GOAL MINES (MINIMUM WAGE) BILL.

HC Deb 19 March 1912 vol 35 cc1723-93

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide a Minimum Wage in the case of workmen employed underground in Coal Mines, and for purposes incidental thereto."

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)

It is with great reluctance—great and unaffected reluctance—that I rise to submit to the House the Motion which stands in my name for the introduction of a Bill, the terms of which it sets out. I believe the introduction of such a Bill by the Government, and its passing by Parliament, promptly and within a very short period of time, is absolutely imperative in the best interests of the country. But I wish at the outset to make it clear, for myself and my colleagues, that we resorted to legislation only when all hope of a settlement by agreement had disappeared, and the necessity, in the general interest, of putting an end, a speedy end, to the stoppage of the coal industry had become a matter of paramount urgency. Although the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), who made a few observations some minutes ago may not think so, the Government has for a long time past—long before these matters reached an acute stage—felt it their duty to consider, and to consider with care and circumspection, the forms, the various forms and alternative forms, which, if agreement turned out to be impossible, legislation must take. I will frankly avow to the House the more we surveyed that ground, the more clearly we realised the difficulties and hazards to which even the best conceived plans of legislation must be exposed. We therefore, and I think we were right, persevered as long as it was possible to hope for a way of escape along another, a better and more expedient path.

4.0 P.M.

A fortnight ago I gave a narrative to the House—full and I believe accurate in every particular—of the origin of the intervention of the Government in this matter, and the negotiations which followed the submission of our proposals to the coal owners on the one side and to the representatives of the miners on the other, and of the deadlock through which, after many days of parley and conference, those negotiations had broken down for the moment. That was a fortnight ago.

We endeavoured to re-open the matter, and we were so far successful that masters and men were brought together, jointly or separately, with us under the same roof, and even in the same room, and their respective contentions were freely discussed across the table. There were, as it proved, insurmountable difficulties in the way of a settlement by agreement. A section of the owners—a minority, but still an important section of owners connected with South Wales and with Scotland—could not see their way by agreement—I emphasise those words— to discuss the principle, and still less the figure, of a minimum wage. The representatives of the miners, on the other hand, could not see their way by agreement—and again I emphasise those words—to the submission to revision of their minimum wage. I say, with perfect confidence, every effort was made to bridge or circumvent, by persuasion and by argument, the chasm which divided them. As time went on it became clear at last that, by such means, that chasm was impassable. Looking back on those negotiations, which from first to last occupied the best part, of three weeks, I cannot charge myself or my colleagues with any want of assiduity or of determination. We pursued what we believed to be not only the primary, but the essential object of our efforts. For myself, I may say that, in the course of the various spheres of activity in a more or less laborious and strenuous life, I cannot remember ever to have exerted the same pains and persistence in the pursuit of a single object. In that effort and in. that task I had the invaluable assistance of my three right hon. Friends beside me. I would add, be cause that was a circumstance favourable to our efforts, that we had the most warm and sincere acknowledgments and patriotic forbearance, here in the House of Commons from the responsible leaders of the Opposition, and, indeed, from the leaders of opinion in every quarter of the House. I will add, farther, that we had, as the most important element with a view-to the possibility of success, the patience and the self-restraint that was shown by the country at large.

Criticisms have been made, and I dare say will be made, as to the time and manner of these negotiations. It is said, I see, in some quarters, that they ought to have been begun sooner. I am perfectly certain that there is no one respon- sible for the conduct of these affairs on the side of the mine owners or of the miners who takes that view. On the contrary, up to the very moment when we felt it our duty to intervene, there was very good hope of a settlement being arrived at between the owners and the men in the largest of all the coal areas of this country, that which goes by the name of the federated area. I am perfectly certain that, if the Government had precipitately and prematurely interfered in the matter, we should have been told that we were meddling with matters with which up to that time we had no direct concern, and that we were frustrating the chance of what seemed likely to be a settlement. Another criticism which I believe has had some currency and favour upon our proceedings is that we conducted them too much behind closed doors and in secrecy —and that the free light and full stream of public opinion ought to have been allowed to play upon them at every stage of the transactions. I think these criticisms have proceeded mainly from the gentlemen connected with the Press. I have the highest possible respect, as we all must have, for the Press of this country, but if anyone thinks that in a delicate and complex matter of this kind, when in finitely diverse and complex interests were meeting day by day for the informal and confidential interchange of opinion, any good object could have been served by the publication morning after morning of a full verbatim report of every observation which was made across the table, with a full blaze of comment on the proceedings that took place—if anyone thinks that, I will make him a present of his opinion. I do not honestly believe, looking back on what took place, given the circumstances and conditions, a better or more hopeful method could have been adopted in endeavouring to arrive at a settlement.

However, as I have said, that came to an end. In these circumstances, I wish to ask the House what was our duty, and what is our duty, as a Government? The stoppage of production in this, the greatest industry of the country—the one upon whose continued operations a hundred other, I will not say subsidiary, but more or less dependent industries are con ditioned—that stoppage continued for a fortnight, and had produced, and was producing, a daily, ever-growing weight of in convenience and suffering to the State at large. Happily, there has been so far, and I trust and believe it will continue, an almost complete absence of anything in the nature of lawlessness or disturbance. The injury not only to the actual combatants, but to the country at large, is increasing every day, both in the width of its area and the gravity of its character. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government came without hesitation to the conclusion, that Parliament must be asked to intervene, and that if the parties could not agree to a settlement the State must pro vide a settlement for them. In other words, we were driven at last to face that which we had always desired to avoid, namely, some form of legislation, and we held, and hold, that the legislation, and the only kind of legislation which we are so justified in proposing to Parliament at such a moment, is legislation directed to the particular purpose, and, so far as it can be avoided, not going beyond that purpose.

I go back for a moment to the four propositions which at a very early stage in these transactions we submitted to the representatives of both the parties concerned. Perhaps I may once more read them to the House. These are the propositions made on 28th February, The first is this:— That His Majesty's Government are satisfied, after careful consideration, that there are cases in which underground employés in coal mines cannot earn a reasonable minimum wage from causes over which they have no control. The second proposition was this:— That His Majesty's Government are thoroughly satisfied that power to earn such a wage should be secured by arrangements suitable to the special circumstances of each district, adequate safeguards to be provided to protect the employers against abuse. These are the two propositions of fact forced upon us after a careful consideration of the evidence which was brought before us, both upon one side and upon the other. Our third proposition—and now we advance from statements of fact to proposals of remedy—was this:— His Majesty's Government are prepared to confer with the parties as to the best methods of giving practical effect to these conclusions by means of district conferences between the parties, representatives appointed by the Government being present. Finally, our fourth proposition—in order to secure something in the nature of finality—was:— That in the event of any of the conferences failing to arrive at a complete settlement within a reasonable time, the representatives appointed by the Government should decide jointly any outstanding points for the purpose of giving effect in that district to the above principles. These propositions were accepted—both the first two, which dealt with matters of fact, and the third and fourth, which dealt with machinery for remedying the grievances established by the two first—by no less than 65 per cent, of the coal owners of the country. The first two, I need not say, were accepted by the miners them selves because they were a recognition of the case which the miners had put forward.

May I say a word here on these two first propositions as to the grounds upon which the Government came to the conclusion that they had been, in point of fact, made out. The House will observe that they apply only to persons employed under ground. We were satisfied—and I believe the evidence is overwhelming—that there are cases of frequent occurrence where miners working underground are pre vented, from causes for which the individual miner is in no sense responsible, from earning what he is able and willing to earn. The common case, perhaps the commonest of such cases, is when a miner, a hewer, find himself face to face with a seam of coal which is technically called in this industry an "abnormal place"; that is to say a place where, for the time being, the physical conditions are such that he cannot, with the best will in the world, by the utmost exertion of his industry and effort, secure from his labour of the day anything like an average output. I do not believe there is any coal owner in the country who will deny—I do not believe the coal owners in South Wales themselves deny — that some special provision ought to be made for that class of case. But that does not by any means exhaust the area of the grievance. There were, as we are satisfied, and as I think the evidence abundantly shows, and are, numbers of cases of constant and often daily occurrence where, although the place in which the miner is set to work is not physically and structurally an "abnormal place," but is normal in the seam, yet he is prevented from turning out and sending up to the surface the amount of coal which he is ready and able to hew, by such causes as deficiency of tubs, the imperfect condition of the roadway—I only mention these as two illustrations, I might say, out of almost a hundred—and, generally speaking, through imperfections, or slackness, or want of organisation in the underground management of the mine. You must add to that, because I want the House clearly to realise what a peculiar case this is, that the work of the underground miner is carried on, to a large extent, relatively at any rate, in darkness. The kind of super vision which is exercised when people are working in the open light of day on the surface is manifestly and necessarily absent when you are working under ground. I do not say that produces any injurious consequences upon the miner himself, but it adds an element of difficulty and uncertainty to this problem, when you are trying to adjust the relations between the mine owners and the miners. This, therefore, is an industry which is carried on under peculiar conditions; and the conclusion to which we came, and which 65 per cent, of the owners of this country agreed to be a reasonable conclusion, was that to deal with this exceptional and indeed unique condition you ought to have a minimum, reasonable wage on the one hand, and adequate safeguards upon the other, to protect the owners against slackness and deficiency of out put. If you have those two things—if you have guaranteed, upon the one hand, a reasonable minimum wage, and, upon the other hand, proper conditions for efficiency and regularity of work, you have a twofold incentive to the productiveness of the industry. Why do I say that? On the one hand, in the minimum wage you have an incentive to the management to give to the individual miner, and, indeed, to all the persons employed underground, the fullest facilities to make the most of their time and of their energy, and, on the other hand, adequate safeguards to the employer and an incentive to the men not to take advantage of their slackness or default. That is the case, and I must say to myself and my colleagues, who carefully investigated the whole matter, it is an over whelming case for the combination of these two principles.

But if you are to have what I call this twofold incentive dictated by the peculiar conditions of the industry, it is quite obvious that you must have, in order to secure it, a machinery to settle both—a machinery impartial, competent, intelligent, and trustworthy, on the one hand, to settle what is the amount of the minimum wage, and, on the other hand, to settle what is the character, the scope, and the extent of the safeguards and conditions of efficiency and regularity of work. Further, it is quite impossible, as anyone who has acquainted himself even with the elements of the case must know, to deal with this matter as though it were one which could be settled by a single code of rules throughout the country as a whole. The conditions of our mining industry vary infinitely in different districts and areas in which it is carried on, and therefore if, to secure the proper ascertainment of these two elementary conditions, you come to the conclusion which is expressed in the third of these propositions, it can only be done district by district, and having regard to the special circumstances and conditions which locally prevail. Finally, on this part of the case, it must be clear to everybody that some procedure must be provided in the event of local conferences in districts, having regard to the special circumstances of a particular area, failing to come to an agreement. We were not, as we told both the owners and the men, in any way wedded to the particular proposal contained in our fourth resolution; but we did say, and we do say, that you cannot attain to a satisfactory solution of this question unless what I have repeatedly called in these conferences the "ragged edges" are provided for. I believe in the vast majority of cases a settlement could be obtained locally by agreement, but there must, and inevitably will be, cases in which that agreement is found to be impossible; and in such cases you must have some machinery or some person who can come to a final and satisfactory adjudication. I apologise to the House for going in such detail into this matter, but it is quite necessary in order to expound my case for the Bill which I am about to introduce and to explain what really is the position. The Bill which I am going to ask leave to introduce is a Bill simply to give effect, in the shortest possible form, to the proposition which the Government laid before both parties to this dispute nearly three weeks ago, with modifications which seem likely to be accept able to both parties in the form of machinery.

With that preface, I come to say a word or two about the Bill itself. In the first place, it is a temporary measure. According to its final Clause, it is to continue in force for three years, unless Parliament chooses to prolong it. It starts with this, that primâ facie it is to be a statutory term of every contract for the employment of workmen underground in a coal mine, that the employer shall pay to that working man wages of not less than the minimum rate settled under the Act and applicable to that workman. Any contract to the contrary will be void. Therefore, after the Act has come into operation, and by the machinery which it sets up the minimum wage has been fixed for any particular district, the workman will have a right to recover by civil proceedings from the owner who employs him wages not less than that of the minimum rate, and any contract set up to displace or to qualify or to modify that right on the part of the workman must be held by the Court of Law before whom the question comes to be void. That is the first proposition of the Bill. The next—I am not now dealing with them in the order of the Clauses, but in what I may call the logical order—is that the minimum wage so ascertained is to be paid retrospectively, and by retrospectively I mean from the date of the passing of the Act, which means, of course, in practice, from the date, what ever it may have been, after the passing of the Act when the individual miner resumes work. You cannot have a wage if you are not working. We have not got as far as that. The proposition is this. If and when—I hope it may be immediately —the men resume work after the passing of this Act the ultimate ascertainment—it must take a certain amount of time—of the particular rate for the particular district will operate retrospectively from the date of the resumption of work. These are the two affirmative propositions in the Bill.

Next I come to what is not less important—the provision for exceptions and other conditions to the receipt of the minimum wage. These conditions and exceptions, like the wage itself, will be fixed under the Bill by a District Board. In regard to exceptions, first of all we necessarily except—the District Boards will make special arrangements for these—the aged and infirm. None of the representatives of the miners have ever contended that the aged and infirm workers ought to receive the minimum wage. There will be no difficulty whatever about that. Next we come to the conditions which have been described during these negotiations as the safeguards to protect the owners against possible abuse. These are conditions in respect to the regularity and efficiency of the work done, and non-compliance with the conditions will, unless it is shown to be due to some cause over which the workman has no control, deprive him of the right to the minimum wage. So the House will see that so far we are carrying out the two principles, the two original propositions, of the Government'—on the one hand, a reason- able minimum wage to be secured to every underground workman in regard to his being prevented from earning what he could earn by causes over which he has no control, and, on the other hand, the exception of the aged and the infirm and adequate safeguards and conditions for regularity and efficiency of work for the employer. That is what I may call the legislative declaration which the Bill makes as to the Tights and obligations of these parties.

I come next to the only other thing—to the machinery by which these principles are to be given effect. We propose that both the rate of the minimum wage, and what I call the district rules—that is to say the rules for securing efficiency and regularity of work—should be settled by Joint District Boards, recognised, as to each district, by the Board of Trade. The districts are set out in a Schedule to the Bill. I will not trouble the House by reading them. I think they amount to something like twenty-one in number. They have been carefully selected in view of the special conditions in different parts of the country. I will read a summary, not the details, of the method: first, as to the constitution of the Board, and, next, the method by which it is to arrive at its determination. The Board is called a body of persons recognised by the Board of Trade—the Joint District Board of the district. These Joint District Boards will be the existing Boards of Conciliation, or such other Boards as may be constituted and are considered by the Board of Trade to fairly and adequately represent the employers and workmen in the various districts. There will be practically equal and even representation of both parties. Each Board will have an independent chairman, who will be appointed by agreement between the two sides of the Board, or, in default of agreement, by the Board of Trade. The chairman shall have a casting vote in any case of difference of opinion between the two sides of the Board, and, if it is thought desirable, three persons may be appointed to act as chairman instead of one. So much for their composition.

