 
 Churchill, Winston, on unemploy- 
 ment, 186, igi sqq., 212, 506; on 
 minimum wage for sweated labour, 
 219 sqq. ; on the budget, 349 sq., 
 355 ; on the Lords' veto, 422, 464 
 sqq. 
 
 Clynes, J. R., on workmen's com- 
 pensation, 21, 43 sqq. 
 
 Commission on Housing of the 
 Working Classes, 264 
 
 Commission on Physical Deteriora- 
 tion, 107 sq., 126 
 
 Commission on Poor Law, 131, 133, 
 160, 163 ; report of, 185, 187 sqq., 
 192 sq., 197 
 
 Committee on Sweating System, 
 217, 226 sqq. 
 
 Commons, House of, debate on 
 workmen's compensation bill, 20 
 sqq. ; trade unions and trade dis- 
 putes bill, 77 sqq. ; payment of 
 members, 79, 102 sqq. ; old age 
 pensions bill, 132 sq., 140 sqq. ; 
 power in financial matters, 164; 
 labour exchanges bill, 186 sq., 
 191 sqq. ; trade boards bill, 218 
 
 sqq. ; housing and town planning 
 bill, 265 sq., 269 sqq. ; develop- 
 ment bill, 267 sq., 314 sqq.; the 
 budget, 349 sqq., 360 sqq. ; con- 
 flict with the Lords over the bud- 
 get, 358 sq. ; resolutions of 1907, 
 421 sq., 438 sqq. ; parliament bill, 
 426 sqq., 434 sqq. ; national insur- 
 ance in, 507 sqq., 511 sqq. 
 
 Conference on relations between 
 the Houses of Parliament, 430 
 sqq. 
 
 Conservative party, achievements 
 of, 8 sqq. ; in House of Lords, 
 18, 440 sqq., 467 sqq., 472 ; on 
 workmen's compensation, 32 sqq., 
 41 sqq. ; on child welfare, 108 ; on 
 old age pensions, 130, 132 sq. ; on 
 unemployment, 186 sq., 206 sqq. ; 
 on sweating and minimum wage, 
 218, 236 sq., 245 sqq. ; on housing, 
 266; on land development, 268, 
 314 sqq. ; on finance, 347 sqq. ; 
 on the Lords' veto of the budget, 
 359 sqq. ; on parliament bill, 433 
 sqq., 497 ; on national insurance, 
 507, 509 sq., 555 sqq. 
 
 Conspiracy and Protection of Prop- 
 erty Act (1875), 79, 82, 98 sqq. 
 
 Corruption in politics, 150, 318 sqq., 
 567 sq. 
 
 Cox, Harold, on meals for school 
 children, 109, Ii2'sqq. ; on old 
 age pensions, 132, 143 sqq. 
 
 Crewe, Earl of, 14 ; on the budget, 
 357 sq. ; on the parliamentary 
 conference, 430 ; on parliament 
 bill, 431, 474 sqq. 
 
 Cromer, Earl of, on old age pen- 
 sions, 133 
 
 Crooks, W., on old age pensions, 
 133. 157 sqq. 
 
 Davidson, R. T., on old age pen- 
 sions, 133 ; on housing and town 
 planning, 266; on parliament bill, 
 437 sq. 
 Death duties, 352, 356, 372, 374, 417 
 Denmark, old age pensions in, 139 ; 
 land development in, 327 sq. ; 
 afforestation in, 367 
 
INDEX 
 
 s;; 
 
 Development Act (1909), 334 sqq. ; 
 
 debate on, see Land 
 Dilke, Sir Charles, on workmen's 
 
 compensation, 20, 38 sqq., 506; 
 
 on minimum wage for sweated 
 
 labour, 227 ; member of Housing 
 
 Commission, 264 
 Disraeli, 9 
 Douglas, A. Akers. See Akers- 
 
 Douglas, A. 
 
 Education, cost of, 107, 136 
 
 Education (Provision of Meals) Act 
 (1906), debate on, 108 sqq.; statute, 
 119 sqq. 
 
 Education Act (1907), 109 
 
 Education bills, 18, 79, 443, 474, 479, 
 491 sqq. 
 