Next, as to their powers. The Joint Boards will settle the general minimum rate for the district and the general district rules—that is to say, the conditions as to efficiency and regularity of work. If it is shown to the Board of any district —this is to provide elasticity—that owing to special circumstances the general district minimum or the general district rules are not applicable in the case of any coal mine, or class of coal mines, or to any class of workman within the district, then the Board is to settle a special minimum rate, either higher or lower than the general minimum rate, and the special district rules, either more or less stringent than the general district rules. Then follows a very important provision from the practical point of view. The Joint Board of any district may sub-divide their district for the purpose of the fixing of rates, or, on the other hand, the Joint Boards may agree that districts will be combined and treated as one district for the purpose of the rules. So much for what I may call the original fixing of the rates and the determination of the rules.

Then comes the possibility of change in circumstances, and that is provided for in the following way: Minimum rates and district rules will remain in force until varied in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. The Joint Boards will have power to vary any minimum rates or any district rules, firstly, at any time on application made to them by agreement between the workmen and employers concerned, and next, after a year has elapsed since the rates or rules were last settled or revised on application made to them on three months' notice by the workmen generally or the employers. I think I have already told the House that we propose that this Bill will remain in force for only three years, unless Parliament should otherwise determine. In other words, it is presented to Parliament as a provisional and, to some extent, as an experimental measure to meet a special emergency in regard to a particular class of workers working under peculiar conditions in one great industry. It does not purport to lay down any general principles. It is quite possible for anybody to support this Bill who holds, as I hold, that it is very undesirable for Parliament to fix wages. It is quite possible also for anyone to support this Bill who holds, as I believe many I see sitting there hold (indicating the Labour Benches), that anything in the nature of compulsory arbitration is unnecessary. Neither the one nor the other is prejudiced in the least degree by supporting this Bill. Further, the House will observe, from the account I have given, that it has no penal provisions either upon the one side or upon the other. What the Bill says is this: A coal mine is opened for work by the employer, and if a man descends the pit to work underground, it is to work, as far as the minimum wage is concerned, upon these statutory terms— the employer is liable to pay the under ground worker a wage of not less than the wage fixed in the manner provided by the Bill. The Bill does not compel, and it does not purport to compel, the owner of a coal mine to open his mine. The Bill does not compel, or purport to compel, the workman to descend into the pit. There is no compulsion and there is no penalty either upon the one side or the other.

Would it then be said—perhaps it will be said—that the Bill is likely to be nugatory? Our hope and belief is that it will not. Owing to the special conditions of a particular trade, and the special emergency affecting the whole community in almost all its interests, the State by this Bill steps in, and with the State, after this Bill has become an Act of Parliament, both interests will have to reckon. We are asking Parliament here to make a legislative declaration of the principle of a statutory minimum wage. We are asking Parliament by this Bill to set up as a necessary accompaniment and corollary of that legislative declaration a perfectly fair, independent, and impartial machinery for the ascertainment of that wage and the conditions under which it should be enjoyed in all the special areas of the country. After Parliament has taken such action the position is no longer what it was before. There is no longer any doubt about the principle of a minimum wage. There is no longer any difficulty, or there ought not to be any difficulty, as to the sense and good faith in settling these various rates. That is all we can do and all we ask Parliament to do for the moment. As I have said, we hope and believe it will be an effective Bill. That 3s, at any rate, all we ask Parliament to do for the moment, and Parliament, will be fortified by taking that action if, which Heaven forbid, we should hereafter be compelled to take other and different measures to defend against paralysis and starvation the industries and the people of this country.

Mr. BONAR LAW

It, is quite evident that the Prime Minister has addressed himself to his task with more than a usual sense of responsibility, and I can assure the House that in rising now I have a very strong sense of the responsibility that rests upon me. Long before the strike broke out, at the time, indeed, when in the South Wales area the extreme men won their victory over the old leaders of the miners, I felt that the country had before it an outlook as serious as it has ever had to face. When, therefore, the Government began to intervene in this dispute, with the full approval of all the colleagues I was able to consult, I avoided doing anything which could by any possibility embarrass the Government in their task. I claim no merit for that, although I was pleased to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer the remark when it was made by the Prime Minister. We claim no merit for it, not only because to take any other course would have been discreditable, but, as a matter of fact, to be quite frank, though I am quite sure we could have annoyed the Government, I am not at all sure that we could have done anything by which we could have improved our own position. I am quite frank in regard to that, and the House, I am sure, will recognise that there is no question of tactics in this course. That has been our attitude, and it is our attitude now. The last thing I should desire to do would be to try in any way to gain a party advantage out of so grave a crisis. I happened to say yesterday that, while the position in the coal trade was grave, the legislation proposed by the Government seemed serious also; and after listening to the explanation of the proposals which has been given by the Prime Minister, with all the lucidity which he invariably displays, I am bound to say that it seems to me possible that the remedy which he proposes for this disease may prove to be far more serious than the disease itself. What is the position.? I have had no opportunity—not through any fault, I am sure, of the Prime Minister —of seeing the Bill. I know nothing about it except what he has explained to the House, and I am sure no one in any quarter of the House will consider it un reasonable when I say that, until I have had time, not only to read and study the Bill, but to consult my colleagues in regard to the measure, I am not going to commit myself to approval or disapproval of it.

Under these circumstances I shall not occupy much of the time of the House, but I do feel bound to put before the House as clearly as I can what, so far as I can judge from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, is the position in which we find ourselves to-day, and I am bound to say that I cannot do that without saying in the clearest way how strong is my misgiving and distrust of the whole thing. I ask the House to realise, in the first place, how quickly we are moving. Only a few weeks ago an Amendment to the Address was moved from those benches in favour of the minimum wage. It was not treated seriously by the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government hardly dealt with it at all, and, so far as I can recollect—for I heard him speak—what he did say was to point out that such a principle could only be applicable to sweated industries. Now, a few weeks later, we are discussing a Minimum Wage Bill, and a Bill not to be applied to sweated industries, but to one of the trades where the men on the whole receive far higher wages than the average of those engaged in other industries. I admit that the Prime Minister dwelt very largely on the differentiation between this trade and all other trades. If this Bill is to become law, I should like nothing better than to believe that there is a differentiation, which would justify us in saying that we have logical ground for maintaining that what we have done in this case cannot apply to any other industry. I should like nothing better than to be in that position. But I confess that I think we are not in that position, and cannot be.

The Prime Minister, as was to be expected, spoke a good deal about abnormal places, and I am bound to say that when I first read these four propositions which he has put before the House, and which I do not think it necessary for me to read again, I considered that Nos. 1 and 2 applied only to abnormal places, and to other circum stances of a like kind over which the miners had no control. So far as I can judge—though I say this with a great deal of hesitation after the long experience which the Prime Minister has had during the past few weeks—the principle of the minimum wage in this Bill has no connection, or a very slight connection if any—I doubt if it has any—with the question of abnormal places at all. I put this forward with hesitation, but there are hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who are engaged in the trade, who know all about it, and if I am wrong I am sure that they will correct me. My understanding is that at this moment the way in which abnormal places are dealt with is this: that the rate paid to the workmen approximates in many places to the average of pay of the four previous weeks which they would have gained in normal places —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in some districts—[HON. MEMBERS: No."]—and that all over the country the rate which a good workman will gain in abnormal places is higher than the minimum wage can be under any circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my information from men who certainly are as well able to judge as anybody can be. If that is true it is perfectly obvious that a good workman will not, on account of this minimum wage Bill, accept a lower rate than he was getting before, and the Miners' Federation will back him in refusing to accept a low wage. So that so far as these abnormal places are concerned this consideration, which is the one that weighs most largely with the public, has no bearing whatever, and is no justification for the introduction of the Bill.

But if that is contested—and I gather that it is accepted as pretty nearly accurate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—let me put this case before the Prime Minister. In all mines there is a large number of men below ground who are paid regular day wages. What the number is exactly I cannot say, but I am informed that I am within the mark in saying that it is between a quarter and one-third of all the men underground. These men are to be subject to the minimum wage also. There are no special conditions with regard to them. They receive their day's wage irrespective of output in precisely the same way as every other workman in every other trade, and I defy anyone to say when this Bill is made to apply to them that any other men in any other trade have not an equal right to similar treatment. I am bound to say—and it. is a serious thing to say, but surely, with all this that has been going on before oar eyes confronting us, we are bound to look at facts as they are— that in my belief the only real differentiation is that the Miners' Union is so powerful that it has been able to put pressure upon the Government, and upon Parliament, to obtain this Bill, and that that is the differentiation and the reason for its introduction. If that is true—and I am sure it is—how can the right hon. Gentle man say to us that by agreeing to this Bill we are not in any way committing our selves to the principle of the minimum wage? If that is true, is it not evident to every man in the House that what we are doing by this Bill is inviting every other trade, which has a powerful organisation, to use it in the same way, to obtain the same result, and, more than that, inviting all men in trades where there is not this organisation to form an organisation, so that they can come to Parliament and put pressure, on to obtain the minimum wage? I do not think that there is anyone in this House who does not realise that what we are doing is a very serious thing, and that it is a great responsibility for the Government which proposes it.

The next point I wish to put has a bearing upon the actual position in which we are placed. I am not going to deal with the principle of the minimum wage. There is a great deal that I would like to say on it, if I had time, and perhaps, if I have to speak again, I may do so. But I am going to look at it now in its bearings upon the other side of this question, the guarantees which are to be given to the masters in connection with this Bill. As the Prime Minister clearly pointed out, there were two distinct bargains, so to speak, in his proposals made on the 28th February. One was that there should be a minimum wage, and the other was that adequate safeguards should be given so that there should be no serious diminution in the output. The Prime Minister put it, in describing it to the House, in this way. He undertook to provide against such a diminution in the output as would in the long run be disastrous to the industry itself. His actual pledge to the masters was: "If we give the minimum wage we will guarantee you against any serious diminution of the output." That is the serious crux of this proposal, put from the practical point of view. I listened carefully to the provisions which the Bill is to contain to fulfil that condition. I am satisfied that the Bill does not contain provisions which can satisfy it.

In the first place, it would be left to these District Boards. Let me say that, so far as I could follow the speech of the Prime Minister, these Boards in their powers are put in the fairest possible way between the masters and the men. There is every intention, as is shown by the fact that they are to be at liberty to deal with a particular mine, on the part of the Prime Minister, to deal with them fairly. But as a matter of fact there is only one way in which such a guarantee can be carried out. That is that the minimum wage should be so much below the average rate that there will be every incentive, as there is now, to workmen, to work as hard as they can, to get the full output. In saying that I am sure that the House will understand that I am not suggesting that miners are more likely to shirk their work than other people. Perhaps they are less likely, but after all they are not likely to be a great deal better than we who are in this House, and it is quite evident to everyone that there are no people—at least if there are any they are very few: I am not one of them—who, if they could obtain the same reward, whether wages, kudos, or whatever it is, by half the work, would not do half the work, and get the reward in that way.

5.0 P.M.

Is not it perfectly evident to the House that if the average wage which a man can earn by hard work is something like, say, 6s. 6d.—any figure will do just as well— and the minimum wage is 6s., there will be an irresistible tendency to reduce the output and to produce less for very nearly the same amount of money, and the effect of that on the coal trade and in consequence upon all other trades in the country, would be utterly disastrous? This is so important that I wish to put it before the House in a concrete form. I have here an analysis of the weekly pay-sheet of a colliery for a week ending at the end of February. I am not going to give the name of the colliery, but I am willing to give it to any Member of the Government, and also the name of the coal owner who gave the particulars to me. The colliery is in Wales. The owner of this colliery told me that the men with the different average rates of pay which I am going to describe were working under practically the same conditions. This is the result. One hundred and sixty-eight men got an average of about 5s.; 194 gob an average of about 6s.; 251 got an average of about 7s.; 203 got an average of about 8s.; 165 got an average of about 9s.; seventy-nine got an average of 10s.; and so on, up to a small number who got 15s. and 16s. The minimum scale suggested by the miners for this district is 7s. l½d., I understand. Look at what the meaning of that is. There, 509 men out of the total of about 1,200 who got less than 7s. The Prime Minister said in his speech that there was no difficulty whatever about aged and infirm. I quite admit that the miners' representatives were perfectly reasonable about that. They said that there ought to be a distinction. But when the right hon. Gentleman said that there is no difficulty, surely that is a great mistake. Who is to judge when a man becomes aged and infirm unless you are to take into account the output of his labour? You cannot say that 509 out of 1,200 men in this mine are shirkers. That, I say, is impossible. They are average workmen. What is the result? Half of them nearly are not earning what is asked for as a minimum wage. It is perfectly certain that if the minimum wage were fixed at that figure, human nature being what it is, there would be a lowering of exertion all through the mine, and the output would be far less than it is under existing circumstances. I. think the guarantee is rather impossible. The next point I wish to put before the House is as to the position in which we actually stand. The Government are adopting this plan, as the Prime Minister made perfectly evident, because they are anxious to get rid of the present difficulty at all costs. That is natural. We are all inclined to live from hand to mouth, and Governments as much as other people. It is natural that they should wish to get rid of this difficulty. But look at the position in which we stand. They adopt the principle of the minimum wage, with all the consequences which I believe follow from it. There is no guarantee whatever even that this strike will come to an end if we carry the legislation. But look a little further—and this is the last point on this part of the subject which I wish to put before the House—there is another consideration which I think is most serious: society is being held up. That is what it means. I do not say whether the fault is the fault of the men or the fault of the masters. That is the effect. Society has been held up. It is one of the greatest evils which can possibly happen to any society. It has been faced in many countries by many Governments, some of them even Socialistic Governments; but there never has been any Government which faced it in the way in which this Government does. What is the meaning of it? Here we are, with all this misery which the country has been going through, and we have not got nearly to the end of it, for even if the strike ends to-morrow, the worst is still to come, I am afraid. We have been faced with all this misery from a cause which is understood by everybody, and the Government take steps not to end, but to try and end this strike, but take no steps whatever to prevent precisely the same thing from the same cause occuring next month or the month after.