 Edward VII, 264, 430 
 
 Elections, of 1906, 15 sqq.; of Jan-, 
 uary, 1910, 359 sqq., 423; of De- 
 cember, 19 ID, 431 sqq. 
 
 Elgin, Earl of, 14 
 
 Employers' liability. See Work- 
 men's compensation 
 
 Fabian Society, 12 
 
 Factory and Workshop Act, 31 
 
 Finance Act (1909-1910), debate on, 
 348 sqq. ; statute, 408 sqq. 
 
 Forestry. See Afforestation 
 
 Forster, H. W., on national insur- 
 ance, 507 sq., 510, 555 sqq. 
 
 France, social politics in, 3 ; work- 
 men's compensation, 39 sq., 72 
 sqq. ; meals for school children, 
 117 sq. ; old age pensions, 162; 
 labour exchanges, 193 ; sweated 
 labour, 228 ; afforestation, 367 ; 
 Second Chamber, 425, 461 
 
 Free Trade and old age pensions, 
 148; and sweated labour, 236 sq.; 
 and land development, 328; and 
 finance, 347, 386 sq. 
 
 French Revolution, i sqq. 
 
 Friendly societies and national in- 
 surance, 512, 514, 528 sq. 
 
 George, David Lloyd. See Lloyd 
 
 George, David 
 George, Henry, 351 
 
 George V, 430 
 
 Germany, social politics in, 3, 363 
 sq. ; workmen's compensation, 
 38 ; old age pensions, 139, 141 
 sq., 545 ; labour exchanges, 193, 
 196 sq., 211; sweated labour, 228, 
 232, 242 ; town planning, 286 sq. ; 
 taxation, 350 ; insurance, 363 sq., 
 506, 517 sq., 543 sqq. ; afforesta- 
 tion, 367 
 
 Ghent system of insurance, 539 sq. 
 
 Gladstone, H. J., 14 ; on workmen's 
 compensation, 20 sqq., 45 sq. ; on 
 minimum wage, 218 
 
 Gladstone, W. E., 10; and the 
 House of Lords, 473 
 
 Gore, Charles, Bishop of Birming- 
 ham, on housing and town plan- 
 ning, 266, 287 sqq. ; on the bud- 
 get. 357. 395 sqq- 
 
 " Gorringe Case," 354 
 
 Grey, Sir Edward, 14; on the Lords' 
 veto, 428 
 
 Haldane, Viscount, 14 
 
 Halsbury, Earl of, on old age pen- 
 sions, 133; on parliament bill, 436 
 sqq. 
 
 Hamilton of Dalzell, Lord, on mini- 
 mum wage for sweated labour, 
 220, 241 sqq. 
 
 Hardie, J. Keir, 12 ; on trade unions, 
 78 
 
 Henderson, Arthur, on unemploy- 
 ment, 186, 209 sqq. 
 
 Home Rule, 425, 433, 436, 453, 478 
 
 Housing, 263 sqq. 
 
 Housing and Town Planning Bill 
 (1909), relation of, to child wel- 
 fare, 109 ; debate on, 265 sqq., 269 
 sqq.; statute, 291 sqq.; relation of, 
 to the Lords' veto, 423 
 
 Housing of the Working Classes 
 Aft (1890), 270, 281, 283 
 
 Income Tax, 318, 372 sq., 417 
 Industrial Revolution, 1, 2J63 
 Infant Life Protection Act (1897), 
 
 125 
 Insurance. See National insurance, 
 
 and Unemployment insurance 
 
578 
 
 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 Irish land laws, 265 
 
 Irish party. See Nationahst party 
 
 Isaacs, Rufus, on national insurance, 
 
 508, 543 sqq. 
 Italy, workmen's compensation in, 
 
 39 sq. 
 
 Joint sitting, 428, 480 sq. 
 Juvenile offenders, 127 sqq. 
 
 Kingsley, 217 
 
 Labour exchanges and finance, 347 ; 
 and national insurance, 538 
 
 Labour Exchanges Bill, debate on, 
 186 sqq. ; statute, 213 sqq. 
 