Mr. JOHN WARD

What would you do?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I say this is a very serious responsibility for any Government to undertake. I was asked what I would do. Let me say at once that I am thankful the responsibility rests with right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Like everyone in this House, and most, people out of it, for the last few weeks I have been thinking of very little else except this coal trouble, and, at any time when I have talked of it with any of my colleagues, I have said that, taking the time before the strike as well as the time after the strike, there seemed to me only three possible courses open to any Government. The first possible course, before the strike broke out, was to take some action like that in Canada, where it is made illegal to have a strike or a lock-out until there has been arbitration, and, after the arbitration, a strike may or a lock-out may take place. The Canadian Government trust, in that way, to the force of public opinion, and believe that, after the award has been given, public opinion will be so strong that the party which is found to be in the wrong will not force a conflict. I do not say at all that this course would have succeeded here, but I say it was a possible one. After the strike broke out there were only, in my opinion, two alternatives open to the Government, and they were both alternatives which any Government would be slow to take if it could help it. The first was to allow the strike to take its course. Even to suggest this may seem a very hard-hearted proceeding, but after all, the Government has to consider not only immediate evils but other evils greater which may follow. To adopt that course would have meant—it is quite evident—that the Government would have had to make it perfectly plain that they would use the whole force of society as represented by them, not to compel or persuade men to work, but to make sure that men in any part; of the country who were willing to work were allowed to work. That was one possible course, and it might have involved something more.

It might have involved the Government of the day—as was done by the Government, I think, at the time of the cotton famine—recognising that people were suffering from no fault of their own, should receive sectional relief from the Government of the day. That was a possible course, and, while I do not say the Government ought to have adopted it, I do say it is a course which certainly ought to have been considered by the Govern- ment of the day. The only other alternative, in my opinion, was for the Government to say, "This strike is unlike other strikes; we cannot allow it to take its ordinary course, and merely hold the ring. It dislocates society. We must step in and end it." Until the Government had announced their intentions, I certainly should have thought that if the Government were to take such action as that it meant, not merely expressing a pious opinion, it meant not merely saying the way in which that strike ought to end, but, if the Government meant anything, I should have thought it meant that the Government should say to both parties, "That is the way the strike must end"; and to secure that result they would have been bound to put all possible pressure on the masters to open the pits, and all possible pressure on the men to induce them to go back to the pits.

An HON. MEMBER

What pressure?

Mr. BONAR LAW

An hon. Gentleman asks what pressure. Anyone who has been considering the subject knows perfectly well the kind of pressure that has been used in other countries, and which is the only possible kind of pressure, if such a course were taken. I say, further, that to adopt that course—and it seemed to me the only course except leaving things to go on as they were—meant something more. It surely means, if the Government steps in to regulate wages—and that is what in effect this is: it follows inevitably, I should have thought—that the Government has considered the situation to be so serious that it has taken this exceptional means of dealing with it, and it follows that it should not be possible, either for masters or for men, to engage in a strike in the same circumstances in the future. Another course might have been adopted and changed my view, that these were the only possible methods of dealing with the strike; but I say that, so far as I can judge, nothing can be worse than for society, as I have said, to be held up, for us to go through all these miseries under exceptional circumstances, and for the Government to take no steps whatever to see that the same thing may not again occur under similar circumstances in other trades, or in the same trade, under the same conditions. I am sorry that what I have said was distasteful to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I can assure the House that I should greatly have preferred to say that I was not going to make up my mind until I had considered the Bill further, but I do think it is the duty of anyone who has distinct views, at a time like this, to give expression to those views. Let me say also that in what I have said I am very far from desiring to attack the Government. That is not my desire, whatever the effect may be. I recognise as fully as anyone in this House what the Prime Minister has said about the assiduity and determination of himself and his Friends. I recognise that it is easy to criticise any course that any Government has taken. While I say this, I say also—and I am bound to say—that, so far as I can judge, the method of dealing with this difficulty which has been chosen by the Government is not a method for which, under any circumstances, we could have been responsible.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the speech which he has just delivered, so far from being distasteful to us, has been welcomed by us. It is welcome for several reasons—one, because the right hon. Gentleman does not know his own mind. He started by informing the House that he had not made up his mind regarding the fate of the Bill, so far as he can affect it. He finished by giving us to understand he was opposed to the Bill. We have seen rather curious evolutions on the part of the Leaders of the Opposition, but rarely have we found one changing his mind in the course of one speech. The speech itself was divided into two parts. The first was critical. He examined what he supposed was in the Bill. That part of the speech was very reminiscent of a speech we heard towards the end of last Session, when the right hon. Gentleman rose to bann the Insurance Bill with bell, book, and candle, and to inform the House at the same time he did not mean to vote against it. The second part of his speech, if I may use the expression, was even a little more disappointing than the first. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean? It is perfectly true that he is not responsible. It is perfectly true that he is not the head of the Government; but surely in a crisis like this he ought to put the result of his two weeks' cogitations—he told us he had been thinking about it for two weeks—into the common fund. Does he seriously propose to introduce the Canadian Arbitration Act into this country? I think we ought to hear "yes" or "no" in reply to that question. Or does he mean to introduce the New Zealand method of legislation, the New South Wales or the West Australian method, or, to take a big jump, does he mean to introduce the Russian method? Let us come to more details. Does he mean to follow those who are suggesting that the Trade Disputes Act should be wiped off the slate? Does he mean to penalise trade unions when they take trade union action? Does he mean to force men to labour irrespective of the pay which they get? Does he mean to destroy collective bargaining, with all its consequences, or does he mean to establish paternal Government which will be Socialism in its very worst form? And that is the sort of thing that a good many of his followers imagine is going to get the industrial constituencies of the country to give him and his Friends majorities at the next Election. I think we will leave the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends there until we get some further 'light on these somewhat important topics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Somewhat."] I would probably have said "very important" had it not been for the speech to which we have just listened.

The preliminary part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was promising and interesting: it was a discussion of the minimum wage. I am not going to follow him in that part of his speech. I think he is right in some of the things he said. He was right, for instance, when he referred to our Amendment, and that the House did not take it seriously. May I appeal to the House to be warned by that mistake on its part? As a matter of fact those who have been considering this matter for a little more than, a fortnight have seen that the minimum wage, whether we like it or not, is beginning to be a subject that must occupy our attention more and more. The demand for a certain minimum to be fixed in certain trades, sweated and non sweated, is becoming more and more pressing. I venture to say if this House would only apply its mind and experience to the problem perhaps there would be more light upon it than unfortunately has been shed on it up to the present moment, But, however, we must discuss this on its own merits. I regret the Bill. I suppose we all regret the Bill. Personally, under present circumstances, I should have preferred that owners and men had come to an agreement, an agreement satisfactory to both, an agreement which both would have carried out for some reasonable period of time. The right hon. Gentleman said that he made up his mind that that was impossible, and that trouble was brewing when certain sections got the upper hand in South Wales. But surely, after all, that was the last incident of the chapter. The opening of the chapter was when the South Wales owners began to pursue a certain policy. Syndicalism and those sort of things are not matters which emanate only from two or three gentlemen who have gone to Ruskin College, Oxford. They are created be cause owners, more particularly in South Wales, have taken up in these negotiations, and in what preceded these negotiations, an attitude which no body of self-respecting workmen would tolerate for a single instant. After all, men have got to be treated as human, beings and not as beasts of burden or as mere profit-making machines, such as the workmen in South Wales. It is owing to these unfortunate circumstances, each side playing into the hands of the other, an evil on the part of the owner producing an evil on the part of the workman, which again creates fresh evil, and which brings both sides into deeper and deeper conditions of misfortune, ill-will, and enmity. You all admit that, but to put it down and imagine that all those unfortunate circumstances began when certain things, which were not nearly so bad as the right hon. Gentleman made out, and I do not associate myself with them, happened in South Wales, is really to take such a short view of the situation that one is amazed that a Leader of the Opposition should commit himself to that view.

Legislation has become necessary. I regret it, but there it is. As to this legislation, I want to make our position perfectly clear regarding it. The moment this House begins to legislate upon industrial disputes in the way that it now proposes, it must be exceedingly careful, because if it is going to do it in a permanent way then it is not one Bill that is required but a score of different Bills. This House must be prepared to set down a complete system of industrial arbitration, with all the good and bad consequences that follow from it; but this House is not in that position now. That may be right or it may be wrong, it may be necessary or unnecessary, but my plea, and I want to ground myself on this, is that this House is not in the frame of mind, and is not in the position, and has not the time now to enter upon that kind of legislation. Therefore the legislation which is necessary for the settlement of the present dispute must be temporary, must be ad hoc, and must refer only specifically to the question that is before us. The Bill declares for a minimum. That is a matter upon which I think there is general agreement. All the problems that have been suggested, the real problems, and they are not all fanciful, suggested by the Leader of the Opposition have got to be dealt with by the district conference. Can any one imagine what sort of mix up this House would be in if it dealt even with the propositions suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. We would be sitting here, not merely this year but well into next year, dealing with those questions alone, and all this time, according to our assumption, this strike would be going on, and the dispute would be unsettled. Why, as a matter of fact, if those questions are to be dealt with at all they must be dealt with after peace has been declared and not while war is on. I am not very clear as to the three years' limit in the Bill. I am not quite sure what is the meaning of that. I suppose it is that the machinery created by the Bill is going to last for three years, and that then all that it means is that this Court of Arbitration or Conciliation is going to last for the three years. I want to raise this point a little later on owing to a phrase the Prime Minister used, and I want to ask whether the Court of Conciliation or Arbitration is going to last for three years. However, when we see the Bill, we will be more able than now to fully realise its significance.

With reference to the minimum itself, however, we would have preferred, and I think most people would have preferred, that some indication should be put in the Bill as to what the minimum meant in terms of pounds, shillings, and pence. The workmen desire their schedule to go in be cause, after all, the minimum is a mere verbal expression. A minimum wage might be 6d. per hour or 1s. per hour, or it might be 2½d. per hour; and, as a matter of fact, the Wages Board has fixed 2½d. as a minimum wage. Therefore the mere de termination on the part of this House that there should be a minimum wage paid does not carry the problem very far to wards solution. Naturally we would like the schedule put in, and I daresay when we see the Bill and make up our minds what Amendment we shall ask the House to consider, that an Amendment to that effect may be put down on the Paper. The Bill proceeds on a different principle. The Bill says that there shall be a minimum paid, but what the minimum is going to be is not going to be disclosed until it has been a subject of consideration and decision by some Court of Arbitration or Board of Conciliation. I think on that point there is one thing that we cannot possibly omit. This Court must not have the power to give a decision which will, as a matter of fact, reduce existing rates. I think when we come to consider the details of the Bill we will find that that is a point that must be provided against, that if the men are going to go into a Court of Arbitration that in the fixing of a minimum there must be great care taken that the existing rates paid to individual men which are above the minimum shall not in any way be diminished by the decision of that Court. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the whole purpose is surely that we are going to deal with just the points that have been raised by the dispute, and the employers apparently want no reduction, and the dispute is simply the question of the establishment of a minimum wage. Therefore we must safeguard, if the question of a minimum is going to be left an open question to the Court, that the Court will not have the power to settle another question which does not arise in the course of this dispute, and which is not an open matter at all. We are not establishing Boards to settle the whole of the questions regarding conditions and wages which may arise in the coal trade in the next three or four years. We are settling this strike and this strike only, and the points that have been raised in the course of this strike. We must be very careful in this Bill to see that it is clearly laid down that no other point to the detriment of either men or masters can be settled or dealt with by the Court that is to be created by the Bill.

The point I want to ask the Prime Minister about is this: When he dealt with the question of chairmen of the Boards he used the expression, "with a casting vote." If hon. Members will just think for a minute they will see how important that is. Is the chairman only to have a casting vote, or is he going to have the power of an arbitrator to say to both sides, "I think the cases you have brought before me are both imperfect, and I will vote neither for the employers' proposition nor the workmen's proposition, and I myself give my decision as something that lies between the two." Obviously if the chairman is going to have that power he is going to have more power than that of a casting vote. The power of a casting vote is the power which the chairman has hitherto exercised in the Conciliation Boards of the Miners' Federation of the coal trade of this country. I think it is most important that the Prime Minister should let us know whether he is going to carry on the old traditions of the chairmen of Coal Conciliation Boards or whether he is going to extend their powers and put them in the position of real arbitrators. With reference to districts, I think that is a point as to which we had better wait until we see the Bill, and have time to study it. But I think we ought to be very careful about this question of districts, because in splitting up the districts it is just possible that we might introduce a new method of penalising a good employer—the man in the district with good geological formation, and with good wages conditions. Unless one is very careful, one might hit unfairly by putting a harder district against a good district, unless there is an attempt to average the minimum wage over the districts. Unless the courts are exceedingly careful not to do too much sub-division we may find that the last stage both of the men and of the employers is worse than at the present time. As to the special rates, we would like to wait and see what provisions are made regarding old men and infirm men, and also as to the special rates regarding pits and groups of pits, the working of which are more or less dangerous. Those are points which will have to be very carefully safeguarded lest they may be abused, because the Bill is not definite enough on the powers it gives to settle those matters to the court it sets up.

Then we come to the question of compulsion. In regard to that question, so far as this Bill is concerned, the only compulsion to be imposed is that if an employer employs labour he is to pay a minimum wage. I think that is quite fair. He may pay more than the minimum wage, but he must pay at least the mini mum wage. Apparently there is no compulsion to be imposed upon employers to work their pits. There can be a lock-out under the Bill. On the other hand there is no compulsion to be imposed upon miners to go in. They can continue on strike. I think that is very wise. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members seem to think that I delight in that. I do not. I wish hon. Members would be good enough to tell me how they are going to compel employers to open their pits, or how they are going to compel a group of men to go down the pits when they are open. I shall be very delighted indeed if they will tell us how it is to be done. At any rate, whether they have a proposal or not, that is not in the nature of an emergency proposal. It is in the nature of serious legislation which must affect not only the miners but every other trade union and every other trade in the country, and it must certainly be dealt with in a different way. I should like to say that those who imagine that that is going to be the effect seem to have forgotten the experience of other countries which have tried that method. As a matter of fact these things have given no security to Canada, to New Zealand, or to Australia. Although in those places, where industry is comparatively simple in its texture, you can get the maximum amount of good from compulsory arbitration, even there you have had strikes which have almost threatened to develop into revolutionary proposals.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

It has been very successful in Canada.

Earl WINTERTON

Can the hon. Gentleman mention one serious strike or lockout in Canada during the last four years?

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

Surely the Noble Lord forgets the very serious dispute on the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Earl WINTERTON

It was ended in six weeks. I was in Canada at the time; it was only a very partial strike.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

The fact of the matter is the Canadian Pacific Railway, during the strike, was very hard put to it indeed, and the system was practically paralysed, more particularly during the earlier time until the usual operations began to take place and the men's places were filled in. However, a six weeks' strike—

Earl WINTERTON

Partial.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

A six weeks' partial strike—according to the Noble Lord's own admission—on English railways would be such a very serious matter that if you could not stop it you could not boast very much of the legislation that failed. Those who read the "Times" will see an interesting article, a column in length, on the fifth page this morning, regarding the failure of compulsory arbitration in New Zealand. Before coming into the House this afternoon, I had sent me a copy of the current number of the "Electrical Review," where the matter is further discussed, and where cases are given showing the absolute failure of this kind of legislation. It has been the subject of a good many interesting articles and investigations, the very latest being the Board of Trade yellow book on the subject. No one can read this book on "Strikes and Lock-outs, and the methods taken to stop them," and at the end find their faith in compulsory arbitration not shattered. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] There may be one exception, but really I cannot understand how he does it. I went to Australia and New Zealand once very largely for the purpose of studying the subject on the spot. I saw both employers, and workmen, representatives of the masters' federations and representatives of the men's union, both in Australia and in New Zealand, and I came away firmly convinced that as soon as the time came when it was impossible for the courts of arbitration to keep steadily increasing the wages—which was possible under a certain very exceptional economic and industrial condition—at that moment the whole of that system of legislation would fall down like a load of bricks. My impression has boon fulfilled. If we are to have a full discussion upon how to settle these matters as permanent features of our legislation, we shall require to raise a good many points. We have no faith in them. We have faith in setting aside the Osborne Judgment, for instance. If we are going to have a general discussion we shall have to discuss that, because legal injustice, as we regard it, is one of the most revolutionary sources that any country has ever experienced. If we are going to discuss the inconvenience of strikes, as some hon. Members desire, we shall also want to discuss the powers of certain persons and classes to raise prices upon the community, thereby enormously aggravating the evils of the strike, and enormously increasing the horror of poverty which the poorer classes have to undergo in any large industrial dispute. We would also want to discuss the question of royalties. If hon. Members insist on discussing the relative position of owners and men in these disputes, we shall also have to discuss the relative merits of the nationalisation of mines. But if these matters were to be raised, we would all agree, irrespective of the quarters of the House in which we sit, that that would be nothing but fiddling while Rome was burning. We want to settle this dispute now. We want to see the men back without delay. We want to settle it in some sort of way that will be practical, that can be worked by the owners and accepted by the men. If this legislation is going to do it we are quite willing to give it any support we can. We may have to ask for one or two amendments, one or two safeguards, and so on, but still, in the main, on principle, we will do everything we can to get this Bill through this week, because we understand that until the Bill has actually become an Act of Parliament, or at any rate has left both Houses, it will be impossible for the strike to be declared off. By reasonable discussion and, may I hope, by friendly discussion, however much we may disagree on some points, I think it will be possible to get this Bill through in a way, at any rate, that will be tolerably satisfactory, so that industry may pursue its normal course and conduct in the country.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

In the speech just delivered I think the most interesting portion, was the last few words, because if this legislation is to take place, it is all important that we should know whether or not the chief parties interested are going to support the Bill when it is passed into law. If the House will pardon me, I feel bound, on behalf of the coal owners, to give a certain amount of history in connection with this particular dispute, in order that we may put before Parliament what our case is. The abnormal place has been mentioned. I think it is just as well to remind the House that last autumn this abnormal place question could have been settled. The whole of the owners of the country were willing to settle it if only the miners had been willing. The miners de sired to settle it by a national settlement; we desired to settle it by district settle ments—the very principle engrafted in this Bill. The South Wales owners, who have been so often referred to, themselves offered to discuss the question in the districts and, if possible, to take it up in connection with the agreement which binds them in connection with other matters. Therefore it is unfair to say, as has often been said, that in this matter the owners were at fault in the initial stages of the dispute. But suddenly, at the very moment when we had offered to discuss the abnormal place question in the country, the miners, at their annual conference, decided to introduce the question of the minimum wage. That, of course, was a very different matter, raising entirely novel principles, and one which this House will have to fight out within the next three days. That is realty the reason why this question has arisen. We were willing to discuss that which was the urgent matter, namely, the abnormal place question; but the miners determined to force the question of the minimum wage, which we maintain is utterly inapplicable to the colliery industry. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) refer to the impossibility of compulsory arbitration. I should have liked him to have gone on and explained where it has been found possible to carry out the minimum wage in connection, with colliery working. Wherever it has been tried, whether in the collieries or in individual cases, in this country, it has been a failure, because of the inherent difficulty of applying it to this particular industry.

Let us clear our minds, at all events, of one thing: this has nothing to do with what is often called a living wage. There has been an attempt to engraft that upon an industry to which it does not apply. The miners, in the schedule which they say they are now anxious to engraft into the Bill, have themselves shown how impossible it is to bring up the question of the living wage in connection with this matter. When their schedule varies from 4s. 11d. to 7s. 6d. in different districts, and 1s. in districts that are contiguous, it is impossible to say that their desire has been entirely dictated by the determination to obtain a living wage. Behind their schedule there must be some other principle which has certainly never been, explained to the owners, and of which we have had so far no explanation in this House.

What is the actual position at this present moment? It is too often said that 65 per cent, of the coal owners have agreed to the principle of a living wage. It is the fact that 65 per cent, did eventually agree to the Resolutions that were put forward by the Government, but that is a very different matter from an individual mini mum wage. So far as the federated area is concerned, which I know most about, they accepted in principle the minimum wage only because they felt it was their duty to do something to avoid the terrible calamity of a national strike. They did not do it because they approved of the principle; they simply yielded to the necessity of the case, in order, if possible, to save the public from all the horrors of a national strike. So far as the mini mum wage is concerned, we must say, and say in this House, that the coal owners as a whole do not approve of the principle. They believe it is an error to introduce it into the industry, and they only accepted it under the promise of sufficient safe guards, because they thought that they ought to subordinate their own interests to those of the country in such a crisis as this. I am perfectly willing to re-echo in this House the statement made in another place as to the patience with which the Prime Minister conducted these negotiations. His patience was extraordinary, his tact was wonderful, and his skill in conducting the negotiation was certainly a study for anyone to follow. Therefore I should say not only that he did it in an admirable way, but that he would not have been justified in giving up hope at an earlier stage. I should like to say that quite frankly. What we do desire to say is that we have relied all through upon the Government's own proposals. We accepted those proposals, not because we liked them, but because of the necessity of the situation. We do maintain that we have a right when these proposals are incorporated in the Bill before this House that they should be carried out to the fullest extent, and in the spirit in which they were accepted. That is what I would endeavour to deal with daring the few minutes I ask the House to give to me.

I admit that to a great extent the Bill does carry out the resolutions which the Prime Minister read to the House, but there are considerable gaps. I am afraid I must take one exception to what the right hon. Gentleman said, which was that the representatives of the miners had accepted the first two of those resolutions. I do not think they ever did accept them; certainly not the second. The main part of the discussions which took place in the Conferences, it is well known, turned upon the determination of the miners that these rates should be not only undiscussable, but that they should not be discussed in the districts. That was one of the great questions upon which the owners felt strongly, and upon which the Government themselves in the indications which they have given in connection with this Bill, showed that they had accepted to the fullest extent. If it had been possible that the representatives of the miners had accepted freely in the first instance a discussion of these rates in the places where they could be discussed properly, then I think one of the great difficulties would have been removed from the negotiations. It was their failure to do so that, really to a great extent brought the crisis upon us.

We must also remember that after all the machinery is even more important than what is laid down in the first two resolutions, and the men have strongly declined in any sense to assent to that which is essential in this matter, a free and in dependent court to settle these matters, and one of whose opinion shall be final. When they brought their resolution back to the Conferences which were held last week they again and again said that on the great question of the minimum wage for hewers, daymen, and boys they would go to no court at all. They required their executive to settle the matter, and only in the case of the executive being convinced should any variation be made. So it is that whereas the owners did accept these resolutions in the belief that they were to receive the advantages of four great points, on nearly every one of these points the representatives of the miners did not come into line. What do the owners desire? They desire, first of all, that if any rates are to be devised that there should be free discussion upon them. Surely that is fair! The miners all through declined to have that free discussion. They said, "You must accept or not our rates." The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said again, "We want to put that Schedule into the Bill." They still maintain their attitude that there should not be full discussion— that they shall really dictate the rate which is to be placed in this new Bill.

The mine owners laid the strongest stress upon a local settlement, and the Government have accepted that principle; but the miners, before the Conferences of last week, and on the last occasion we had the opportunity of meeting, declined altogether to consider a local settlement. The owners declared that you must have effective and conclusive arbitration. The Government them selves, the Prime Minister all through, has said that finality is the great thing to aim at in this question. But you cannot get finality without arbitration, and without the sanction behind arbitration to carry out the effect of the awards which are made. I myself, outside the Conference, at the time when the Prime Minister was conferring with the owners, asked him whether, in the Bill, he was going to produce there would be a penalty attached as a safeguard to enforce the decisions which were made. The Prime Minister said, "Yes. There would be something more than action for breach of contract." Where is that something more than action for breach of contract in the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman has described it? That is what we desire to know, because it is useless to say that there is nothing penal in this Bill. The first words in this Bill are penal. It compels the mine owner to pay the rate of wages fixed. There is no word that the right hon. Gentleman has given us in his explanation which leads us to believe that there is anything on the other side which in any way gives a sanctity to the award which is going to be made by these Boards.

We in this case have desired to go as far as we can to obtain a settlement and to obtain finality. That finality is in nothing, so far as I can see, in what has fallen from the Prime Minister's lips this afternoon. How are we to tell that we shall not as owners be involved in exactly the same difficulty a month or two hence as now? How is it that you can go to the South Wales district and say, "Here, you have had a written agreement, an agreement in force"—one which was approved of by your own Department, the Board of Trade, and which has to run for another three years—"and we are now producing a Bill"—which must interfere largely with that agreement, and which has also to last for three years—" and although you have an approved agreement under which you and your men came to a certain decision in reference to wages"—a decision upon which we have founded all our contracts, yet now you are proposing to introduce another scheme which, unless new conditions are made, penalises our contracts to a very large extent. It is, too, to extend for just the same period as the agreement extended, and has in it nothing which is to save us from those very disputes which we endeavoured to avoid by agreement. What is the position you can hold in reference to those particular owners who have been most strongly criticised in this House and elsewhere in connection with their contracts? It is with very great regret therefore that whereas the Government have to some extent, I admit, carried out much of what they promised, yet they have failed altogether, according to the account which we have received this afternoon, to pursue their conditions to a logical conclusion, and to put behind those conditions that sanction which alone can give force, and which alone can save the country and the industry from the position in which we stand at the present time. We do ask most earnestly that the Government should, before this Bill passes into law, see that both the industry and the country should have that finality which the Prime Minister assured us on more than one occasion he desires to secure, and which can only be the proper result of the interference by Parliament in such a matter as this.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister a few questions arising out of words that he used in connection with this Bill. I notice that he said that the Bill was to be applicable to all workers, but that there were to be exceptions. There were, he said, to be exceptions of the aged and the infirm, of miners who do not work with regularity or efficiency. I should like to ask him whether there is in the Bill any provision for carrying out the extremely difficult task of ascertaining who are the aged and infirm, who the workman irregular and inefficient? It certainly cannot be carried out by the Board the Government are going to set up. It is impossible for one Board for a great district like South Yorks, or Scotland, or Lancashire, to consider every case, either about the aged or infirm or the man who has failed to work in a regular or efficient manner. What is to be, and where, the authority for settling these cases? Is its action to be prompt? Who has to decide, the master or the man, as to whether a man has earned the minimum wage or not? What is to be the procedure of the Board? Still more, is there any procedure in the Bill which will save us from that which has been a constant difficulty throughout the coal industry: when a master has declined to employ further a man on account, say, that his work was inefficient, is the master to be saved from the evil effects of a strike of the other men in order to support that which is now a statutory declaration of a Bill of this House? If the House says that the man is not to receive his minimum wage under these conditions there ought to be at least a statement on this question, and there ought to be means to save the master from any consequences which may follow if he is in future not to employ that man who has failed to work up to the minimum wage. I noticed that there was no reference to the side of the employer in connection with this matter. After all, if there are matters over which the miner has no control, there are also questions over which the owner has no control either. There ought to be some statement as to the owner paying the minimum wage for the whole day when circum stances occur over which it is impossible for him to have control. In connection with that he on his side ought to have some protection when you are going to introduce this novel principle into law.

We have never heard, as I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester said, what is this minimum wage. Is the Government going to give us any indication at all as to what they mean by it? It can only be a fair wage if it leaves the incentive to the workman to get something more. He must be free to do that. The federated areas did endeavour to pursue this point to a logical conclusion. The necessary guarantees were placed before the men in the federated areas and in the Midland area, where there was no great objection on the part of the men to the proposals of the owners. In that case the minimum wage was fixed at 1s. below the abnormal rate. We want to know whether there is anything in this Bill which says that this minimum rate shall be fixed somewhat lower than any abnormal rate, or average rate, in order that there may still be an incentive to the man to reach the average—a point so essential to the profitable working of the industry. I rather gather, in listening to the Prime Minister, that we are going to be again involved in those arbitrary powers which are constantly being given to Government Departments at the present time. I notice that the Board of Trade came up a good deal in connection with these new District Boards which are to be set up. The Boards have to be approved by the Board of Trade, a neutral chairman is to be chosen by the Board of Trade if the parties fail to agree—

The PRIME MINISTER

Only if they fail to agree.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. HARDY

I would suggest that it would be very desirable to remove this matter entirely from any political bias. And if there is to be disagreement a neutral chairman should be appointed, as has been in the case of the Conciliation Boards in most areas, by some independent per son. You, Mr. Speaker, have been chosen on more than one occasion as the authority. The Lord Chief Justice has been chosen on other occasions, and the Lord President of Sessions in Scotland, or somebody of that sort, who, at all events, would be entirely independent and would remove the appointment of chairman from any possible taint of political influence at all. I must earnestly ask the Government to consider that before we get to the Committee stage. Then there is the very important point involved and alluded to by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), and that is the question of the position of the neutral chair man. I trust the Government are not going to adhere, without consideration, to what I understood was their proposal, that the chairman should only have a casting vote. I think in this case it is really necessary that the chairman of these Boards should be put in the position of something more than that of an arbitrator who is merely chairman of one of the small Boards. The duties that would fall upon him are very great, not only in reference to the rates of wages, but also as to safe guards; and on this point, I think, if you are going to call him in, it is desirable that he should depend entirely in cases of disagreement upon his own judgment, and that he should not merely have to give a casting vote as between one side and the other. I think these are points that ought to be considered, and I hope the Government may consider them before the Bill passes through Committee.

I am sorry to have detained the Committee so long, but it is for us a matter of the most vital importance. If I may take my own case and the collieries in which I am interested, I should like to point out that it has been often said by the men—it was said again and again in these conferences—that only 25 per cent. of the men would be affected by these Schedules, but if the Schedules which they suggested were applied to the collieries with which I am connected 82 per cent, of the men would come below the level of the minimum wage which they desire to establish, and many of them to such an extent that it would be practically impossible for us to work those collieries. It is of vast importance to many of us, and it is of double importance in my own case, be cause the coal raised is not, as a rule, for sale: it is a special coal used for smelting work has to face the difficulty that in making the special armaments we require in this country, ten tons of coal is necessary to produce one ton of armament. If anything like the schedule rates of the men were accepted, in our case it would mean not only the closing of the mines, but the closing of the ironworks, which has existed for over 120 years with such success, as well. I speak, therefore, with some feeling, but nevertheless, in order to avoid trouble, we and many others affected gave way against our own opinion and supported the Government's proposal for the sake of public security at large, although they are calculated to do us considerable injury. We feel that the Bill outlined as it is this afternoon has not behind it the necessary penalties to carry out the awards and give them finality, and it seems to us to be an essential part of any Bill that passes this House that it should have such powers, and because we believe you cannot secure these conditions and give the country the peace it is seeking by the Bill as it stands, that I hope the Government will make the Bill much stronger before it becomes an Act.