 Labour party, establishment, 1 1 sqq., 
 17, 19 ; on workmen's compensa- 
 tion, 34 sqq., 43 sqq. ; on trade 
 unions, 77 sqq.; on payment of 
 members of parliament, 79, 102 
 sqq. ; on child welfare, 108 ; on 
 old age pensions, 130 sqq.; on 
 unemployment, 186, 209 sqq., 329 
 sq. ; on sweating and minimum 
 wage, 218, 238 sqq.; on housing, 
 266; on land development, 268, 
 329 sqq.; on finance, 318 sqq.; 
 on the Lords' veto, 360, 421, 425, 
 456 sqq. ; on national insurance, 
 507 sq., 547 sqq. 
 
 Land, monopoly of, 5, 6, 264 ; de- 
 velopment scheme, 265, 267 sqq., 
 314 sqq., 366 sqq., 423 ; develop- 
 ment and finance, 347 
 
 Land taxes, 318, 353 sq., 356, 375 
 sqq., 409 sqq. 
 
 Lansdowne, Marquess of, on old 
 age pensions, 134; on the budget, 
 354 sq., 357 ; on parliamentary 
 conference, 431 ; on parliament 
 bill, 431, 433, 435 sq., 437, 485 sqq. 
 
 Lansdowne resolutions, 431, 497 ; 
 support of, 498 sqq. 
 
 Law, A. Bonar, on labour exchanges, 
 186; on national insurance, 510, 
 
 563 sqq. 
 
 Lee, Arthur, on payment of mem- 
 bers, 79, 102 sqq. 
 
 Lever, W. H., on old age pensions, 
 131 
 
 Liberal party, achievements of, 3, 
 8 sqq. ; in House of Commons, 
 18, 441 sq. ; on workmen's com- 
 pensation, 22 sqq. ; on trade 
 unions, 77 sqq. ; on payment of 
 members of parliament, 79 ; on 
 child welfare, 108 ; on old age 
 pensions, 130 sqq. ; on unemploy- 
 ment, 186, 191 sqq.; on sweating 
 and minimum wage, 218 sqq., 241 
 sqq. ; on housing, 265 sq., 269 
 sqq., 278 sqq. ; on land develop- 
 ment, 267 sq., 324 sqq., 330 sqq. ; 
 on finance, 347 sqq. ; on the 
 Lords' veto of the budget, 358 
 sqq. ; on powers of House of 
 Lords, 421 sqq.; on parliament 
 bill, 431 sqq.; on national insur- 
 ance, 506, 511 sqq.; checked by 
 House of Lords, 467 sq. 
 
 Licensing bills, 18, 125, 134, 475 
 
 Licensing tax, 318 
 
 Lloyd George, David, 14, 131 ; on 
 payment of members of parlia- 
 ment, 102 ; on old age pensions, 
 132, 140 sqq. ; on land develop- 
 ment, 268, 321 sqq., 331 sq. ; on 
 the budget, 347 sqq., 361 sqq. ; on 
 the Lords' veto, 422, 470 sqq. ; 
 on the parliamentary conference, 
 430; on national insurance, 507, 
 510 sqq. 
 
 Lords, House of, 7, 18 ; workmen's 
 compensation bill, 22 ; trade dis- 
 putes bill, 79 ; old age pensions 
 bill, 133 sq., 160 sqq.; labour ex- 
 changes bill, 187 ; trade boards 
 bill, 220, 241 sqq. ; housing and 
 town planning bill, 266 sq., 278 
 sqq. ; development bill, 269, 330 
 sqq. ; finance bill (1909-1910), 356 
 sqq., 361, 388 sqq.; parliament 
 bill, 431, 435 sqq., 474 sqq. ; na- 
 tional insurance bill, 510 ; commit- 
 tee of, on sweating, 217; committee 
 of, on reform of, 422 sq. ; danger 
 of dispute with House of Com- 
 mons, 163 sq. ; a check on Liberal 
 legislation, 42 1 , 465 sq. ; debate on 
 reform of, 424 sqq. ; Lords' veto 
 and the budget, 352, 355, 399 sqq., 
 
INDEX 
 
 579 
 
 404 sqq., 426 ; restriction of pow- 
 ers of, 439 sqq., 449 sqq. 
 
 Loreburn, Lord, on parliament bill, 
 431, 496 
 
 Lyttelton, Alfred, on minimum wage, 
 2i8 sq. ; on housing, 266 
 
 Macdonald, Ramsay, on payment of 
 members of parliament, 79, 102 
 sqq. ; on unemployment, 185 ; on 
 national insurance, 508, 510, 547 
 sqq. 
 