Mr. STEPHEN WALSH

Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, I have been wondering where all the immense wages are gone that we are told the miners have been earning in the past. I remember for many years hon. Gentlemen opposite get ting up, and one after the other when the Eight Hours Act was under discussion, and when the Coal Mines Regulation Act was under discussion, and other Acts affecting the miner in his working life, and telling us the tremendous wages the miners were earning. Yet we heard one of the most respected Members of this House, the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Laurence Hardy), for whom everyone has the highest regard, say just now that in the collieries with which he is connected, 82 per cent, of the men would fall below the schedules presented by the mines as fair. We know statements have been made that in a great many collieries 38 per cent., and up to 62 per cent., would fall below the figures presented for Lancashire, and if that be the case, as it is the case, it is really extraordinary where the enormous wages of the miners have come from, because after all the reason for this Bill is stated in the first paragraph of the Government proposals of a few weeks ago after they had made inquiry, and when they had gone carefully into the whole position, and they found that— large numbers of underground workers were not earning from causes over which they had no control, a reasonable living wage, and the Government went on to say, in the next paragraph, that— they were convinced that such conditions ought to be altered, and that there ought to be in this industry, which is unique, an adequate living wage given to everyone. We all agree that a man for a fair day's work shall have a fair day's pay. That has passed into a proverb in the life of a nation, but that is all the miner has asked for. That is all he is asking now, and when we take into consideration the actual winding time of the pit, which can easily be obtained from the Blue Books in the possession of Members, if a man never failed in health, and never remained away a day, and year in and year out went to the pit upon every possible occasion, never having broken down in health, never have taken a play day, but simply attended every possible day the pits were open for winding, no man could do more than nine days' work a fortnight. Take the case of Lancashire. I will not inflict many figures upon the House. The Lancashire collier is getting 7s. a day. It is well below the average rate paid for abnormal places to-day in the collieries. If you multiply 7s. by 4½days it gives you 31s. 6d. which is the amount the man is paid per week for his work in the pit, and upon this he has to support a wife and family. If the nation is in earnest in asking for these underground workers, fair living condition, I say the schedules presented by the miners can be justified up to the hilt. If we do not mean a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, if we mean simply to pay lip-service to that proverb, let us say so. But if we are anxious that that body of people, 800,000 of them, who work below ground, under conditions of which the ordinary person has no conception, going into dangers, seen and un seen, sacrificing their lives by the thousand, mutiliated and maimed by the hundreds of thousands—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—yes, one in every seven of the underground workers, from 150,000 to 160,000 ever year, maimed more or less seriously—if we are really in earnest in desiring for these people a better living wage, whereby they can maintain them selves, their wives and their families, up to a standard of decency, appropriate to modern conditions, surely then we are entitled to put forward the claims that they have prosecuted for some time past.

The right hon. Gentleman opposite throughout the whole of his speech said little with which we could find complaint, but there was one thing in which he was not quite fair, and that was in trying to throw the initial blame upon the workers for the breakdown in the negotiations. He suggested that we had put-forward certain figures which we stated were the irreducible minimum. We never put forward these figures as being irreducible, provided one condition precedent was agreed. What was that condition precedent? We desire, first of all, that the employers should admit the principle of the minimum wage, which, of course, means a reasonable living wage, and we said that repeatedly at conference after conference. Here is a Resolution, passed week after week and month after month, to the effect that, given the acceptance of the minimum wage principle, we were willing to go into a full and free negotiation without prejudice upon the matter of figures. May I read some? At a conference held on 14th November last year, a very considerable time ago now, we said that— This conference, having heard the reports from the district on the minimum wage question, are glad to learn that these district and county associations, with the English Conciliation Bill, obtained from a committee of the employers' side the principle of the minimum wage for all men and boys working under ground. We therefore are of opinion that this conference should stand adjourned to a further date, so that some further efforts may be made to bring about a satisfactory settlement. Why, the very fact that the owners in the federated area, of which the hon. Gentleman has complete knowledge, agreed to the principle favouring a ballot of the whole nation over six or seven weeks ago.

Mr. HARDY

The hon. Gentleman appeals to me. I must remind him that only last week a conference of the miners distinctly declined to discuss in any way the three main points of the Schedule—rates for hewers, the rate for day wages, and the rate for boys—and that is the most recent pronouncement we have from them.

Mr. WALSH

Yes, but the hon. Gentle man forgets the condition precedent. A certain condition was absolutely necessary, namely, that the employers, as a whole, should admit the minimum wage principle.

Mr. HARDY

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. That was not what was in the resolution that came before us. It regretted that the owners did not give way, and it went on to say, numbers one, two, and five are irreducible, and again and again the miners and their representatives showed what they meant by that.

Mr. WALSH

I do not think it is necessary to repeat what I have already said. I can only say that the condition precedent to enabling negotiations to become possible did not obtain, and that was the reason the miners' executive maintained their old position. The employers maintained their position, and the workmen maintained their position; but conference after conference reaffirmed the resolution to which I have referred. I will not read any further resolutions, but if at any time the owners, as a whole, had agreed to the acceptance of the principle which every body in theory accepts—there is no person, however hide-bound, who does not accept in theory the right of a man to have a fair day's pay for a fair day's work—if that principle had been accepted, it would have enabled negotiations to have gone on fully and freely. I do not intend to follow the line of argument which my Leader has adopted; but certain questions were submitted by the Prime Minister in which he asked were there any cases where the minimum wage was paid, where the principle was agreed to, and where the conditions asked for were in existence? Why the industry bristles with that kind of case. Derbyshire has, I should say, thou sands and tens of thousands of men who have been receiving a definite minimum wage. There are many cases where men, even if through causes over which they have no control, are unable to earn a particular figure, they are paid 7s. 1½d. or 7s. 6d., and the employers in these, cases are not complaining of their close approach to the Bankruptcy Court. In Nottinghamshire it is the same, and in my own county, Lancashire, which I know best, there are hundreds of thousands who, when they were working, were paid a definite mini mum wage, and how is that done? The supervision is made a little more effective. It is largely a question of supervision and keeping the roads in a decent state of repair, having a proper supply of boxes, removing the falls of roof and other matters necessary to secure efficiency of management, which enabled the minimum wage to be paid. Thousands upon thousands of men in my own county were being paid the minimum wage before the strike, some of them working in the very worst mines in the county, which not very long ago seemed quite hopeless; but because of the application of science to industry those mines have been made valuable and profitable where hitherto they seemed doomed to failure. Better super vision and economy, as well as watchful ness on the part of everybody concerned, has made those figures payable in mines where before it seemed quite impossible.

It has been said that the very variations in our Schedules are a proof of the difficulty we experience. I should have thought it was a proof of the fairness of our trade, showing that we ourselves have gone into the Schedules with a genuine and honest desire not to place a greater embargo upon any districts than they could contend against. The conditions of living have caused the variations in the Schedules. Would any person say that for the Forest of Dean or the Bristol district or Somerset, where the workman is half miner and half agriculturist, where the cost of living is very much less than in Lancashire and in Yorkshire, we ought to put forward the same claim for the miner in those districts that we should do for those working in Lancashire and York shire? It is unthinkable. We had to take into consideration fair living conditions, the standard of living, working conditions, and the general economic conditions, and we have framed our Schedules accordingly. The argument which was used by the Prime Minister to show the difficulty of this case is really an argument showing the justice of the figures we have submitted. The Prime Minister said that the Federation owners had accepted the principle of the minimum wage. Yes, they did. I was present during the whole of the negotiations which took place. It is perfectly true they accepted the principle of the minimum wage. As a matter of fact, we were always willing to accept the conditions laid down, and we are willing now, but we say that if the owners are willing to accept the principle of a minimum wage which shall embody the decency and happiness of the workman and his family, that we ourselves will help them all we can to provide the necessary safeguards. I do not know the exact character of the safeguards in the Bill which has been put forward by the Government, but we do say that if the owners pay a reasonable minimum wage to the men we will do all we can to see that a reasonable output is given for the money they pay. We ourselves suggested certain safeguards; it was not the employers who suggested them.

We suggested a safeguard about the attendance of the men. A good deal was said about the possibility of the owners being victimised. We said that the best test of the willing worker is his attendance at the pit, and we agreed that if a man did not put in 80 per cent, of his possible attendances, that man should not come under the operation of the minimum wage. There were many other things we agreed to, but we broke down because we could not agree upon the figures. With regard to the statement that the federation owners had accepted the principle, may I point out that they only accepted it on the very last day. It is not true to say that the owners of the country were prepared to agree upon the question of abnormal places except at the back end of last year. We met the owners two years ago upon this point; we met them in Lancashire, but we were never able to settle the question, and although we came within reasonable reach of a settlement in July last year, we have never been able to actually settle the point. We may say with perfect sincerity that if the employers twelve months ago had been as willing to settle on the matter of abnormal places as they now profess to be this difficulty would never have arisen. The workmen throughout the whole country were willing to settle the matter of abnormal places, and if it had been settled—I do not say that the question of the minimum wage never would have arisen, because nobody can forecast the future, and the man is a fool who attempts to do so—but it would have prevented it arising now, and a settlement some time ago would have prevented the nation being driven into the horrible condition in which it stands at present. Therefore we cannot accept the responsibility for the non-settlement of the abnormal places difficulty, for that responsibility rests upon the owners and not upon the men. There is proof of this to be found on the record of our federation. We have tried, time after time, to settle this question, and because it has not been settled a much greater difficulty has arisen.

We still think that the information at the disposal of the Government, and their knowledge as to what is a reasonable minimum wage and standard of living necessary if people are to live something like decent social lives, ought to convince them of the necessity of putting into the Schedules— not perhaps every figure we are putting forward—such figures as they consider proper in the Bill. I tremble to think what may be the case if we have to go back to our districts after another month of haggling and falling out, and at the end of that time come to a decision which perhaps our men may not accept. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I admit that is a very serious difficulty, and I am putting it forward as such. There is no man has a greater difficulty to contend with than a miners' agent. We have to meet tens of thousands of men, and we have to try and develop in them that spirit of moderation and fairness and decent compromise which is characteristic of English life. When you are speaking to thousands of people it is not so easy as speaking to hon. Gentlemen in this House. We have to speak to a body of people many of whom are working hard, laborious lives, and we find it a very difficult matter. I would almost have implored the Government to have taken their courage in both hands and inserted in their Bill, not perhaps our figure, but such figures as they in their wisdom and statesmanship think, with proper safeguards, would have secured for the miners that reasonable wage, which is admitted to be necessary. Then we could have taken some definite concrete proposals to our men, and we could have said to them, "Men, although we have not obtained for you every figure you have put forward, although we are not able to go the whole of the way you desire, here are definite substantial figures which are a very effective step forward." I still think that would have been the best course, and I tremble to think of the whole thing being thrown once again into the arena of discussion, and in the meantime the terrible distress of the nation growing perhaps more acute day after day. If this is not done we may have to go back at the end of the week with something attempted but very little done. I hope that even now with the consent of both sides, the Government may see fit to receive such Amendments as may mean the embodiment of certain figures in the Schedule, and that from this House a complete instrument shall go forward this week placing definite proposals before the miners, and in that way peace will be attained.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The speech of the hon. Member was a speech such as we are accustomed to expect from him. It was full of moderation, and if the hon. Member will allow me to say so, I could not help feeling whilst listening to what the hon. Member said, that if the miners of the country had still confidence in the class of labour leaders to which we have just listened, this difficulty would never have arisen. I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman in what he said as to the difficulties and the detailed discussion which has arisen between the owners and the miners in times past, nor do I propose to deal at any length with what he said about the demand for the minimum wage. The hon. Member has at any rate attempted a definition of a minimum wage. I do not know whether that is what the Government intended or whether there is any definition of a minimum wage in the Bill, but from what the Prime Minister said I should imagine there was no definition. The hon. Member's definition of a minimum wage was a reasonable living wage which would secure for the receiver a reasonable subsistence. I do not know whether there is anything of that kind in the Bill, and it seems to me that one of the chief difficulties is that there is nothing in the Bill to indicate to those who are to settle this matter what is really meant by a minimum wage, but that is relatively a small matter. I certainly hope in one respect the Government will not accept the hon. Member's suggestions. I cannot imagine anything worse than that the Government should try and insert a schedule of wages in a Bill introduced without their Schedule. It would certainly toe quite impossible to pass such a Bill during this week. Evidently the owners would have to be heard, and they would certainly de sire amendments; the miners would desire to be heard and they would certainly de sire amendments, and the principle of the thing would really be intolerable. You would have a statutory wage, fixed by Parliament, which could only be altered by an amending Act of Parliament. Such a proposal is not one which I think the hon. Member would really have put forward if he had thought it over carefully, and I trust the Government will not take it from him.

I could not help feeling, listening to all the speeches except, I think, that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that there was a certain unreality in the atmosphere which prevailed here in this discussion. The Prime Minister's speech, for instance—it would be impertinent of me to praise—dealt with this matter throughout as if it were an ordinary strike depending upon an abnormal controversy as to the payment of wages in abnormal places. That was the real thing. It was a labour dispute of the ordinary type, very much bigger, no doubt, but in other respects quite an ordinary affair. I agree entirely in that respect, and it is the only respect in which I do agree, with the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). This is a matter of very much more importance than that. This is not an ordinary strike at all. This is not a matter of collective bargaining at all. This is not an attempt, a legitimate attempt, of working men to get rather better terms and of owners saying they cannot afford those terms. It is not that at all. It is nothing of the kind. This is unquestionably a matter which cannot be treated by itself; it must be treated in reference to the whole history of the Labour movement during the last three years, and I say, so treated, this is by far the most serious crisis which anyone living has had to face in this country, and it must be treated in that way. The hon. Member for Leicester, in a passage, which it is certainly difficult to reconcile with his ordinary character for sincerity, suggested that this dispute arose entirely from the unreasonable conduct of the Welsh owners, or something of that kind. It is nothing of the kind.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I did not say that.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The hon. Member may not have meant it, but that is what I understand him to say. I say this is part of a great conspiracy. This is part of an attempt to obtain dictatorial power over the industries of this country by a small band of revolutionaries in this country. I wish to call attention to a few facts in sup port of that allegation. I find that in September, 1910, a publication called "The Industrial Syndicalist" was published, and in that publication it was urged that it was entirely wrong for the men to-enter into agreements with masters, and if they had done so it was very right and proper for them to break them. That was the spirit in which the matter was launched at the very outset. In November there followed a conference of the Industrial Union, representing a certain number of men. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW many are there?"] They claim to be 60,000. I think it has grown very much larger since. Observe what is the Syndicalist teaching. The Syndicalist teaching, of course we alt know, is to seize the property of the owner for the benefit of the workers in the particular industry, and the methods by which that is to be done is, first, the multiplied strike; secondly, the sympathetic strike; and, thirdly, the general strike. That hon. Members will find in every Syndicalist text book on the subject. After the conference in 1910 there was a second conference at Southampton, at which Continental Syndicalists were present in the summer of last year. Immediately succeeding that you had an outbreak of strikes all over the country. There were strikes involving 110,000 transport workers, 8,000 miners in different parts of the country, 1,000 builders and iron workers, engineers, workers in the potteries, millers, and workers at chemical works. Altogether, in June and July there were no less than 102 different strikes. We all know that immediately succeeding those in August there were the terrible strikes: the dock strikes in Liverpool, and immediately afterwards the railway strike. The railway strike was emphatically a Syndicalist's strike; it was a sympathetic and a general strike. It was not a strike be cause individual men or workers had any grievance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, take the North-Eastern men—everybody knows they had not any grievance. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] Not when they came out. Hon. Members have no right to assume that Members of Parliament know nothing about these questions. They came out avowedly, and they published it to all the world that they came out, in sympathy with the other men.