 Manning, Cardinal, 264 
 
 Marlborough, Duke of, on the bud- 
 get and the constitution, 357, 398 
 sq. ; on parliament bill, 437 
 
 Masterman,C.F.G., on the budget, 35 1 
 
 Medical care, 30, 274 sq., 278 sq., 
 289, 310 sqq. ; and national insur- 
 ance, 523 sqq., 548 sq. 
 
 Mines regulation, 31, 241 
 
 Minimum wage, 218 sqq.; legisla- 
 tion concerning, see Trade Boards 
 Act (1909) 
 
 Money, Chiozza, on labour ex- 
 changes, 186 
 
 Montgomery, H. G., on workmen's 
 compensation, 20, 41 sqq. 
 
 Morley of Blackburn, Viscount, 14; 
 on the budget, 357, 402 sqq. ; on 
 reform of House of Lords, 425 sq. 
 
 Motor cars, tax on, 370 sq. 
 
 National insurance, and workmen's 
 compensation, 45 sq. ; funds, 347 ; 
 unemployment, and labour ex- 
 changes, 186, 199 sqq. ; debate 
 on bill for, 507 sqq. 
 
 Nationalist party, 16 sq. ; and de- 
 velopment bill, 320 sqq. ; on the 
 budget, 349, 352 ; on the Lords' 
 veto, 425 ; on national insurance, 
 
 507, 535 sq- 
 
 New Zealand, old age pensions in, 
 139 sq. 
 
 Northumberland, Duke of, on hous- 
 ing and town planning, 267 
 
 Notification of Births Act (1907), 
 109, 122 sqq. 
 
 Oastler, 217 
 
 Old age pensions, debate on, 130 
 sqq.; Act (1908),- 167 sqq.; Act 
 (1911), 176 sqq.; finance, 347, 
 362 sq. ; and national insurance, 
 511, 565 sq. 
 
 Onslow, Earl of, on bureaucracy, 
 266, 285 sq. ; on reform of House 
 of Lords, 426 
 
 Osborne Judgment, 79, 105 
 
 Overcrowding, 263 sqq. 
 
 Parliament. See Commons, House 
 
 of, and Lords, House of 
 Parliament Bill, debate on, 421 sqq. ; 
 
 exposition Of, 474 sqq. ; statute, 
 
 502 sqq. 
 Physical deterioration, 107 sq., 126 
 Picketing, peaceful, 13, 77, 80 sqq. 
 Plural voting, 19, 79, 443- 475 
 Poor Law Commission, 131, 133, 
 
 160, 163 ; report of, 185, 187 sqq., 
 
 192 sq., 197 
 Prevention of Cruelty to Children 
 
 Act (1894), 125 sq. 
 Probation of Offenders Act (1907), 
 
 109 
 Protection, and sweated labour, 237 ; 
 
 and finance, 347, 386 sq. 
 
 Redmond, John, on the budget, 349 ; 
 on parliament bill, 429 sq. ; on na- 
 tional insurance, 507, 516, 535 sq. 
 
 Referendum, 428, 439, 447, 463, 481 
 
 Reid, Sir Robert, 14 
 
 Revelstoke, Lord, on the budget, 
 
 357. 394 sq. 
 
 Reversion duty, 378, 412 
 
 Ribblesdale, Lord, on the budget, 
 357> 397 ; o» parliament bill and 
 Lansdowne resolutions, 431, 437, 
 498 sqq. 
 
 Richards, T. F., on minimum wage, 
 219, 238 sqq. 
 
 Right to Work Bill, 210 
 
 Ripon, Bishop of. See Boyd-Car- 
 penter, William 
 
 Ripon, Marquess of, 14 
 
 Roads, 314 sq., 332, 340 sqq. 
 