Mr. WILKIE

That does not say they had no grievance.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

They came out in sympathy with the other men, and it was avowedly a sympathetic strike. These strikes all took place, and in September, 1911, the Labour party, in the "Socialist Review," wrote this:— The rioting in connection with those strikes is not to be altogether condemned. I say, taking all those facts into consideration, and the attempted general strike of the railways, followed by this general strike here, that it is absurd to treat this as a mere, ordinary labour dispute. It is really ridiculous to treat it in that way. It is unquestionably an attempt to obtain control of the industries of this country by a band of men with revolutionary and anarchical theories which they recommend. Everybody knows that is so. Then let us face the facts in the discussion we are carrying on to-day. The hon. Member for Leicester himself has said—he said so this afternoon—this is the first battle in a great campaign for a minimum wage everywhere. That is what they are after. That is what is intended. That is what is meant, and that is the situation we have to deal with at the present moment. In reference to that situation, not merely a local difficulty, but a great industrial crisis, what is the Government proposing? I say the interference by the Government under such circumstances is only justified upon the ground that the evil and the misery caused by this strike is so great that no Government can sit by and let it continue.

The CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

Hear, hear.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

That is agreed, and I wish to say this very distinctly, that the injury caused by the strike is not an injury to the rich.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Hear, hear.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

It is an inconvenience to hon. Members of this House that their trains are a little later or less frequent, and that they have to pay a little more for their coal, but it is a disaster for the poorer classes. The increase in the cost of coal alone is a disaster to every poor householder in the country. Of course, the accounts of the number of people thrown out of work of which we read in the paper every day must fill everybody with the profoundest pity and sympathy for those who suffer through no fault of their own in a quarrel which is not theirs. I quite agree it is not so much the national injury, although that is a serious matter, as the injury to the poor and helpless caused by this Syndicalist policy of the general strike, which is what they rely upon in order to put pressure upon their enemies, that gives, and alone gives, the Government any right to interfere. What do they propose to do? There was not a syllable in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that he is going to deal with that situation at all. All he is going to do is to have a legislative, declaration of the principle of the minimum wage with reference to coal mines. I venture to say anything more ludicrously insufficient for dealing with the situation has never been heard of in Parliament. I do not feel at all certain it will stop this actual strike. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), in the very interesting speech he has made, is clearly very doubtful himself. He thinks, when he goes back to his constituency, if I may so put it, and says all he has got is an arbitration which is not to determine anything for another month, it is very doubtful indeed whether that will satisfy them and whether they will go back to work.

If it is exceedingly doubtful whether those ruled by the extremely moderate counsels of the hon. Member will be satisfied with this Bill, what will the others say? They will say, "We have got a great deal; why not go on and get the rest?" What is there in the Bill to stop them? Absolutely nothing. If they go on, there is nothing in the Bill which will enable the Government to interfere a bit more effectually in a month's time than they can interfere now. And if it is not certain it is going to stop this strife, what is it going to do with the other industries of the country? What will be the result of the passage of this Bill on the Syndicalist agitation that is going on, not only in the coal mines, but in all industries, more or less? Why, it is a distinct admission that Parliament will yield to pressure. Can we doubt that, we shall have a crop of fresh strikes in all parts of the country? What have they got to lose by it, if the terms of this Bill are applied to them? They will get their minimum wage, and they are to give nothing for it, absolutely nothing. There is no limitation of their rights. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Labour party made a great parade of that. There is no compulsion and no limitation of their rights in any way. The Labour party were good enough to make criticisms of my right hon. Friend for the line he took in reference to this matter. After all, is it not common sense to say "either do not interfere at all, or interfere effectually." What else did my right hon. Friend say? For my part—I only speak for myself—I say emphatically it would have been far better for the Government to have done nothing than to interfere ineffectually, than to interfere in such a way as will stir up and produce further strikes. I think, from the description given by the Prime Minister, the Bill, unless it is very much modified, will certainly do that, and yet there will be no power whatever to enforce the awards or adjudications under it. Such a policy as that seems to be most calculated to inflame the bitter controversies that unhappily exist. The Executive Government of the day are the only people with information enabling them to say whether it is right or wrong to interfere in this dispute. It is a matter of administration on which at present no one except the Government had the necessary information. But if they do interfere they must interfere effectively. [An HON. MEMBER: "How would you interfere?"] I am asked how I would interfere. I have to see this Bill first, and then I will say whether I can support it, even if modified or amended. If they are reasonable decisions in themselves, then it must be made an offence not to comply with the decisions of the Courts of Arbitration. I am not afraid of enforcing the law of the State on working men. If it is necessary that a particular settlement of a dispute should be carried out working men must obey that necessity as much as any other subject of the realm. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) says these attempts at compulsory arbitration or the compulsory enforcing of awards have been tried in the Colonies, and have always failed. But has not voluntary conciliation equally failed? Will not the hon. Member admit it to be true that on every occasion before they came to compulsory arbitration they tried voluntary arrangements, and always arrived at the conclusion that a Voluntary Conciliation Bill was absolutely useless in stopping these difficulties. The hon. Member says compulsory arbitration is no good, and he knows that voluntary arbitration is no good also.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I have been much interested in the Noble Lord's speech. But the point is this: We want to settle these strikes. The Opposition propose compulsory arbitration, but compulsory arbitration has failed, therefore it does not matter whether voluntary conciliation has failed before, it has equally failed with compulsory arbitration.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

That is not at all an accurate representation of the position of the Opposition. I am not entitled to speak for the Opposition, but I give my own view of the actual facts of the case. I say it is untrue to suggest that compulsory arbitration has been altogether a failure. In my opinion it has been an improvement on the previously existing state of affairs in many cases where it has been tried. But that is not the point. The point here is whether the proposal of the Government is better or worse than compulsory arbitration. It may have been right to leave things alone. That is a matter for the Government to judge. What is clearly wrong is to produce an absolutely ineffectual remedy, which will really make things worse than before. I confess I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister with the greatest possible disappointment. Not only do I think that the Government arrive at a wrong conclusion as to the way in which this problem should be approached, if it is to be approached by way of establishing a minimum wage— not only do I think they have approached it wrongly, but I complain that the Prime Minister has given no kind of indication that his Government has any plan for dealing fundamentally with the situation. For my part I should have approached the Government proposals with every desire to agree to them, if I could have heard the Prime Minister say, "What we pro pose we know is bad, but it is the best we can do at the moment. You have to put the fire out somehow. We do not think it is a very good plan to throw blankets or tapestries on a fire which has caught alight, but you must put it out for the moment. Then you can take precautions to prevent fires breaking out in the future." But there was no indication in the Prime Minister's speech that he proposed to modify his programme or to do anything in order to remedy this tremendous evil which has been brought about.

I suppose he is going on with his Home Rule and with his Disestablishment of the Welsh Church, and he and his Government care nothing for these far more serious matters which they have to deal with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Then why are they not dealing with them? As long as he can pay for the votes which he has obtained, that is all that is really at the bottom of his mind. For my part, I can only offer the suggestion that comes across my mind. The root cause of the whole difficulty is that there is growing up, and has grown up in the past, a measure of class hostility which is a profound danger to civilisation. I do not deny that there are secondary causes. There is the rise in the cost of living. There are the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speeches which could not have been better designed if their purpose had been to stir up hatred between class and class, to encourage the rich in the oppression of the poor, and to inflame the poor into resentment against the rich. Though these causes have undoubtedly increased the difficulty, I do feel that the fundamental difficulty is not due to the hostility between classes. It is not due to these causes solely. The chief offender, in my judgment, is the wage system. I knew that hon. Members opposite would cheer that statement, but I submit that the system by which you buy the labour of a fellow creature, without any other element in it than the mere transaction of bargain and sale of another man's labour, is a thoroughly bad system. Perhaps the highest, or rather the lowest, point of this system is reached in the fairs which take place in the Northern part of this Kingdom, where farmers hire labourers for the year on a most barbarous system. It is mitigated to a very great degree by what hon. Members opposite describe as the feudalism of the South. The personal relationship between employers and employed which prevails in the agricultural industry in the South is an immense mitigation of what this wage system has brought about. I agree again with the hon. Member for Leicester in this. If you are going to put an end to the growing hostility which at present exists you must devise some new system of industry which shall recognise that the working man is something more than a mere labour machine, and that doles and gifts are perfectly useless and do not touch even the fringe of the question. What you want to do is to give every man a genuine living interest in the industry in which he is engaged.

I do not conceal from the House the fact that, in my judgment, the only possible solution is some system of co-partnership prevailing generally in industry. I have heard no suggestion made which seems at all plausible except that. I dismiss State Socialism, which has succumbed to the Syndicalist parasite which has grown upon it. It is absolutely intolerable to have the tyranny of any class—I care not whether it is the working class or the land owning class or any other class. If the result of the transactions which have led up to this Bill, and if this Bill brings us appreciably nearer to the tyranny of the organised working classes, the trade unions, organised and directed by men who are moved by the wildest economic and political theories, I am certain that that is absolutely intolerable. If you are to pass legislation in obedience or in deference to mere agitation, you must take care that it is of such a character that it will not hand over this country entirely to the domination of these Syndicalist people. I would rather see anything than that. I would rather even that the strike should go on to its bitter end than that we should teach these Syndicalists the lesson that they have merely to hold up the whole industry of the country, that they need merely put a spoke into the wheels of civilisation, for this Parliament to do almost everything they demand. I do not know whether any Member of the Government is going to speak later on, but, if so, I beg to appeal to him to give some assurance to the House that that is not their policy, and that they do not intend a mere surrender to the Syndicalists, but that they will put such provisions into their Bill, or, if they cannot do that, they will announce a definite policy which will secure us in the future from these general strikes, which are really absolutely destructive of our civilisation.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The Noble Lord concluded his speech with an appeal to the Government to which we find no difficulty in responding. His appeal was that we should not surrender altogether to the Syndicalist conspiracy. I have no difficulty in giving him that assurance, and I think I shall be able to point out that this Bill is in no sense of the term a surrender to any conspiracy of that kind. The Noble Lord's speech was very interesting for two reasons: first of all, for his analysis of the causes which led up to the present trouble, and in the second place, for the extent to which he was a little more precise than his Leader in suggesting remedies. I would not like to say that his remedies are very helpful. With regard to the causes, he suggested that I had had something to do with them. It rather comforted me to hear, however, that the chief offender after all was, in his opinion, the wage system. I did not set that up, and, if I am responsible at all, I am only an accessory after the fact. If I may remind the Noble Lord of the fact, there were strikes, and very bad strikes, before Limehouse. I remember there were strikes during the time when the late Unionist administration were in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not general strikes."] There is no general strike now. Some of the very worst strikes we had in our part of the country occurred during the time when the Unionist Government were in power. One of them lasted about three years. What does the Noble Lord suggest? He admits that the situation is a very serious one—in fact, he accepts our premises. He says it is a very grave situation, and that the position is such that grave damage is inflicted upon the community at large, and that those who have suffered most are the poor in this country. There the ground is common between us. He said that the Government ought to do something, but the only practical suggestion he made was that we should set up a system of co-partnership. Is it really suggested that it is a practical method in the middle of a strike, which it is most important should be settled immediately, that we should, without consultation with the masters, without evolving a system, and without very great care and consideration, revolutionise the whole of the system of working the mines, and set up a system of co-partnership. It is a perfectly impossible suggestion. That is the suggestion he made. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Undoubtedly one suggestion he put forward was that co-partnership was the method.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I said it was the ultimate solution.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The Noble Lord's theme was this, that this is purely an episode, that it is part of a general conspiracy, a general unrest, which has been created very largely by agitators, and that is very largely owing to the defects of the wage system. I understood him to say that it is no use trying partial remedies, but that you have to deal with the problem and deal with it thoroughly. His suggestion was that the only method which, in his judgment would be satisfactory, would be a method of co-partnership.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I cannot say that the right hon. Gentleman has accurately understood me. What I said was that I was ready to admit that some temporary measure was necessary—the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I suggested that you might throw a blanket on the fire—but that there must be some indication by the Government that they were prepared to deal with the matter from a more fundamental point of view, and it was in that connection that I advocated co-partnership.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I accept the explanation of the Noble Lord. His theory is this: that you have got to deal by some sort of temporary expedient with the position. Very well, that is what we are suggesting here. It must be pretty clear that when you are dealing with an evil the roots of which are very deep—I am not so sure that the Noble Lord had quite discovered what the roots of the evil are; it is very difficult to generalise in that sort of way— it requires careful, patient, and impartial investigation to discover it, it is a matter which will take time, and it is a matter which will have to be discussed by the commercial and industrial communities first of all. I do not think the community is ripe for any such solution at the present moment, but it has to be very carefully thought out. Therefore we cannot wait for that. If you wait a few more weeks it would involve national disaster. There fore the remedy must be an immediate one. It must be temporary; it must be in the nature of a provisional expedient to get over a temporary difficulty, and, in the meantime, the community has to think out the problem very carefully with a view to such remedies as the Noble Lord has suggested. I, for my own part, am inclined to think that the suggestion he made as to co-partnership is one of the things which might be most carefully examined when we come to deal with the problem as a whole. I am much obliged to the Noble Lord for saying that, in his judgment, there ought to be in the meantime some method of dealing with a temporary difficulty—something which would come into action immediately.