 Rosebery, Earl of, on old age pen- 
 sions, 133, 163 sq. ; on self-reli- 
 ance, 161 ; on the budget, 352, 
 
58o 
 
 BRITISH SOCIAL POLITICS 
 
 355 sqq- ; on the constitution, 399 
 sqq. ; onreforjnof House of Lords, 
 422, 424 sq. ; on parliament bill, 
 
 431. 438, 494 sq. 
 Ruskin, 263 
 
 Sadler, 217 
 
 St. Aldwyn, Viscount, on old ^ge 
 
 pensions, 133 ; on parliament bill, 
 
 436 sq. 
 Salisbury, Marquess of, on minimum 
 
 wage for sweated labour, 220, 245 
 
 sqq. 
 Samuel, Herbert, on child welfare, 
 
 109, 124 sqq. 
 Self-reliance, and old age pensions, 
 
 165 sq. ; and national insurance, 
 
 561 sqq. 
 Shackleton, D., on the Lords' veto, 
 
 421, 456 sqq. 
 Shaftesbury, 6, 217 
 Sheffield, Lord, on the budget, 357, 
 
 390 sq. 
 Sickness insurance. See National 
 
 insurance 
 Sinclair, John, 14 
 Small Holdings and Allotments Act 
 
 (1907), 265, 281, 330 
 Small Landholders Act for Scotland 
 
 (1911), 265 
 Smith, F. E., on trade unions, 78 ; 
 
 on unemployment, 186, 206 sqq. 
 Snowden, Philip, on the budget, 350, 
 
 356, 381 sqq. 
 Socialism, as distinct from Liberal- 
 ism, 135 ; and land development, 
 
 327 sq. ; and the Lloyd George 
 
 Budget, 348, 350, 381 sqq., 392 sq., 
 
 396 ; and the parliament bill, 433 
 Stamp duties, 375, 419 sq. 
 Super-tax, 318, 373 sq., 417 sqq. 
 Sweated labour, 217 sqq. 
 
 Taff Vale decision, 12, 77 
 
 Tariff. See Free Trade, and Pro- 
 tection 
 
 Taxation, 369 sq., 379 
 
 Tenement houses. See Housing 
 
 Tennant, H. J., on minimum wage, 
 219, 226 sqq. 
 
 Tory party. See Conservative party 
 
 Toulmin, George, 218 
 
 Town . planning, 263 sq., 271 sqq., 
 
 279 sq., 302 sqq. ; and finance, 347 
 Trade Boards, 205, 220 sqq.; debate 
 
 on Bill (1909), 218 sqq. ; Act, 247 
 
 sqq. 
 Trade Disputes Bill (1906), debate 
 
 on, 77 sqq., 443 sq. ; statute, 85 sqq. 
 Trade Union Act (1871), 79, 87 
 
 sqq.; Act (1876), 79, 95 sqq. 
 Trade unions, 13, 15, 77 sqq.; and 
 
 national insurance, 541 sq., 564 
 Tweedmouth, Lord, 14 
 
 Undeveloped land duty. See Land 
 
 taxes 
 Unearned increment, tax on, 318, 
 
 377. 409 sqq. 
 Unemployed Workmen Bill (1905), 
 
 13 sq. 
 Unemployment, 185 sqq.; insurance, 
 
 186, 199 sqq., 365 sq. ; and land 
 
 development, 329 sq. See also 
 
 National insurance 
 Unionist party. See Conservative 
 
 party 
 United States, social politics in, 4 ; 
 
 labour exchanges in, 193; sweated 
 
 labour in, 228; Second Chamber 
 
 in, 425, 460 sq. 
 
 Veto, Lords'. See Lords, House of, 
 and Parliament Bill 
 
 Walton, Sir John, on trade unions, 
 77 sqq. 
 
 Walton, Joseph, on workmen's com- 
 pensation," 21, 46 sq. 
 
 Wemyss, Earl of, on old age pen- 
 sions, 133, 160 sqq. 
 
 Willoughby de Broke, Lord, on the 
 budget, 357, 392 sq. ; on parlia- 
 ment bill, 436 
 
 Wilson, W. T., on meals for school 
 children, 108, 1 10 sqq. 
 
 Workmen's Compensation Bill 
 (I905),l3sqq.; Bill (1906), 20 sqq., 
 506; Act (1906), 47 sqq. ; Anglo- 
 French Convention on, 72 sqq. 
 
 Workmen's insurance. See National 
 insurance 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 Jl^f^S^^ 
 
 ^ir 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 %) 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A. 
 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 HN 389.H4 
 
 British social politics; materials illust 
 
 3 1924 002 692 725 
 
i