It is perfectly obvious that, if you are going to have a temporary remedy, it must be something which will not interfere with a more careful and deliberate solution which comes after it. Therefore the less drastic it is the better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will give the reason. The less drastic it is the better, so long as it attains its purpose, for the simple reason that it must be in its character provisional. If you resort to very extreme, drastic methods, and if they turn out to be failures, you may create a totally new situation, and a very perilous situation. I do not take the Noble Lord's view with regard to Syndicalism. I do not think it is so serious as he imagines. I have followed the matter very carefully, because I was for two or three years at the Board of Trade, and it was part of my business, almost weekly, to deal with strikes, and even since I have been at the Exchequer I have been in close touch with most of the big strikes. I do not believe Syndicalism is a real peril. I will tell the House why I have come to that conclusion. I cannot see men of very great weight in the Labour movement who have committed themselves to it. No men of real influence and power have committed themselves to Syndicalism. Syndicalism and Socialism are, of course, two totally different things. They are mutually destructive. As a matter of fact, the Socialist would prefer to deal with the capitalist rather than the Syndicalist, for the simple reason that it is much more easy to deal with the capitalist than with the Syndicalist, because when once you hand over the whole profits of an industry merely to that particular industry, without any regard to the interests of the community, you raise a very formidable obstacle in the way of Socialism which is not in existence now, so that I can understand the Syndicalist as the bitterest enemy of the Socialist. He is bound to be. Let the Noble Lord take this comfort, that the best policeman for the Syndicalist is the Socialist.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The best police man for the thief is a lunatic.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not think the Noble Lord will consider that very fair, for the greatest intellects in Europe have been the greatest believers in Socialism. It may not be acceptable to the Noble Lord, but there are exceedingly able men who have accepted it.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

And some very stupid people too.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

My hon. and learned Friend has a great experience in politics, and he must know that he will find that in every party, in any section, however small that may be. However small the accommodation there is always room for a fool. I am sorry I have been, diverted to this. What I was putting to the House is this: There is this guarantee for society, that one microbe can be trusted to kill another, and the microbe of Socialism, which may be a very beneficent one, does at any rate keep guard upon the other, which is a very dangerous and perilous one. I have, therefore, no real fear of the Syndicalist. I have not met, in my dealings with Labour leaders, with men committed to the Syndicalist theory. I have seen the striker; I have seen the leaders of the strike, but their position has not been the Syndicalist position. After all, the demand for the minimum wage is not a Syndicalist demand. It is a demand which every Minister in charge of the Treasury has to meet constantly from Civil servants. [HON. MEMBERS: "And doctors."] I am glad my hon. Friends have reminded me of that. I have been, I will not say fighting, but negotiating a demand of that kind which has been put forward by a body of men who I think are, as a rule, ornaments of the Conservative party. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] If the Noble Lord regards that as a reflection upon them, I will certainly withdraw it. Take the sort of demand we have from Excise officers, Custom House officers, and second division clerks. They always put it on the ground they are not earning a minimum wage, and they are constantly demanding that there should be a rise in the basis of the lowest wage of the Service. That is a perfectly legitimate demand, and it is the business of the Exchequer to examine it thoroughly, and not to concede it unless there is a very clear case made out. But for the Noble Lord to treat this as if it were a portent, as if it were something that had appeared for the first time in the history of this country, is a mistake. Ever since I have been in this House I have heard demands of this kind put forward to the State as an employer of labour, and the only reason the Noble Lord has not heard of it is that it has not been put for ward with such force, with such prominence, and with such an organisation be hind it. For the first time the miners of this country have succeeded in organising their districts into one great federation in support of one demand.

I have listened to this Debate with considerable interest, and I have been rather disappointed that, while there has been so much criticism, there have been so few suggestions. The Noble Lord has treated this question with a gravity which is certainly due to the consideration of it When he comes to the temporary expedient—he rules the other thing out as a matter of legislation—he declines, with all his well-known courage, to respond to the invitation given to him to point out what he would do. The Leader of the Opposition was pressed. What did he say? He said there were two courses to be taken after the strike. With regard to the courses to be taken before the strike I think the Prime Minister dealt with that quite adequately. There is no greater mistake, the right hon. Gentleman ought to know as he has been at the Board of Trade, than to interfere prematurely in a strike. It does a good deal of mischief. I will confine myself to the two methods which he suggested for dealing with the matter after the strike. The first was to allow the strike to take its course. He said it is very cruel because of the enormous amount of misery, but in the long run it might be worth while. I could not make out whether he was in favour of that course or not. He argued for it and then left it. I think that would be an abdication of the functions of the Government. The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) pointed out that those who really suffer from strikes of this kind are not the powerful and the rich, but the poorer classes of the community. It is the bounden duty of the Government to prevent all that wretchedness if it can, and if it can do it at the price of a Bill, which in the main is accepted by the majority of the coal owners in principle, and therefore cannot be a very wild and revolutionary proposal, I think it is well worth trying the experiment. But I come to the second course. It is to bring pressure to bear upon the owners and the workers. He said, let the Government say there must be no strike. Well, the Lord Mayor said that three weeks ago, and all the Lord Mayors agreed with him, and still there is a strike. Really I think the right hon. Gentleman must descend to particulars. The Government, I think, are entitled, when there is a criticism of the very grave proposals they are making to meet a very great emergency, at any rate to invite the Leader of the Opposition to acknowledge his sense of responsibility—

Mr. BONAR LAW

I have not that sense of responsibility.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

And to indicate at any rate what his alternative is. He said bring pressure to bear. What sort of pressure?

Mr. BONAR LAW

The right hon. Gentleman is really in this position, that he first nearly kills his patient and then sends for another doctor and asks him what he would do. It is time enough when I am called in.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Then the right hon. Gentleman wants the strike to last for four years. And then he says he will cure what is left of the patient, but really that is rather a pitiable position, and I do not think it is quite worthy of the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up to the present. Here is a very great national emergency. Let us assume that he is purely an ordinary Member of Parliament, which he is not. He is the Leader of the Opposition. At any rate, we are entitled to get the best brains of every Member of the House in trying to solve a question which may involve national disaster. There are no facts known to the Government which are not equally well known to the right hon. Gentleman.

Earl WINTERTON

Will you publish a report of the conference?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

My right hon. Friend has said that if the owners and the workmen have no objection—we cannot publish confidential documents except with the consent of the parties—we have no objection. The general facts are really well known. The facts of the dispute are known. The question of where the negotiations broke down is also known. Fortunately, the dispute is a very simple one, and the point at which it broke down is one which is easily intelligible without very much explanation. Up to the present the Leader of the Opposition has shrunk after undertaking up to a certain point to make suggestions. If he had said, "I will make no suggestion; I am not in a position; I am not a doctor to be called in; and unless I am paid I will not give any advice to the nation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and "Withdraw!"]—that is not my expression.

Mr. BONAR LAW

Nor mine.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is the position of the right hon. Gentleman, that unless he is called in he will not advise; but if the right hon. Gentleman had taken that line right through, I could understand it, although I should not appreciate it; but he has not. He has gone up to a certain point. He says there are three alternative courses—my argument for this course is this, and my argument for the second course is this. He has gone much further than that, and yet, although he says he has thought it out for a fortnight, and has considered two alternatives, he will not tell us what his opinion is on the subject. I still think we are entitled to ask him what he really meant by saying he would bring pressure to bear upon the parties. Did he mean that he would imprison the miners' leaders? Did he mean that he would imprison the masters if they refused to open their mines? Did he mean that he would take possession of these mines in the interest of the State, if the masters refused to work them on these terms? Did he mean that he would sequestrate the unions' funds? Did he mean that he would prosecute men because they refused to work? The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) made a very extraordinary statement about that. He said something about compelling the men. He did not quite explain how far he would go, and I should like to ask him—I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman— "can you compel a man to work?" If you do, are you going to extend the area? At what point are you going to stop? Are you going to say to a miner, "You must not merely work although you say you can afford not to, but you must work at this particular job?" Why should you stop at the miners? Are there no other people in the country who do not work because they can afford not to? Why should you compel one section to work and draw the line at another section? It is obvious that you cannot do it.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The Prime Minister said if this Bill failed, he would have to resort to further measures. What are those further measures?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The Noble Lord has asked me not merely to explain the Bill which is before the House dealing with one emergency, but he has> asked me to explain a Bill to deal with an emergency which has not arisen, and which in my judgment will never arise if this Bill is through. That is a demand which has never been made to any Minister. Let mo put this to the Noble Lord. It is not we who have said this Bill is inadequate. It is the Leader of the Opposition. We say it is adequate. The right hon. Gentleman says "I go further." It is therefore for those who say they would go further to explain to the House. I agree that if this Bill fails a very serious emergency will have arisen, but you must' consider in what form that emergency has arisen. You must consider whether it is attributable to the fault of the masters or to the men. It may be only partially the fault of one and partially the fault of the other. But to ask the Government to say now what they would do under circumstances that no one can for see is a demand which is utterly preposterous, and it is only a Gentleman with the remarkable ingenuity and imagination of the Noble Lord who would ever have proposed it. I therefore come to deal with the particular emergency. I do not say it is absolutely impossible that conditions may arise under which you may have to go further, but even then this Bill will have been justified. Seeing that we are departing from precedent in this matter, seeing that we cannot claim any thing except a great national emergency to justify us in doing so, I think it is imperative upon us to proceed by steps. If the present step is successful it will have been justified. If it is proved to be inadequate it will also be justified. Then we could demonstrate to public opinion, we can demonstrate to the masters and we can demonstrate to the men, that we have done everything we possibly could by moderate, tentative, limited measures to deal with the situation. If these fail there are more drastic courses which are well within the resources of civilisation.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

What are they?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I have already answered the Noble Lord upon that point.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

You asked us to disclose our minds.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have heard what I said. I said in my judgment these are adequate. The right hon. Gentleman said they are inadequate. You ought to go further. I am therefore entitled to ask him how much further he would go. I say these are adequate. If they fail, we would deal with the situation which then arises in the form in which it arises. How do I know whether it is the masters or the men who have failed? How do I know in what shape the emergency will arise? How could any Government do so? At any rate, once this Bill has been tried as an experiment, I believe the country will feel that we have done everything in our power to deal with the situation up to the present. The attempts which have been made to go farther in other countries have not been very successful. I see that in New South Wales they are reconsidering the very Act of Parliament which they passed on the lines that have been suggested by some of the supporters of the fight hon. Gentleman, and they are getting rid of those very powers because they are failing. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That is what I am informed. The right hon. Gentleman, or somebody else, says the method we propose has never been tried anywhere else. I am not so sure of that. I think, at any rate, it is a method adequate to the conditions of the case, and I do hope the House of Commons will approve of it.

I am glad to observe the moderation of the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh). I have every hope that this measure will attain the purpose it has in view—the securing of a fair minimum wage for those who are labouring in the mines of this country. I am not going into the question of the responsibility for the strike. I could have told the Noble Lord something of the conditions in South Wales, but I would rather not, inasmuch as the conditions will have to be examined judicially in the course of the next few weeks. I will not go into that matter. There is a great deal he could not possibly have heard, and if he had heard these things he would be the first to dissent from them. That has nothing to do with the conferences, I can assure you. These are conditions which the Government felt ought to be inquired into judicially and not by themselves. Let me answer the hon. Member for Ince. He made an eloquent appeal to us to incorporate the schedule in the Bill. It is impossible that the Government can do so. Here you have twenty districts with varying rates. The miners themselves admit that the conditions are different in each of these districts. It is quite impossible for the Government to examine them. It would take at least a month for us to do so separately, and to put a schedule in an Act of Parliament and force it without examination upon the mine owners would, I think, be an outrage.

Mr. WALSH

I did not suggest that every figure should be put in. I simply suggested that certain figures, which to you seem proper, would give us definite and concrete proposals to lay before the men.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

As my hon. Friend knows very well, all these figures are contested. They must be the subject of very close examination, and I feel confident when the examination proceeds that the men who have already been dealing with labour disputes by machinery of this kind in the past—machinery which has proved successful and which has settled many intricate disputes—will also be successful in this case.

Mr. CAVE

I wish for a few minutes to press home on the right hon. Gentleman the two main points put forward by my Noble Friend the Member for the Hitchin Division (Lord Robert Cecil), with every word of whose speech I agree. The Chancellor of the Exchequor brushed aside rather lightly the suggestion that this particular strike is on the lines recommended by Syndicalists. What I wish to point out is this. We can know nothing, of course, of the direct origin of the strike. We know nothing yet, but there is one fact apparent to every one who has studied the strike, namely, that in its character and methods it has every indication of following the lines laid down by those who call them selves Syndicalists. What is the method of Syndicalism? I am obliged to use the French word, although I hate it. The method is this. "Get into your hands, if you can, the whole of an industry; let it be, if possible, an industry upon which the very life of the nation depends; gather together in one industrial union, or federation of unions, all the branches taking part in that particular industry; get them together under one control, and then when the moment comes, strike and let the whole industry come to an end." I take the case of coal, and I am almost quoting from pamphlets published a year or even two years ago. "In this manner you can get your hands on the throat of the nation, and you can not only destroy the coal industry, but you can stop and hamper a number of other industries. You can deprive the masses of the people of warmth, of the means of livelihood, and even of food. If you follow Syndicalist methods and do as we bid you, the result will be that you will have such a hold on the whole country that you will not only get the extra few shillings a week which you are asking for, but you will have a political power which will enable you to go very much further." That is the method followed by the miners in this strike. I do not care whether it is admitted to be an example of Syndicalism or not. I say it is a strike following those Syndicalist methods, and so it is a source of the greatest danger to this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that a minimum wage is not a Syndicalist proposal. He is quite mistaken. It is not the end of the Syndicalist conspiracy I agree, but it is one of the means recommended by the leaders of that conspiracy in order to gain their ends. I do not confine myself to one pamphlet. I have had the duty of reading quite a number of them. Let me quote one:— The policy of Syndicalism is continual agitation carried on in favour of increasing the minimum wage and shortening the hours of labour until we have extracted the whole of the employers' profits. Therefore the minimum wage is part of the Syndicalist policy. The right hon. Gentleman said quite truly that the old and well-known Labour leaders had not identified themselves with this policy. I entirely agree, and I think that is one of its dangers. No one has denounced it more strongly than the hon. Member for Ince. He called it a foul and dishonourable policy, if his words were correctly re ported. There may be other leaders who have used words as strong as these. The worst of that is that while they say these things, the men do not follow them. The men in this matter are not led by the old Labour leaders. Some of them are Members of this House, and, if I am correctly informed, the old Labour leaders deeply regret what is now going on, but they have been told, "You must either get on and lead, or get out and follow." While many of the old leaders have preferred to get out and not to follow. I am afraid there are some who have taken the advice to follow. I see, and I am sorry to have seen it, that some Members of this House, including the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), have really followed the lead of men more extreme than them selves, and have given their blessing or their partial support to a movement of this character, which involves for the country the greatest dangers which can be conceived.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I am sure that as the hon. and learned Member has charged me with having done that, he will be good enough to inform the House what his authority is for making the statement.

Mr. CAVE

I was commenting on the speech which the hon. Member made in the House to-day, and I do not need to go further than that. What I wish to point out about the policy embodied in this strike is this. It is folly, from the men's, point of view, because they are killing, their own industry as well as the industries of others. But, from the public point of view, which we must bear in view mainly in this House, it is nothing less than organised robbery. It is a design conceived for the purpose of appropriating the property of others at no matter what cost to the nation.

If I am right, and if my Noble Friend is right, in seeing in this strike a movement of the character which I have de scribed, then the question is how ought it to be met? I want to say, of course only for myself, but as plainly as I can, that if this be the character of the strike, it is better to have no Bill at all, but to meet this conspiracy by the ordinary methods of the law. If it be really a movement of this kind, then this Bill is nothing but a sop to Syndicalists, and the only effect will be that they will follow the course they have clearly marked out for themselves, and, having gone one step, they will go another. Having got the minimum wage, they will strike for a higher minimum and for shorter hours, and they will go on and on until at last the breaking-point must come when the country must resist with all the resources at its command, and that after untold distress and misery has been brought to thousands and millions of our population. If that is the correct view of it, it is better to have it fought out now, for otherwise we must have it fought out later on. I would use all the resources of the State. I would clear the decks for war—for it is a State war—and I would protect with all the resources at our disposal those men who desire to work. I would provide fuel and food for those who are starving by the operation of this strike, and I would do what has been done—it is no imaginary thing—in foreign countries—I would meet the strike from the beginning, and I do not think it would survive long against the resources of this country.

Let me put the second point. Suppose I am wrong there. Suppose for a moment that this is nothing but a strike for more wages. You say that you are going to deal with it by a temporary measure. The objection to that is this: You are not dealing with the strike at all. In the Bill as outlined to-day, there is nothing to give any reasonable assurance that it will put an end to the strike. You are going to say that no man shall go down a mine without becoming entitled to the minimum wage. I am not: going to deal to-day with the economic objections to that; but suppose, when you say it, the men employed do not go down, how much further forward are you? And what assurance have we from any responsible quarter at all that if this Bill be passed the men will go down the mines to work? If that is so, you are not providing a remedy for the disease. You are making some kind of experiment which you hope will operate well; but you are acting on no reliable data at all, and you cannot be sure that this Bill will have any effect upon the disease. If the Government were to say, with assurance, "Pass this Bill and the strike will cease," that is a matter which nobody would refrain from considering with the greatest care. But there is no such thing. Indeed, from the speeches made from the benches below the gangway opposite to-day, I should rather draw the opposite inference. I do not think that either the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) or the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) led any quarter of the House to believe that if the Bill passed as proposed by the Government, the strike would end.

More than that Even if the optimistic view that the strike would come to an end on the passage of the Bill were realised, next month or the month after or six months hence we might have the same trouble again, because you have done nothing by this Bill to prevent it happening. The owners and the public were told that if a minimum wage were conceded adequate safeguards would be given to the owners, safeguards against the diminution of the output, and safeguards, as far as possible, against a breach of the new conditions. There are not in this Bill any such safeguards at all. I know that there are conditions that a man is not to have the minimum wage in cases of irregularity and inefficiency. That is to be decided by some local body. But there are to be no safeguards such as were indicated, or at all events such as the owners ought to have. If they are going to concede to this strike a minimum wage, they ought to have some legal safeguard further than that which they have now. I would rather see the Bill before endeavouring to formulate anything of the kind. But we must all have some conception of what should be done. I know what is done in Australia, where among other things in one of the States it is provided that if, after the mimimum wage is fixed, any body, whether of owners or of men, combine together for the purpose of inducing a strike against that wage, then that shall be an offence against the law, punishable by the law and actionable. The Trades Disputes Act of 1906 has deprived owners of any remedy against the union.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)

Does the hon. and learned Gentle man suggest that without the Trades Disputes Act the coalowners could sue the unions?

Mr. CAVE

I did not say so. My suggestion is that if this new experiment is tried of having the minimum wage, at least it should be part of the Bill that if, when a wage has been fixed in the manner provided by the Act, there is a fresh combination against it, the combination shall be liable to be in some way dealt with by law. That is not to say that you may force the owner to open his mines or force the miner to go down the mine. That is quite a different thing. It is a proposal to prevent a combination—it used in the old days to be called a conspiracy, but can no longer be called so since the action taken some years ago—against the statutory minimum wage. I do think that such a proposal is at all events worth considering as possibly one of the safeguards which might be pro vided under this Bill.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

What about the owners?

Mr. CAVE

I am including owners in my suggestion. I quite think that they ought to be dealt with on the same footing. It will not be right for me to go further now into this matter, but I think it right to bring it forward to-day, because I am sure that it and other matters will require careful consideration upon the Second Reading. The object of my rising was, first, to say that if there is ground for the suggestion, made with great force in this House, that this is only the beginning of real social revolution, that is a strike on Syndicalist lines, then no Bill of this kind can possibly protect us, and we must fall back on the strength of the State. If, on the other hand, those are right who think that this is an ordinary strike, though a great strike, still a strike on ordinary lines, then, if you meet it by this new and special expedient of the minimum wage, you must also provide for the owners adequate safe guards.

Sir CLIFFORD CORY

My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) said that this is to be a temporary measure, but the Prime Minister told us that it was to be for three years. I hardly think that you can call that a temporary measure. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that no greater mistake could be made than to interfere before a strike took place. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the action of the Government. Surely he must admit that they did interfere before the strike did take place.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

What I said was that it was a great mistake to interfere prematurely in disputes, because when I did use the word strike my right hon. Friend corrected me, and I used the word, disputes.

Sir C. CORY

I think it amounts to very much the same thing, because the Government did interfere prematurely in this dispute. There was no dispute so far as the owners were concerned. The whole dispute is on the part of the men. The owners were not seeking to evade their bargains or their agreements. The whole cause of the dispute was the men were, endeavouring to do so. The Prime Minister said that he much regretted that he was unable to bring about a settlement by voluntary agreement rather than by legislation; but I hardly think that his mode of procedure was likely to bring about a voluntary settlement. It will be within the memory of every Member of this House that the Prime Minister, when he addressed the men's representatives at the Foreign Office, commenced by telling them that he considered that their claim for a minimum wage was in every way justified. He encouraged them and incited them to put forward their claims, and therefore, having encouraged them to the extent of conceding the principle of the minimum wage, surely he could not expect negotiators like the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, or the representatives of labour, to accept the terms put before them. They would naturally hold out for their full demand. Having been so successful at the beginning in getting the Government to concede the principle of the minimum wage, they would be induced to hold out a little longer to enforce the whole of their programme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and also the Prime Minister—

The PRIME MINISTER

The hon. Baronet is attributing statements to me which I do not recollect. Will he repeat them?

Sir C. CORY

The right hon. Gentleman told the miners representatives, on the night he addressed them, that they were perfectly justified in putting forward their claim for a minimum wage, and he was not at all surprised. I have not got the exact words of his speech. That was their tenour. He thought they had every right to expect it.

The PRIME MINISTER

I said the Government; I did not say that everybody was of that opinion.

Sir C. CORY

You were the spokesman of the Government.

The PRIME MINISTER

That that was the opinion of the Government.

8.0 P.M.

Sir C CORY

I regret that I have not the exact words here, but they were very much on the lines that I have said. The Prime Minister said that 65 per cent, of the owners agreed to the Government's proposals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, made practically the same sort of statement, and that the Bill was accepted by the majority of the owners. That is hardly accurate. The Prime Minister forgets that the federated areas represent something like 40 per cent, of the owners, but nothing like the whole of the federated owners, only about half of them. I think that the voting in the first place was 67,000,000 tons against the Government's proposals and 64,000,000 tons in favour of them. Therefore at first there was a majority of the federated owners opposed to the Government's proposals, and it was only after wards by a small majority that the federated owners agreed to the Government's proposals. But then one cannot leave out of the calculation that this small majority included some who were entirely opposed to the whole principle of minimum wage, which they considered disastrous to the collieries, but that they agreed to it rather than face the disaster of a national strike. To say the majority of the coal owners, or 65 per cent, of them, were in favour of it, is inaccurate. You may reckon the association as a whole, but you must take minorities into account. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he is not so sure that this method had never been tried anywhere else. I think he must be right. It has been tried else where. I have an article here showing that in a strike in New Zealand, a company, raising a million tons, awarded a minimum wage of 10s. a ton, and if the men did not earn that amount the wages were to be made up to 10s. a ton. What was the result? In the first year, in consequence of the operation of this award, a difference of £200 had to be made up, the difference between what the men earned and the minimum wage. Next year the difference amounted to £800, and in the third year the difference had increased to £l,300, thus showing that year by year the men decreased their work, while the difference between the amount of that work and the amount of the minimum wage increased. The consequence was that the minimum wage was shown to be so complete a failure that they did away with it altogether in New Zealand. The Prime Minister said there would have to be safe guards in order to ensure efficiency and regularity of work. But I submit that is not all that is required. You may have efficiency of work; you may have one ton or one and a-half ton efficiently worked, but the amount of the work would not be sufficient, or anything like it. It is not merely efficiency and regularity that are needed: you want to ensure that there will be an adequate quantity.

Then the Government say that the work men will have the right to recover the minimum wage by civil proceedings. I have no doubt that is so. I suppose they would be able to recover in the Courts the minimum wage if the owner refused to grant it, and that would lead to a condition of things which one can hardly contemplate, if the provision becomes law. Then the Prime Minister said that the minimum wage would be retrospective—that is to say, from the date of the passing of the Act. But it may be three months before the District Boards are set up, and before the minimum wages in the districts and also the rules which are to be laid down to ensure safeguards are agreed to. If this is to be retrospective, how do you expect managers during the three months to remember week by week all the circumstances in regard to which they would have to argue as against the men who would claim the minimum wage. It will be impossible for the managers to remember, after three months or longer, the circumstances which would enable them to rebut the claim for the minimum wage. As regards safeguards, the Prime Minister said the minimum would have to be paid in circumstances over which the men have no control, in regard to their earnings. There are many cases outside abnormal places where men may have no control in regard to their earnings. Suppose that a man goes underground, and, an hour after his doing so, there is a fall of the roof. Is that man to receive the minimum wage for the whole day, although he has only been down the mine an hour? That is a case under which he would have no control; but, on the other hand, if the colliery owner has to pay him for the whole day though the man has only worked an hour, that, too, is in circumstances over which the proprietor had no control, and it would be a very great hardship making it impossible for the collieries to-pay.

Again, wagons may be detained at the port of shipment, owing to vessels being kept back by rough weather. In that case is the minimum wage to be paid for the whole day, owing to wagons having been detained at the port of shipment through circumstances over which the colliery proprietor has no control? All these points should receive careful consideration when the District Boards are set up. The Prime Minister said that the Joint District Boards—which I take to mean Boards recognised by the Board of Trade would be set up. Am I to understand that to mean that the present Conciliation Board would form the Joint District Board, and, if not, would others be set up? I understood him to say that in the event of the District Board not being set up, the independent chairman would take its place. If that be so, it seems to me very undesirable that the whole question of the minimum rates and rules should be left to the chairman, and I would suggest that it should be the duty of the Board of Trade to get names from the different interests, and set up a joint board themselves, nominating that joint board if the district failed to agree. The Prime Minister said the chairman would have the casting vote, but I certainly think it would be very much more desirable if the chairman had the full power of an arbitrator, not merely to give a casting vote on one resolution or another on the part of the men or their employers, but having power to say something as between the two, or different altogether. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will agree to that. It has also been said that there might be three chairmen instead of one, if thought desirable. For my part, I trust there will be three chairmen rather than one, as I think you are very much more likely to get a better decision from three chairmen than from one; they will feel stronger in giving their decision than if it were given by one person alone.

The Prime Minister did not say what led the Government to think that the men were entitled to a minimum wage, and it would be very interesting to hear what are their reasons, because it is held in Northumberland, Durham, and also in South Wales, that there is no necessity, outside the possibility of abnormal places, for any minimum wage. The wages in those districts are certainly much above what may be called a living wage, and there is no necessity for legislation for a minimum wage. So far as South Wales is concerned, it has been said over and over again that they have always been willing to discuss the question of abnormal places. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said so?"] It has been said over and over again by the owners' representatives. As a matter of fact the question has been dealt with, from time immemorial, to the satisfaction of the men until quite recently. It has been a question of bargain between the manager and men in respect to abnormal places. I must say there is always such a scarcity of men in South Wales that the manager will not be such a fool as to drive a hard bargain with a good man, because if he does so the man will quickly give a month's notice and be received with open arms at the next colliery. Managers never send away good workmen. My right hon. Friend has made no reference to the agreement that exists in Scotland. We know that the agreement made there was practically confirmed by the Board of Trade. The agreement was signed by the President of the Board of Trade and by Sir George Askwith, and accepted by the men and endorsed by the Miners' Federation. This agreement has been torn up without any regard to it at all.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)

Does the hon. Gentleman say the agreement was endorsed by the Board of Trade?

Sir C. CORY

Yes.

Mr. BUXTON

The South Wales agreement?

Sir C. CORY

No; I was speaking of Scotland. I said the agreement in that case was entirely confirmed and endorsed by the Board of Trade—the Government itself. Now they disregard that agreement entirely. But coming to South Wales, what is the position with regard to the agreement there? After months of discussion and negotiation an agreement was come to, concessions were made on both sides, and, so far as the owners were concerned, the minimum was raised by from thirty to thirty-five per cent. The agreement was recommended by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, but the miners' leaders, before signing it, insisted upon a ballot of the whole of the men. The men in the whole of South Wales balloted upon the question and agreed to it by a majority, and thus the whole of the miners accepted it. We are told that some of the miners in South Wales now say that they are perfectly justified in breaking the agreement because it was forced upon them. How on earth can they say that when there were months of negotiation, concessions made on both sides, and the agreement was also recommended by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, I fail to understand. This agreement has three years to run, and yet we find that the Government are inciting really the men to tear up that agreement with disregard of the sanctity of contract altogether. I should like to know what guarantee we have for the carrying on of business in the future if agreements are to be torn up in this way? Practically the whole of South Wales coal is bought by foreign customers, and if agreements are to be torn up in this way, foreign buyers will say: "What is the good of going to South Wales to buy our coal? We know there is no guarantee for a continued settlement there, and that they make agreements which the men tear up with out any regard to their sanctity. We must buy our coal elsewhere." [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] South Wales coal is being displaced all over the world by other coal. [An HON. MEMBER: "What coal?"] By Indian coal, by American coal, by Durham coal, by Natal coal. There are depots all over the world where they are bound to secure coal other than the high-priced Welsh coal. Notwithstanding that high price, a large number of South Wales collieries lost money—so much has the cost gone up—last year. We are losing our markets to a very large extent, and we shall lose them at a very much quicker rate owing to the uncertainty of the trade in South Wales. Contracts have been made in South Wales, and three-fourths of the output is sold from January to December.

And, it being Quarter-past Eight, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed.