Commons Sitting of 22 March 1912

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with:—

Belfast Corporation Bill [Lords],

Central Argentine Railway Bill [Lords],

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.
London Electric Railway Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
Read the third time, and passed.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 4839 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA.
Copy presented of Correspondence relating to the Position of British Indians under the Gold Law and Townships Amendment Acts, 1908, of the Transvaal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
Copy presented of Return giving, up to the 31st March, 1911, by Counties and Provinces, the Area, the Poor Law Valuation, and Purchase Money of (a) Lands sold and (b) Lands in respect of which proceedings for sale have been instituted and are pending under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, also the estimated Area, Poor Law Valuation, and Purchase Money of Lands in respect of which proceedings for sale have not been instituted under the said Acts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
Annual Account presented of Receipts and Disbursements for the year ended 31st December, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

DEATHS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 6th March; Mr. Ramsay Mac-donald]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 72.]
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

PUBLIC RECORDS (PATENT OFFICE).
Copy of Third Schedule, containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Patent Office, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Scottish Teachers (Superannuation Scheme).
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked the President of the Board of Education, whether his attention has been drawn to the superannuation scheme for teachers in Scotland; whether he intends to provide a scheme for England on a like basis; and whether he can state what would be its cost.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I need hardly remind my honourable Friend that the conditions of service and the bases of existing schemes differ considerably in England and Wales from those in Scotland. I hope shortly to introduce a scheme under which a substantial improvement will be made in the scale of pensions under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898.

  COAL MINES (MINIMUM WAGE) BILL.

    COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether the representatives of the coal owners at the recent conference only agreed to the proposals of the Government, dated 28th February, on the distinct understanding that, if necessary, arbitration would be made compulsory by Act of Parliament in order to secure due observance of contracts; whether many of the coal owners have stated that they would not have accepted those proposals except on that understanding; and whether they received further assurances that there would be penalties for breach of contract in the present Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The coal owners agreed to the proposals of the Government as embodied in their four propositions. I am not aware of any such understanding as is referred to in the question. No assurances were given in regard to the present Bill which was only informally discussed.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any official minute was taken of the negotiations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure. I would rather have notice of that.

    CHAIRMEN OF JOINT DISTRICT BOARDS.
    Mr. NEWTONasked whether, in view of the fact that the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill provides that the conditions with respect to the regularity and efficiency of the work to be performed by workmen are to be settled in each district by a Joint District Board and that the chairman of such Board is, in default of agreement, to be appointed by the Board of Trade, and that the chairman is to have a casting vote, instructions have been or will be drawn up for the guidance of such chairmen with a view to securing the adequate safeguards promised to the employers; and whether such instructions will be communicated to the House forthwith?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The chairman is to be an independent and impartial person, and it is not desirable that he should be fettered with instructions.
    Mr. NEWTON: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister will not convey any idea to those chairmen of the views which the Government themselves hold as to the necessity and method to secure adequate safeguards.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be a very improper thing to do.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord BALCARRES: May I ask the Prime Minister a question as to the arrangements for business to-morrow? The matter was overlooked yesterday.
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I was rather surprised at the absence of the usual week-end question. Today we propose to take the Committee stage of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill. Tomorrow we propose to take Report stage and Third Reading at a sitting commencing at twelve o'clock—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—or any hour more generally convenient—half-past ten if necessary. I am in the hands of the House; I have got to move a Motion later on, and perhaps the Noble Lord will let me have his views before then. We propose, at the end of the Committee stage, to move that the House shall meet tomorrow for the purpose, as I said, of the Report stage and Third Reading.
On Monday we propose to take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund

2227
Bill; on Tuesday, the Committee stage; and Second Reading of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill.
On Wednesday, the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, followed by other Bills. On Thursday, the Parliamentary Franchise (Women's) Bill. I may mention, among the names of those Bills, the Public Office (Sites) Bill; the Inebriates Bill, and the County Courts Bill. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I should say now we intend to take the Adjournment Motion on Wednesday, 3rd April, and to reassemble on Tuesday, 9th April.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes on Tuesday to take the Division on the Scottish Bill at eight o'clock?
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it will be possible to do so. It has been discussed already.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, though it was discussed already, it was then a Private Bill? Now it is a Government Bill.
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether the hon. Baronet means that because it has become a Government Bill more time should be given to speeches.
Sir G. YOUNGER: No, but because it has become much more important.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the House of Lords will meet tomorrow so that this Bill may be got through this week?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to get the Bill through this week, when we can only take the Third Reading tomorrow; but I understand arrangements will be made by which they will receive the Bill in another place tomorrow and deal with it on Monday.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: May we understand that the Welsh Disestablishment Bill will not be taken before Easter?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I think I may safely say that is so.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the Adjournment Motion on Wednesday, the 3rd, cut out the evening sitting? Will the Motion be operative at the end of the afternoon sitting?
The PRIME MINISTER: That depends upon whether the Adjournment Motion is continued until 8.15.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Will the right hon Gentleman give an indication of when he will introduce the Home Rule Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: We are anxious to meet the convenience of the House. If, as I understand, it is not convenient for the Leader of the Opposition to be here on Tuesday or Wednesday after Easter, then perhaps Thursday would suit.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Arising out of the answer which the Prime Minister has just given about this Bill, is it not possible to get the Bill through this week, in view of the fact that if another week is taken it will only prolong the strike I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman's decision is quite final, but, if not, I would ask him, and those who cooperate with him, if it is not possible by some means or other to get the Bill through this week?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman that this Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment, but I "would ask the House to remember that we have already lost a day, or allowed a day to lapse, at the request of the Opposition. I am not saying it was an unreasonable request, but I could not ask the House properly to go on with the Report stage of a Bill to which Amendments were made without being able to see these Amendments in print. If the Opposition were willing that we should do so, of course that would be another matter. As I say, I cannot press the House to go on with the Report stage immediately after the Committee stage.
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would adjourn his final decision until we see how we get on with the Committee stage—say at nine or ton o'clock to-night.
The PRIME MINISTER: I think that is very proper and reasonable.
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I do not mean that the Committee stage would probably be over by nine or ten o'clock, but I mean that by that time the Prime Minister would be able to see whether there was any probability, by sitting on, of getting the Bill through.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the County Courts Bill—whether he will put it down at some time when some of us who have observations to make in regard to it will have an opportunity of doing so?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
Mr. HOLT: Can the right hon. Gentleman, amongst the small measures he is going to deal with before Easter, find time to set up the Estimates Committee which was practically promised to a deputation of Members of this House?
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that may be possible.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Henry Keswick, Esquire, for the County of Surrey (Mid or Epsom Division).
NOTICE OF MOTION.
  SATURDAY SITTING.
  Ordered, "That the Motion relating to the Sitting of the House tomorrow have precedence this day next after the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill, and the proceedings thereon be not interrupted this day at Five or half-past Five of the Clock, and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any time, though opposed—[Mr. Gulland].

COAL MINES (MINIMUM WAGE) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

COAL MINES (MINIMUM WAGE) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Minimum Wage for workmen employed underground in Goal Mines.)
  (1) It shall be an implied term of every contract for the employment of a workman underground in a coal mine that the employer shall pay to that workman wages at not less than the minimum rate settled under this Act and applicable to that workman, unless it is certified in manner provided by the district rules that the workman is a person excluded under the district rules from the operation of this provision, or that the workman has forfeited the right to wages at the minimum rate by reason of his failure to comply with the conditions with respect to the regularity and efficiency of the work to be performed
  2230
  by workmen laid down by those rules; and any agreement for the payment of wages in contravention of this provision shall be void.
  For the purposes of this Act the expression "district rules" means rules made under the powers given by this Act by the joint district board.
  (2) The district rule shall provide, as respects the district to which they apply, for the exclusion from the right to wages at the minimum rate of aged and infirm workmen, and shall lay down conditions with respect to the regularity and efficiency of the work to be performed by the workmen, and provide that a workman shall forfeit the right to wages at the minimum rate if he does not comply with those conditions, except in cases where the failure to comply with the conditions is due to some cause over which he has no control.
  The district rules shall also provide for the decision of any question whether any workman in the district is a workman to whom the minimum rate of wages is applicable, or whether a workman who has not complied with the conditions laid down by the rules has forfeited his right to wages at the minimum rate, and for a certificate being given of any such decision for the purposes of this section.
  (3) The provisions of this section as to payment of wages at a minimum rate shall operate as from the date of the passing of this Act, although a minimum rate of wages may not have been settled, and any sum which would have been payable under this section to a workman on account of wages if a minimum rate had been settled may be recovered by the workman from his employer at any time after the rate is settled.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: I beg to move in sub-Section (1) after the word "contract" ["It shall be an implied term of every contract"] to insert the words "in writing."
  I do not propose to take up much time with this Amendment, but it seems to me that if we have State interference in regulating wages it is a very desirable thing that all contracts entered into between employers and the workmen should be in writing. It is quite a simple matter. It means that the men have to sign a book or document to make matters clear. We so often have disputes and suggestions made that the men have broken their contracts that I think we ought to have

  2231
  some established record so that when suggestions are made that the men or the masters have committed a breach of the contract we shall have a document to refer to. This amendment does not limit the operation of the Act to any large extent. To contracts not in writing this Act would not apply, and, I think, that would be desirable. The introduction of the I words "in writing" would tend to simplify matters and then we shall always know where we are.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I do not think it is necessary to take up time with this matter, because it is a point of no substance. The object of the provision is to apply to every contract whether written or verbal, and the statute I must apply to every document.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "workman" ["that the employer shall pay to that workman wages"], to insert the words "reasonable living."
  This amendment raises an important distinction between a reasonable living wage and a minimum wage, because the former may mean one thing and the latter quite another thing. I fancy the distinction between the two goes deep down into the causes which have produced this Bill. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) demands a reasonable living wage in order that the men who work in abnormal places may have a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: On a point of Order, I wish to point out that we are dealing with a Bill to provide a minimum wage. Is it in order to introduce words which have a different meaning.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The purpose here is to define exactly the mode in which the minimum wage is to be arrived at. A minimum wage by itself means practically nothing or anything, but a reasonable living wage defines the mode in which that minimum wage is to be governed.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have gone into the point raised by the Attorney-General and I came to the conclusion that I could not rule this Amendment out on that ground.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On this point of a living wage I will quote from the speech of the hon. Member for Ince.
  2232
  Speaking on the First Reading of this Bill he based his whole support of this measure on the variation in the cost of living, and with regard to the schedule he argued that a reasonable living wage must be different in one place than another. This is what the hon. Member for Ince said:—
  "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 Yorkshire? 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."—[Official REPORT, 19th March, Cols. 1752–3.]
  That is the position taken up by the hon. Member for Ince, and the hon. Member for Hanley, but that is not the position clearly taken up by a large body of supporters of this Bill. It is the position of the old-fashioned trade unionists, but it is clearly not the position of the syndicalists. It is the position of hon. Members below the Gangway, but not the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who went very much further. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman took this question of a minimum wage very much further than it has been taken by any hon. Members below the Gangway, for he took it almost as far as it has been taken in some quarters outside this House. He said:
  "Parliament may have to meet other attempts from other trades. … A door has been opened with regard to the minimum wage which cannot he closed again."
  And the Secretary of State defined his idea of a minimum wage as one differing with the rates of profit—an entirely different proposition from that of hon. Members below the Gangway. I want to know which is right, that of the Members of the Labour Party or that of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who apparently represents the Government. The most important statement in his speech was:—
  "The intention of the Bill, and, I believe, the result of the Bill, will not he to damage existing rates of wages, not to fix an unduly low minimum, but on the contrary to ascertain and to achieve the highest minimum which the coal trade can bear"—[Official Report, 21st March, 1912, Col. 2175.]
  That is an entirely different position from that taken up by the representatives of the miners in this House.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Are we to refer to the general debate on the Second Reading in discussing an Amendment of this kind?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is impossible to rule that nobody can refer to the debate on the Second Beading, but of course I do not propose to allow a Second Beading debate over again. The object of the Amendment, I understand, is to give a closer or different definition of "minimum" wage.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not raising the question of whether or not there should be a minimum wage. I have my own opinion very strongly against any minimum wage imposed by law; but I am not arguing that. I am assuming that the House has decided to impose by law some form of a minimum wage, and what I want to ascertain is whether it is the minimum wage as put forward by the trade unionists, or the extraordinary definition given by the Foreign Secretary, namely, the highest minimum wage the coal trade can bear. That is exactly the claim of the syndicalists, neither more nor less. Their proposal in any of their documents is that you should gradually raise the minimum wage point by point until you get the highest price any particular trade can bear. I know the Foreign Secretary, if he were here, would take refuge under the word "unduly," with which he made so much play last night. But the word "unduly" cannot be put into a Bill. Either you must accept the position which the Labour Members hero have voluntarily accepted in all their speeches, or you must accept the position set up by the Foreign Secretary. Speaking on behalf of a large number of Conservative Members, I want to say that we are not opposed in any way whatever to a rise of wages. Many of us desire that wages should increase to the highest possible point so long as they increase in due accordance with the economic condition of the trade. I cannot help feeling that that is the position taken up, not merely by the two Members to whom I have referred, but also by the leader of the Labour party himself. There was a discussion here some three weeks ago as to what should or should not constitute a minimum wage, and the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) made it perfectly clear what the Labour Party wanted. He said:
  "If you are going to carry on an industry you must carry it on with reference to one condition, that the men and women engaged ought to have a wage that will enable them to live by their labour."
  That is a minimum living wage, not a wage calculated on profits, not a wage calculated at the highest rate a particular
  2234
  trade can bear, but a wage that will enable the worker to live in decency and comfort. Everyone knows that the minimum wage does and must vary in the Post Office and other places in accordance with the cost of living in each locality. I want to test the bona fides of this claim for a minimum wage by inserting these controlling words, providing that it shall be a reasonable living wage. The demand for a reasonable living wage is the cause of this strike. If it is the desire of the miners to have a wage which will enable them to live in decency and comfort, my Amendment will secure that to them. On the other hand, if the interpretation is that put forward by the Foreign Secretary, I say that the Bill is not in accordance with the honest straightforward demand of the trade union leaders, but is nothing more nor less than a surrender to the extreme views of the Syndicalist party outside the House, which are not really the views of the genuine trade unionists of the country.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Government cannot accept this Amendment; it is quite unnecessary. The whole discussion, not only during the last few weeks, but during a considerable period, has proceeded upon the use of the term "minimum" rate, which is quite understood by both parties. You already have a minimum tonnage rate and a minimum time rate in connection with this industry, and there is no difficulty whatever in understanding the term. Moreover, in this particular case what we are dealing with is a minimum rate to be paid to a man in a particular trade in the circumstances applicable to his work. That is the real question that will have to be determined by the Joint District Boards. Those Boards will have to take into account the various circumstances, the class of work, and the kind of workman, and say what is to be the minimum rate. It is not quite right to say that it is to be a reasonable living wage. That is not a sufficient statement of the case. In dealing with this Bill, and with this class of work, you must always consider the risk of life attached to this particular labour, which must form a very important element in determining what is to be the minimum rate applicable to this trade. A man may work for a certain number of years; then comes one of those lamentable accidents, and he loses his life. These risks must be considered in fixing the wage. That is why the term "minimum" is a much better one to apply than that proposed by the Amendment.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I am not at all satisfied with the reply of the Attorney-General. He has stated that the term "minimum" is well understood by the people who will have to fix the wage under this Bill. My belief is that "minimum" means "lowest," and all that this Bill says is that the District Boards are to fix the lowest rate of wages that shall be paid to any workman. There is no definition of any sort or kind as to the line they shall take in deciding what is the lowest rate to be paid. My hon Friend says, "We will define the line upon which the District Boards are to go. The lowest wage that is to be paid is to be fixed upon what is a reasonable living wage." I myself am strongly opposed to State interference in the matter. I wish it to be perfectly understood that in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend I only do so because the House of Commons has foolishly committed itself to the principle of the Bill. But having done so, surely it is our duty to give some instructions to the District Boards so that they may know what was in the minds of those who passed the Bill. The only argument brought forward by the Attorney-General which had any shadow or semblance of substance was that this was a dangerous trade, as the men might lose their lives. That is true, but it is compensated for under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Of course, the Labour party do not want the wage to be calculated upon what is a reasonable living wage for the people engaged in the particular industry. It is not a reasonable living wage that they want: they desire to extort as much as they can from the coal owners, and until we get a definition of this sort it will be quite open to the trade unions to say that the lines on which you are to proceed are that the coal owners shall get only a certain share of the profits. In fact it has been stated in correspondenc in the Press that the owners are only to have 4 per cent, on their capital. We want to guard against that, and unless hon. Members are prepared to say that that is not the real point I cannot see how they can vote against the Amendment of my hon. Friend. We have heard a great deal about the necessity of enabling men to make proper provision to maintain their families. That is exactly what my hon. Friend wants to do, and unless the Amendment is accepted I venture to say the hollowness of the whole proposal will be exposed, and it will be seen that the real object of hon. Members is to put the mine owners in such a position that the
  2236
  Government will be forced to nationalise the mines. If that is not their object let them get up and say so here.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The question raised by the Amendment is a very large and important one, but this is not the moment at which it should be discussed. I am asked "Why not?" The answer is that we are discussing a definite proposal to meet the situation and crisis which has arisen, and if we debate more or less abstract propositions it will tend to defeat the object which the Bill is meant to serve. What the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was arguing for has already been accomplished. The minimum wage is not to be a stereotyped uniform fixed sum applicable to the whole country. The working of natural economic laws has produced variations in the rates of wages, in different districts. These will still continue to obtain when the Bill becomes law and under these circumstances in view of the amount of work we have to do I respectfully suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn and that we should be allowed to deal with other points.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I quite feel the force of a great deal that has fallen from the hon. Member. I have no desire to enter on theoretical discussions as to what is the proper wage to be secured under this Bill. But there is a real difficulty here as there is no definition at all of what is meant by a minimum wage. The Attorney-General says everybody knows what it is exactly but we have had no fewer than four entirely separate definitions of it in the course of these Debates. In the first place there is the reasonable living wage which my hon. Friend wishes to put into the Bill. Then the hon. Member for Ince gave a quite different definition when he said that what was desired to be secured was what a man might get working under ordinary circumstances. Then there was the phrase used by the Foreign Secretary, that it was to be the highest possible wage the trade could bear; and finally we have the Attorney-General's definition that it is to be a reasonable living wage, and that you must also take into consideration the danger run by the men.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Among other circumstances.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: When this matter comes before the District Committees there will be no indication whatever of the intentions of the Bill as to what is really meant by "minimum

  2237
  wage." Each Committee will go on entirely different principles, and that will not be conducive to peace in the industry, as in one district you may have the living wage standard and in the other the highest possible wage the industry can bear, and there will be such inequalities between districts that there will inevitably be further disputes. Though I do not want to press this Amendment on the Government, I do think some indication of the intentions of Parliament in using the phrase "minimum wage" ought to be included in the Bill.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: I wish to point out very briefly that there is nothing in the objection at all. When the District Boards meet the men will press for a certain minimum wage and the employers will give their arguments against that. The question is not whether it is to be a living wage, an average wage, or anything else. It is to be a minimum that is to be fixed by the District Board. It may be fixed either with or without the casting vote of the chairman, but it will be the minimum for the district. It may be on a living wage basis or on an average basis, but it is a matter which must be settled in each district, and will not depend on any definition. Therefore I urge that there is no reality in the point raised by the hon. Member opposite.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the speech we have just listened to has emphasised the difficulties which we are trying to avoid by getting a reasonable definition of a minimum wage. The hon. Member pictured what would happen before a District Board. There would be the arguments of the men and of the masters, and then the chairman of the District Board would have to make up his mind as to what is a minimum wage. The District Board is given no guidance whatever by this Bill. If this Bill is intended to settle this strike, as we hope it will—that is its only justification—surely the House should give a little more guidance to the arbitrator or the chairman who is going to attempt to define what the House intended in putting this Bill forward. "We have to remember that the Prime Minister and all the able members of the Government who have been supporting him in the conference during the last two or three weeks, aided as they have been by the greatest experts representing the miners, and by the masters, have failed to come to any conclusion. The reason why I voted last night against the Bill was because
  2238
  the Government have thrown the difficulty which they have been unable to meet upon the District Boards, without the slightest definition in the Bill for the guidance of those District Boards. This is not to be dealt with here as an abstract question, but as a practical suggestion for the purpose of making the Bill effective. The Attorney-General said that the minimum was to be fixed on the kind of work done, and the class of workman, and that the risk to life was also to be taken into account. How can we say that those considerations will not apply if this Amendment is accepted. They will apply to any condition. There will be the protection that the minimum wage shall not be fixed at lower than a living wage. That is an advantage which ought not to be lost sight of. So far as I am personally concerned, and I believe the same is true of many Members on this side of the House, the Government would assist immensely our position in the matter if they would accept this Amendment, because, while we object to the interference of the State in the settling of wages, we are not hostile to a living wage. We do not want to see a fresh cause of endless dispute thrown into the various District Boards set up under the Bill.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I wish to say one word to explain why, if the Amendment is pressed, I shall vote against it. I agree that it is desirable to define the minimum, if possible, but to define it in this way would be equivalent to accepting it without having regard to the conditions of this particular trade. I think that would be absurd. It is altogether outside the general question. I merely say that in order to explain the reason why I should vote against, an Amendment of this kind.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am inclined to think that I agree with the observations made by my hon. Friend (Sir A. Cripps). The point of view from which I regard it is that it is not all a question of making-the amount less by this Amendment. It might easily happen that if a rule is laid down that a reasonable living wage is to be given in all circumstances, it might be found to be, instead of an advantage, a hardship. I rise chiefly to express the hope, and I am sure it is the belief that we all share on this side, that there is no desire of any kind to delay the proceedings on this Bill. For that reason, and because the question is certainly one on which there is room for difference of opinion, I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, I could not fail to accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend and Leader. I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment at once. At the same time I want hon. Members above and below the Gangway to feel that this was a genuine Amendment, and was not in the slightest degree intended to delay the Bill. In the circumstances I am glad to accede to the request.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "than" ["wages at not less than the minimum rate"], to insert the words "5s. per day, if that workman is engaged for fixed wages, and not less than 2s. per day if the workman is a boy, and in all other cases at not less than"
  This Amendment raises a very great and vital issue. I wish to say at the outset that it has nothing to do with either Socialism or Syndicalism. I am neither a Socialist nor a Syndicalist. I have not been got at by them nor held up by them. Undoubtedly if this Amendment were inserted in the Bill it would mean that the miners would be back to work at the very earliest opportunity. I regret very much that, in the circumstances, no assurance can be given that that will be the case. Those who have miner constituents, as I have, composing an important but by no means a predominant part of the constituency, or those who have not such constituents but who have gone fairly into this question, must be aware of this: that if we can only insert 5s. a day for the fixed day wages, and 2s. a day for the boys, that would bring the miners back to work at once. That would attain the object for which this Bill is introduced. That is my first and chief reason for moving this Amendment. But there are other reasons. I was struck, as I believe the whole House was yesterday, by the speeches from the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards) and the hon. Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. Brace), speeches which I venture to say, in weight and dignity, in moderation and eloquence, are rarely equalled in this House. The direct appeal of both those speeches was that we should insert these two amounts as the fixed points of the minimum wage in the Bill. I think I may say that the attitude of the leaders of the coal strike, the men who are able to speak with most authority in this House, and indeed anywhere, for the miners, is that they
  2240
  are ready to accept this Bill and go back to work if they can have these fixed points in the minimum wage. I shall be met by the argument that the minimum wage is a dangerous doctrine, that the Bill itself is dangerous, but that to put fixed sums into the Bill makes it still more dangerous. In that connection, in many employments we have already a minimum wage. Our sailors, our soldiers, the whole of our Civil Service, the whole of our municipal service is based upon the principle of a minimum wage. The minimum wage is fixed in all these services, and if a man is not worth that he is not employed. On the other hand, if a post is open they do not go about to find the cheapest man they can for the job. They announce a minimum wage for that employment and only recently we have had a great demand put forward by another and generally conservative class of society in connection with this minimum wage. I refer to the doctors under the Insurance Act. We have seen a great and united movement of doctors arising to get a minimum wage for their work, and how has that demand been met by hon. Members opposite? The hon. Member (Mr. Hewins) yesterday stated that the introduction of this Bill was something far more revolutionary, dangerous and ominous than even the introduction of Tariff Reform, because it is the introduction of the minimum wage and the very men who are stating that are supporting the doctors in their proposal to get a minimum wage for their work under the Insurance Act. Let us, therefore, on both sides of the House rid ourselves of cant for one day at any rate. Let us realise that after all the minimum wage is only another way of saying that a man who works is worthy of his hire.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think this is a speech which should have been made yesterday. I hope Members of the Committee will support me in not reverting to the Second Reading.
  Mr. KING: With absolute respect I return to the point. Seriously, we must all realise that this Amendment is one of the most serious in the Bill. We shall be met by its being stated that there will be a difficulty in carrying this simple Amendment into operation, for this reason, which anyone who knows anything about the coalfields is aware of, that in many places houses are given at less than the economic rent, and in many places coal is given to the families

  2241

  of miners either gratis or at a very reduced price, and it will be urged that the fixing of a minimum rate will cause dislocation, difficulties and doubt in connection with these arrangements. I fully realise that, and I shall be prepared, if the Amendment is carried, to propose arrangements later on by which that difficulty can be met. The greatest argument in favour of the Amendment is that it would satisfy the miners, and it would assure them that we are fair and do not wish to get any advantage for the mine owners or for the community out of this trouble, and above all, that it would bring the miners back to work at the earliest possible moment.
  1.0 P.M.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I listened with attention to my hon. Friend, but I confess with not so much illumination as I am in the habit of receiving from his speeches. I did not gather that he laid down any grounds either of fact or argument for the particular figure which he proposes to insert in the Bill. Quite apart from his observations, this is undoubtedly a point of considerable substance, though more importance is attached, particularly by those who represent the miners interests, to these figures, than they really deserve. Speaking for myself with such knowledge as I possess—I do not claim! to have more than other people—on a very technical matter, I should certainly be disposed to think that these figures of 2s. and 5s. were reasonable figures. In Scotland, where the matter has recently been the subject of an agreement entered into between masters and men, I think I am right in saying that the minimum for boys is 3s. and the minimum for men is 6s.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is the average.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: I think that is the hewers.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed by the Scottish coal owners that that is not the case. The average rate in the mine is 6s. It is not the minimum but the average.
  The PRIME MINISTER: At any rate the boys get a minimum of 3s. As I say, to an outsider that does not look like an excessive wage when we remember the conditions under which the work is carried on and its exacting character, and the perils to which persons working underground are exposed. But these very considerations lead me to the conclusion that when
  2242
  a matter of this kind is brought, as it will be under the Bill, to the consideration of the District Board with a perfectly impartial Chairman, the probability is enormous, overwhelming, as far as one can forecast probabilities in this matter—of course one cannot give assurances or make promises, but the probabilities are enormous that the boys' wages will not be lower than 2s., and except where local conditions prevail in the case of the men, it is very unlikely to be fixed at less than 5s. That will be my forecast of the probabilities of the case under the Bill as it stands, but I must go a good deal further than that. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, it is undesirable to name a figure in the Bill, and I say that in the interests of all parties concerned. In the first place, as we have become more and more conscious in the course of these recent discussions, the conditions of our coal mining industry are so complex and so various that it is quite-impossible for any central authority to name, even as regards any particular area, still less as regards the country in general, a particular rate of wages for a particular class of work. I do not believe Parliament is equipped with the information or the materials which would enable it to come to anything more than a highly conjectural speculative conclusion upon a point such as that. I myself, in the course of the last three or four weeks, have been immersed more or less in the details of this matter and very soon came to the conclusion that as regards wages in general the only possible way of dealing with them was by referring them to a local body armed with local knowledge and dealing specifically with the special conditions of the area. I say that on general grounds, but I say, further, that I am not disposed lo set the precedent of fixing a figure of wages in an Act of Parliament. That is not at all involved in any way in the purpose and scope of this Bill, the restricted objects of which I explained in introducing the measure, and which were emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last night. I am not disposed to enter upon that experiment. I want to point out to my hon. Friends who represent the miners the peculiar dangers which the adoption of this proposal might lead to. If you once put in an Act of Parliament as expressing the considered judgment of Parliament a particular figure, say 5s., as a fair minimum wage for a particular class of workmen, you may depend upon it that would be

  2243
  treated as a maximum and as an indication that that Parliament thought it fair and right, and you would have enormous difficulty when the matter came before the other tribunal, and when comparisons were made between that wage and the wage of other classes of workmen, in persuading that tribunal that they should entertain any other figure than 5s. I think it would be very disastrous to the interest of the men themselves.
  There is another point of view which affects the men, and which, I think, also affects the general community. It is this. If you once put a figure like this into an Act of Parliament, is it not perfectly clear to those of us who know about electioneering that it must become the subject of agitation—I do not want to use offensive phrases—and of bidding and counter-bidding in constituencies where a particular class of workers are affected? It is the most natural thing in the world to go to a constituency and say, "Well, 5s. is not enough, suppose we say 6s." I am afraid we would get the competition of rival bidders who conscientiously believed that they had not taken a figure in excess of what the trade would bear. That would have most demoralising results. These seem to me to be two very serious considerations, so serious that the Government is unable to accept this Amendment. We have from the first maintained, and we shall continue to maintain, a definite and perfectly intelligible position, namely, that we ought to get Parliament to give legislative recognition of the principle of a Statutory wage, subject to proper safeguards, and that the mode for the ascertainment of the amount, and the developing of proper safeguards, should be left to the only set of people who are really competent to perform such a task, namely, a local representative body under the guidance, if need be, of an impartial and independent Chairman. There you will get the flexibility which everybody thinks to be necessary, and in regard to most classes of wages you will get the local knowledge of which this House and the Government are necessarily deficient or only partially possessed. You will get impartiality in the final decision, and you will get, I believe, the most absolute security to the miners of this country of what they desire—the ensuring that no man will be employed at a minimum wage "which is not reasonable and adequate, having regard to the dangers of the occupation.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has opposed the Amendment on theoretical grounds, and I may say that as regards nearly everything he said I entirely agree with him. But there are practical grounds on which we can view the Amendment, and looking at it on these grounds, we cannot possibly agree with the hon. Member who says that a 5s. minimum wage for everyone who works underground should be established. One of the practical objections to that view is this. In a great many of the mines of this country it is impossible that that wage could be paid. It is therefore not desirable that the owner should be called upon to pay a wage of that description on economic grounds, because consequently he might be unable to open and work the mines which are at his disposal. This is the economic argument to which I wish to call the attention of the House-There are economic laws which this House cannot possibly get over. However much we might wish to lay down a minimum wage for men engaged in a particular kind of work, if that work cannot foe done at a profit, then the mines will go out of operation, and a great deal of unemployment will ensue. There are many hon. Gentlemen in this House who have not considered the question from that point of view. There, is, for example, the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham), for whom I have great respect, and, if I may say so, great admiration, because he has taken time by the forelock and in all the mining operations in which he has been engaged he has introduced modern improvements and endeavoured to bring up his mines to a state of efficiency which must command our admiration. But that is not so in the case of mines all over the country.
  It is impossible in some mines all over the country to bring them up to the standard we would like to see. The reason is this. With a minimum wage of too great a character and under the conditions by which coal owners are hampered, it would mean that many of these mines must go out of operation altogether. I wish the House to realise that when this is done the output of coal will be greatly reduced, and a great many will be able to pay the minimum wage by means of their reduced output and the increase in the price of coal, which must inevitably fall upon the consumer. That is a point I should like the House to consider. I do not think it was put forward in its entirety upon the Second Reading of the Bill

  2245
  yesterday. It is a matter of economics, which we must consider in all its aspects. When the hon. Member opposite (Mr. King) rises in his place and from philanthropic motives says that every individual who works underground should receive a minimum of 5s. per day, my answer is that I entirely agree. I should like everyone who works underground to get a minimum of 5s., but owing to economic conditions it is an absolute impossibility. We heard a great deal yesterday of the policy which, we understand, is being put forward in different parts of the country by different individuals who desire to see a system established which must destroy all profits. That is the system which is known as Syndicalism. I do not propose on this occasion to discuss that question, nor should I be in order in doing so, but as it touches the matter now before the Committee very closely I should like to say that I wish hon. Members in all parts of the House who are not acquainted with mining conditions to understand that this is a question of economics, and if you are going to establish a minimum wage of too high a degree, it means that you are going to drive out of operation a great many mines that are being worked at the present moment. The result will be that those owners who remain in the trade will be able to pay the minimum wage, to reduce output, and to put up the price of coal to the community, and that will bring about a great deal of hardship and misery that does not exist at the present moment.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I am sure that the House is delighted to find that the Noble Lord has discovered that if the burdens upon the colliers are too heavy, then, owing to the operation of natural economic causes, the collieries will require to be closed. The royalty owners of this country have not hitherto—
  The CHAIRMAN: I may point out that these remarks would be more appropriate on a Second Reading.
  Mr. RAFFAN: May I put my argument in this way? We are told that it is impossible for the industry to stand a minimum wage of 5s. a day. We are informed that as the result of natural economic causes, if this House decides that that must be the minimum wage in future, the result will be that a large number of collieries will be closed, and a great deal of suffering will be the result. I hope that I am not out of order in pointing out that
  2246
  collieries have been conducted in this country without profit for a great number of years, the royalty owners insisting that their minimum should be paid whether there was a profit to the coal owner or not, and whether the wages paid to the workers were fair wages or sweated wages. I do suggest that it is for the House to consider that what is possible for a royalty owner, a minimum income, ought to be possible for the miner who is engaged in this arduous work. After all we can conduct the collieries of the country without the royalty owners. That is possible. But we cannot conduct the collieries of the country without the workmen. That is impossible. I do suggest that when you are approaching the question of minimum, you are entitled to contrast the minimum which has been demanded by the royalty owners with the modest minimum which is now required. On the broad general question, I am sure this House listened with the very greatest respect last night to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, that it is difficult, if not impossible, for this House to take a schedule of prices varying from 4s. 11d. to 7s. 1d., and, without variation and examination, to accept it and include it in the Bill. There is great force in the argument that that is a matter which could not be decided by this House with its present information, and that it is naturally a matter for inquiry in the various districts. But I do submit that the question of the day workman is in an entirely different category. The question whether a reasonable living wage for a man is 5s. a day, or a smaller amount, is a question which this Committee can decide as well as any District Wages Board in this country or anywhere else. That particular question is not a question for local investigation. We have been told over and over again, and it has not been contradicted, that on an average the miners in this country work four and a half days the week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Five."] The difference is not much. In the one case a man would earn 22s. 6d. a week and in the other case he would earn 25s. I submit to this House that without further examination, without any inquiry by a wages board, it is not unreasonable to say that any man who undertakes this arduous and dangerous work is entitled to a wage of 7½d. an hour for every hour when he is engaged down in the mines, and amounting in the aggregate to 22s. 6d. or 25s. for the week, even if the man is in full employment all the year round. Therefore I submit that this question is on an

  2247
  entirely different basis from the question of schedule of rates with varying circumstances and conditions. This is a question which the House itself may fairly and reasonably determine. When it is suggested that it is dangerous to take a particular figure, I would suggest that this figure is not unduly high and that it is not more dangerous than to deal with the the question of minimum at all. Dealing with the question of minimum has been the subject of acute controversy. There is a great deal to be said on both sides. But the House has made up its mind with regard to that. Having done so, it does seem to me that the House would be well advised in taking a further step and saying that it is not unreasonable to grant the figures which my lion. Friend proposes.
  Mr. ENOCH EDWARDS: Since I entered the House and have heard speeches by various Members I cannot consider that this House considers that 5s. is too high a figure or that 2s. is too high a figure. But whether this House believes it or not the rejection of this suggestion will carry that impression to the miners of the country. I repeat that, whether this House believes it or not, it will carry that impression to thousands of men who are struggling for this principle. I had hoped that we should find the Government agree to these two things. The Federation are charged with seeking to swallow all the profits of the industry. From my place I repudiate any such suggestion. It has never been discussed. What has been discussed is that a boy entering a pit at fourteen is entitled to 2s., and that a man working in a pit is entitled to 5s. I defy any man to stand up in this House and say that either figure is unjust, unfair, extravagant, or unreasonable. It must be borne in mind that we have a great industrial struggle between two parties. Our side have not asked that this should be settled by Act of Parliament, and to refuse to recognise the points where there is the least difference, the least ground for difference, the least room for difference, between anybody is a very serious matter indeed. I had great hopes last night that the Bill, including those two features, would commend itself to the good sense of both sides. I am seriously afraid that we are running a risk which may be costly in saying what, after all, it is so difficult to explain to anybody, that there is any ground
  2248
  of any sort for refusing to acknowledge that 5s. a day is at any rate a figure below which a grown man of experience working day after day in those particular classes should not be asked to work.
  I was more than hopeful that this House would realise, in these days, that 2s. a day for boys of fourteen, engaged in this industry, is a very proper thing for that class of labour, with all its risks. I decline to draw any sort of picture before this House of the horrors of the miners' calling, of which we are accustomed to hear. I would prefer that the House should face the fact that in this industry, which is surrounded with these difficulties and dangers men are asked to toil, and are expected to perform this work for this minimum wage. Unless it be suggested that there may be general malingering, it may be said that the figures proposed would be realised. That may be the reply to me. If that is so, where is the objection If this House believes, honestly believes, that the committees under independent chairmen will give that figure, what is our position then? Surely no one will deny the fact that the great mass of men who look at this question do not now regard it, not as they did three months ago, nor as they did a month ago, after the great fight and severe struggle through which they have passed, and it should be very difficult to convince them that this House does not believe that men working below ground are deserving of 5s., and the lads of 2s., a day. But the great mass of men who cannot be brought; under direct influence at this moment, will form the conclusion, in their little cottages, in their smoke rooms, and in the groups formed at street corners—if this proposal be rejected—that the opinion of this House is dead against paying 5s. a day for men and 2s. for boys. I am trying to put to the House what will be the impression of these men. In the case of these crowds of workers, we cannot get near them to advise them, and we cannot accept responsibility for what may arise when, with the discussion of this House before them in the Press, they find it has been decided that 5s. a day cannot be paid to men and that 2s. a day cannot be paid to boys. I say it is a most regrettable incident, and closes the door which did appear yesterday to be open, for a settlement immediately.
  This will not shake my particular desire for a settlement, but surely I am entitled to put to the House that by the rejection of the proposal the position is made a

  2249
  thousand times more difficult. I am entitled, I think, to ask the House to reflect and consider before this door is closed, with all that it means. I am not going to enter into economic reasons, not for a moment. You cannot enter into economic reasons with a million of men, and a few other millions, as to the amount of the day's wages—not at this hour of the day. It seems to me such a small thing, I say that with all due respect to everybody who hears me, to establish a two shilling rate for boys and a five shilling rate for men, and so enable us to give to these crowds of workers some sort of assurance that at any rate the principle for which they are fighting is not to be treated in an offhand manner by an actual refusal to recognise these two things on which there is so much agreement between thousands of men and of employers I do appeal to the House to reconsider what is going to be the effect, if the House refuses, on the lowest rung of the ladder lo endorse the 5s. and the 2s. I repeat that I sincerely trust that the House will reconsider the matter and give us, at any rate, some hope of getting this business through.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am bound to say that, in common, I am sure, with every other Member of the House, I have listened to what the hon. Member has said with the utmost sympathy, and I will go further and say that if the men for whom he has spoken will lead the reports of the Debate in this House, they will not be able to say that there is one Member of this House, wherever he sits, who would not be glad to see at least 5s. paid to every miner who goes down I he mines. I am sure, also, that the House thoroughly understands the difficult position in which the hon. Member himself is placed. He has told us that he is not one of those who desire to destroy private property by taking away all the profits of the mines. I am sure that is true. Without going into the big general question which has made this whole business so difficult, I am inclined to say to the hon. Gentleman that in reality we who are fighting against the very demand which he is compelled to make are now fighting his battle as well as our own. That brings us to the whole ground on which I, for one at least, under the conditions in which the industry is carried on in this country, think it is impossible to fix any minimum rate of wages to give the miners a living wage without running the risk that by so doing you will give a living to some men who are employed and take
  2250
  away all the wages from other men in the same employ. That is the reason, under the present conditions, why it seems impossible to put such a scale. I would point out to the hon. Member what seems to me to knock the bottom out of his whole argument. They themselves in their Schedule have fixed 4s. 11d. as a limit in some of the districts. They have done that after consideration. They realised there are a number of cases where the mines will not stand even as high a wage as 5s. That is the whole case, but there is something different in the claim in this case from the point of view of a minimum wage from almost every other industry in the country. That trade can stand such a wage better than most others. When hon. and right hon. Gentleman speak of this question as if there was a contest between masters and men they are entirely mistaken. I heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) last night point out that he was not influenced in any way by personal considerations in being in favour of a living wage. I am sure that is true, but I never suspect any Member of this House of being influenced by money considerations so much as by other considerations which affect all of us. But the fact remains that if I were the owner of a mine with all modern appliances and with the best seam of coal, instead of losing by fixing the minimum which would close other mines I should actually gain by the process, and if I were thinking only of my own interests I would welcome such a settlement, because I would have the perfect certainty that the price of coal would be based not on the cost price of the best pit, but on the average cost price of only the pits supplying the demand.
  I am perfectly certain if as the result of this Bill, and I am afraid it will be the result, in spite of the settlement, you do raise the cost of coal, you are injuring all the men who are now working in mines which will be closed. But it is more serious than that, because coal is, to a certain extent, a monopoly and must be had for every industry, and because there is no possibility of competition outside. The effect of this is that every addition to the price of coal means an addition to the cost of production of every article in this country, and the giving of a reasonable wage to miners, which we should all like to see, may be the taking away of any wage from vast masses of the people of the country

  2251
  who depend on the reasonable price of coal. This is not at all a question, and I am sure everyone realises it, of want of sympathy with the men who ate working at those rates. My own feeling in all these subjects is really that we should always have in our minds the deplorable condition of vast masses of our fellow countrymen in this country, and that we should always keep that in our minds, but that we should never bring it to the surface unless we see some really tangible method of improving their condition, and that we should never use it as a means of gaining cheap sympathy or support for our own views. There is no one who has taken the trouble, which I have taken for the last few days and weeks, to try to find out what are the conditions of this trade who does not know that there are some mines today which in competition with others cannot be kept open even if a very low minimum wage were given. I am quite prepared to agree with what was said by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs last night, that there are circumstances where the conditions of the people are so bad and where they are such a disgrace to our civilisation that, in spite of the effects, it is worth our while to run the risk of taking away the employment rather than allow such a condition of things to continue. I really think that is true, though it is a very debatable point. For that reason I supported the minimum wage in regard to sweated industries. I do not think there is the slightest doubt that there are some mines which could not stand even a low minimum wage and continue. For those reasons, which I am sure the House will realise are not from any lack of sympathy with the views of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and also because the Government could not possibly have taken any other line, though I have no special wish, I need not say, to make it easy for them, it is perfectly evident they could not agree to this, for every one of the Ministers who has dealt with the subject has pointed out, the basis of it is that there must be an examination to see whether or not the trade will stand the compulsion which the House is going to impose on it. To depart from that now would have been utterly impossible to any self-respecting Government. They could not have done so. For this reason, as well as the others to which I have referred, I shall vote with the Government on the Amendment.
  Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: This is not a question of whether 5s. or 2s. is enough. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. E. Edwards) refrained from referring to the horrors and the difficulties of the trade, but I am sure that those horrors and those difficulties will be in the minds of the men and of the masters and of the Boards, and especially in the minds of the chairmen of the Boards when they are locally dealing with these matters. My impression is that in the enormous majority of cases the minimum fixed will be above the 5s. and above the 2s. "Then," the hon. Member says, "why not put it in the Bill?" I think the reasons for not putting it in the Bill are overwhelming. What is the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is not to fix the minimum wage, but to set up a tribunal which will fix the minimum wage and then to support the decision of that tribunal. That is as different as chalk from cheese for this House fixing the definite figures which should be paid in any industry. We are quite capable here of deciding what would be a suitable tribunal to decide the wage, but we are not a capable body to decide what that particular figure should be in each locality. I agree that 5s. and 2s. are eminently reasonable, far too reasonable; but there are special cases, and in some of those special cases, it may be necessary, as the miners themselves in their own Schedule indicated, to depart from that minimum, and those cases are precisely the ones that ought to be settled locally and by the men, who have local knowledge.
  The Leader of the Opposition was perfectly right when he suggested that there is a substantial risk in some localities of closing some pits. If that has to be done, it must be done, but let it be decided locally by the men and the masters closely interested in the matter. Do not let Parliament do it over their heads. It is a very serious thing, and a serious thing for the men in particular in those localities where the seams are thin and the quality of the coal poor. I do not say they cannot pay 5s., but I do say let the men and the masters there settle whether they can or not. What does it mean to those miners? They cannot move away very easily; their families are employed in other industries in the locality. They are tied there, and it is a serious thing to involve them in the risk of unemployment. Therefore I say let them settle it locally.

  2253
  That is the principle of the Bill. There is one other point, and it has not been mentioned before. I do not agree with those who say that this is a temporary expedient for this trade only. We are taking a new departure. This principle is bound to be extended, and personally I have no objection to it whatever. It was my fortune to be chairman of the Committee which investigated the conditions of labour in the Sweated Industries and to draft the Report of that Committee which was the first recommendation in this country for the adoption of the minimum wage. I felt, when drafting a paragraph in that Report recommending a minimum wage, that it meant a departure which would be followed, and I did it with a full sense of my own personal responsibility in the matter. It is inevitable that this principle of fixing a minimum wage should be extended to other industries. If you do it in oils trade, you will have to do it in another. The principle of the Bill is that the men and the masters, with an independent chairman, should in their respective localities fix the minimum wage, and that should be the policy in the future with all these other trades. To depart from that principle now would, in my judgment, be fatal. We did not recommend it in our Report on the sweated industries, and this House, when it passed the Sweated Industries Bill, did not fix a minimum wage for these industries. I am the last to underrate the hardships and the dangers of the coal miners' lot, but I do say there was in the sweated industries of this country even a stronger case for fixing a minimum wage by putting an amount in the Bill, if you fix it at all. We did not fix it for the sweated industries where some of them were earning 2d. and 1½d. per hour, and less, though the case was stronger there than here.
  Mr. WALSH: Is it stronger than where boys in the mines earn nothing today?
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: I was not aware of that.
  Mr. WALSH: You know nothing about that then.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: I was not aware there were boys in mines earning nothing, but I cannot believe that in any industry where the men and the masters meet together with an independent chairman they will ever decide that the boys should work for nothing. I cannot believe it for one moment. I admit I was not aware
  2254
  they earned nothing, tout, however hard and difficult and dangerous the lot of the coal miners, there were conditions in the sweated industries which were even worse, and, in dealing with those sweated industries, we did not fix the actual figure. It is not that we do not want them to have a minimum wage and a good wage. The difference is merely as to the method of fixing that wage, and I think it is very essential indeed the figure should be fixed in the locality by the masters and men, who are the persons who have the knowledge of the conditions in that locality.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I should not have risen if the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards) had not said he did not think any Member would rise in this House and say these rates were not reasonable. I could not help thinking of his own Amendment staring him in the face on the last page of the Paper:—
  "Minimum Rates of Wages per Day for Workmen not paid by the piece in all districts with the exception of Bristol, Somerset, and the Forest of Dean:

  For men

  …

  …

  …

  5s.

  For boys

  …

  …

  …

  2s.

  The Joint District Boards shall have power to define the age when a boy becomes a man."
  By the way, it is remarkable this Amendment should be moved by a Member for Somersetshire, which is excluded from the operation of this particular rate by the wish of the miners themselves. All the masters can say in answer is that if the miners after due consideration think those three districts ought to be eliminated from this general practice, then surely it is possible these Boards, when they discuss the rate fully and impartially, may discover there are other instances in England, Scotland, and Wales which come under the same category as those the miners themselves have put forward. I think I may speak for the coal owners and say that on this point they take up entirely the attitude taken up by the Prime Minister this afternoon. They say, "We are perfectly ready to place the figures before these Boards for them to decide. It is not for us to say whether 2s. or 5s. is a fair rate. What we do is to place our figures before the Board and let them judge, and, if they judge such rates are proper rates, then we shall accept them." That is the attitude we have taken throughout on all these points, whether for the hewers, the day wagers, or the

  2255
  boys, and it is because we are glad the Government have so consistently adhered to that attitude that we are grateful to the Prime Minister for his speech this afternoon.
  Mr. MORRELL: I must say I am extremely sorry the Government have taken up the attitude they have on this matter. I can perfectly well understand people opposing a minimum wage, but it seems to me, when once you grant the principle of a minimum wage, it is something like mockery to say to the men you are going to give no sort of definition as to how the minimum wage is to be ascertained. The Amendment asks the House to lay down what is the lowest amount on which a man can reasonably be expected to engage in this class of work, and I want to show why I think the figures suggested might be accepted by the House as suitable for the purpose. My hon. Friend has already shown that for a miner 5s. a day practically means a wage of from 22s. 6d. to 25s. a week. I have here the result of an inquiry made by a man whose authority everyone accepts, Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, published in the "Contemporary Review" of last September, as to what constitutes a reasonable wage to secure physical efficiency for a man in work. He goes very carefully into the figures as to what would be the absolute minimum on which a family of five, paying 5s. per week for rent, could be maintained in a state of physical efficiency. He works it out that if you take a dietary more stringently economical than any workhouse in England and Wales, containing no butcher's meat, and bacon only three times in a week, where margarine is substituted for butter, and where porridge and skimmed milk figures largely in place of the usual tea and bread and butter, you cannot provide a family of five with the nutriment necessary for physical efficiency for less than 13s. 9d. a week. He goes on to take up the other figures, and he finally arrives at 23s. 8d. as the absolute minimum on which a family of five can maintain a state of physical efficiency.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will not pursue that point. We are not now discussing what is a reasonable living wage. That would be quite outside the scope of the present Amendment. The question is whether it is desirable or practicable to insert a figure in the Bill.
  Mr. MORRELL: With great respect, I am arguing what figure it is desirable to fix, and as to whether the House is in a position to arrive at a figure. I should have thought that this House was in a position to state whether or not 5s. a day was a reasonable figure for each man working at this class of work to maintain physical efficiency. If the House cannot do that the House is not able to arrive at a resolution of any sort in a matter of this kind. It seems to me it is well within the competence of this House to consider what is a reasonable figure to lay down, and that the figure suggested by this Amendment is the very least that we can reasonably decide upon. It is a matter as to whether we should put, in any figure at all. I do not think this Bill is of any practical use to miners unless we decide how this figure shall be arrived at. For that reason if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
  Mr. JARDINE: I want to appeal to those Members who have; been influenced perhaps too much by the sympathetic, eloquent, and very fair speeches of the miners' representatives on this question of the 5s. There are at the present time—and I am very proud as a Somerset Member to say so—actually three mines working in Somerset. One cannot say too much for the courage, independence, and consideration of the miners working there. They are working mines which might be called uneconomic mines, containing thin seams of poor coal. Theme men are probably the only ones working in the country to supply the country's needs. If this 5s. is passed these mines will be closed; they must be closed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not necessarily."] Those mines to-day could only keep going on at the low wage—[An HON. MEMBER: "Starving the workman!"]—that the worker is content to receive.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: What are the royalties?
  Mr. JARDINE: Hon. Members opposite, some of them, know as much of trade unions as I do, and they know quite well that if an unfair wage is being paid in any district, Somerset or elsewhere, that skilled workmen will go and get employment elsewhere. If these men are content in Somerset to go on working then they have no right to be penalised, and it is not right that employers should be forced to close the mines. If the fixing of a minimum wage—I want to impress this

  2257
  upon hon. Members on both sides—would mean closing these pits and the loss of livelihood to these loyal and unselfish workers, what would be the general effect of a minimum of 5s.? Every employer of labour, or trade union leader, knows, or should know, that where at the present time a man who is in a bad pit with difficulty can only earn 5s., on piece-work, if this minimum wage of 5s. is fixed, whether he works hard or not, there will not be sufficient inducement to that miner to keep up the high pressure nor would there be to men in any other occupation. Without inducement, the worker will go slow.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Does the hon. Member know that our proposal will exempt the very places he is speaking of in Somerset, Bristol, and the Forest of Dean?
  Mr. JARDINE: It is evident that the hon. Member has not read his own Amendment.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Yes, it is here.
  2.0 P.M.
  Mr. JARDINE: If the hon. Member will be good enough to read it he "will see that the minimum wage fixed there is 4s. 11d. That is lower than the subject of this Amendment. But my point is this. It is a point that some Members of the House do not realise. Whatever you fix, if you fix the minimum high enough, you will reduce the output in all those cases by, it may be, 23 or it may be 50 per cent. That will be the effect of the 5s.
  Mr. S. WALSH: It is not a piece rate.
  Mr. JARDINE: My point is this—may I repeat it? If this House passes the 5s. rate it will result in an enormous increase in the cost of coal. It will mean the throwing out of employment of many men and the closing of many mines. It will mean a serious tax upon the rest of the community, and simply for the benefit of one well-organised class, who have the power, I am sorry to say, of forcing their will upon a reluctant Government.
  Mr. RICHARDS: I would like to remove from the mind of the hon. Member who has just sat down, before I proceed to my main point, a misapprehension as to the attitude of the representatives of the Labour party. This is not our Amendment which is being discussed. The Amendment that we intend to move upon this subject will be found upon the last page of the Order Paper. We propose to
  2258
  ask the Government to include the whole of the proposed Schedule of the particular districts in the Bill, but especially to exempt those particular provisions that we are dealing with at the present time; so that we are not responsible for the present Amendment. Other hon. Gentlemen, who, perhaps, know more about it, have stepped in and moved this Amendment. Hence the general Debate. I would like to make as strongly as I can an appeal to-the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government at the present moment for a reconsideration of this matter. I listened to the Prime Minister with profound regret. I remember reading some years ago a speech by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which he said, that "the House of Commons never did anything obviously heroic or conspicuously wise." In dealing with this great question at the present moment I have been prepared, and have given, the Prime Minister and his colleagues all the commendation that was possible for one man to give for the splendid manner in which they have tried to bring to an end the awful state of this country.
  Having, however, decided to bring it to an end by laying down the principle of the minimum wage to be paid at the collieries, they surely ought to take the heroic step of giving some guidance to the people who will have all the difficulties to contend against when this Bill has passed through the House. Personally, I shall be in the position of bottle-holder to the hon. Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. Brace) and the hon. Baronet who sits behind me (Sir A. Markham) when these matters are being discussed in South Wales, and I shall be without any guiding principle at all, simply having the pious opinion of the House of Commons that some minimum shall be paid. Yesterday afternoon, and for some days past, representatives of the colliers, men doing the actual work too, have been in the precincts of the House. I was with them part of the time when one Noble Lord after another got up to speak. When these names were seen on the indicator the colliers, quite innocently, asked, "What does he know about the matter?" My only reply was that "that Noble Lord" or "that hon. Member" were "great on economics." But this is not an economic question at all. This is a humanitarian question, and a question of services rendered. I would say to those hon. Gentlemen who do not know anything about it, and to Noble

  2259
  Lords opposite who do not know quite sufficient about it, that I do not ask them to go down the colliery and see these men At work; but I do ask of any hon. Member who is going to cast a vote upon this occasion that he should have some knowledge of what we are asking for, and it would be sufficient for them if they would see these men going to work at three, four, five, or six o'clock in the morning, going through snow and storms of various kinds, to the pits and spending eight hours down there. I think that would be sufficient knowledge to lead them to believe, or at any rate to enlighten hon. Members to see, that 5s. per day is not too much to pay to a man who renders such services to the nation.
  What is the class of men to whom the particular principle of our proposals applies? I am not going to deal with the question of 2s. for boys at all. If we are going to put a figure in this Bill at all, I think 2s. for boys will be accepted by all hon. Members, but this 5s. minimum as applied to men is for a class of men who are least able to take care of themselves. They are generally strong, robust men whom the colliery owners get hold of from the agricultural districts, and they do not perform the least arduous work in the mines, although it is not skilled work, but it is not the skilled man who always works the hardest; he generally gets the lightest end of it in all occupations. These men, who often do the hardest and most arduous toil in the mines, do it in the most difficult places; and it is one of the most difficult parts of our mining industry. They are sent into these places chiefly at night, where there is often a want of ventilation, because it is not able to reach those further parts, and there is a very high temperature. We do say that it is not too much to ask the House of Commons to provide that men who do work like this should be given a wage of 5s. a day. They are not a very large percentage of the total number of men employed. Speaking for South Wales, I think the number of those who are at present in receipt of less than a day would be possibly from ten to twelve thousand. I want the House to remember that it is not dealing with an economic question. These men are chiefly employed in the poorer collieries of South Wales. I made that statement outside in the presence of the gentlemen who own the collieries, and I repeat it here.
  2260
  It is not an economic question at all in South Wales. The men who pay the highest wages in South Wales are the men who are most susceptible to pressure from the workmen's organisation. The man who owns a small colliery, though it is inferior coal, when he finds the miners' organisation pressing him for a decent wage, is compelled to pay it because he cannot afford to fight them, but those great combines and trusts, which we are hearing so much about, these are the people who are paying those small rates m South Wales. I ask the Government to give to the Boards who will have this matter to deal with some guide, at least as far as South Wales is concerned, and to say that no man shall be expected to go down those mines and work at less than 5s. a day.
  As I understand this problem, the whole of it is an attempt to bring to an end the peculiar and, I hope, unique state of things in this country, where all the industries of the country are being more or less paralysed and killed by the cessation of work by the miners. Surely in this House it is not too much, if we say this, and I say it with a conscientious belief on my own part, that this is one of the most important factors which will operate as to whether this thing is to end or not. I am not going to commit myself by saying it is the only one, but I do say, and knowing the miners as I do, and having been in their deliberations from beginning to end that this is one of the most important factors that will operate in determining whether the attempt of the Government to end this matter is going to be successful—I suppose some time or other it must be successful, but I say relatively—whether at the present time it is going to bring this state of affairs to a speedy termination. An hon. Gentleman on this side said, and it is one of the things chiefly used against this proposition, that if you do it in this industry you must do it in other industries. I say at once, why not? If it is successful, why not? If it is not successful it will have damned itself, and there will be no further peddling about it. If it is successful, why not apply it to the whole of the industries in this country? What is the principle which you are asked to apply? Not that the men should get a reasonable living wage, as an hon. Member tried to put into the Bill, not that they are going to live luxuriously, but simply laying down the principle that men are entitled to live as a result of their labour, and that is all you are doing in this Bill. I say, notwithstand-

  2261
  ing the danger there may be that other people will want to follow in the footsteps of the miners, there is no real reason why the House should not do it in this case. I think I made it perfectly clear that we are prepared to accept the limitation with respect to some of the districts which are already proposed in our Amendment. This will stand if the Government are going to reconsider this matter and put the 5s. and 2s. in the Bill.
  Colonel GIBBS: I do not know whether I would be in order, but I would like to point out as the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Jardine) has already indicated that 4s. 11d is already in the Schedule or Somerset and Bristol. I do not know whether there is much difference between that and the 5s. which is proposed in the Amendment. Whether you like it or not 4s. 11d. or 5s. will be too much for the district I represent. Take the case of Bristol. In Bristol last autumn the existing schedule of wages was settled. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster exercised considerable influence in that settlement, and the Board of Trade agreed that the wages should not be increased beyond the existing schedule if these collieries were to continue to work. The proposals of the Member for North Somerset, who represents a mining district, and the proposals which the miners' representatives made on 21st February, would have the same effect for the Bristol district and North Somerset. They would mean that the mines would have to be closed down. Considering the wages have been revised so recently in Bristol and Somerset it would be a great mistake for the Government now to accept this Amendment, and I am glad the Prime Minister does not intend to agree to any figures being inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. DAVID DAVIES: An hon. Member has just said, quoting the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that Parliament was neither heroic nor wise. I think in this case it will be wise if not heroic. I do not see how we can pass the proposals which are embodied in this Amendment. We are told by the hon. Member that this proposal was based on humanitarian grounds. If that is so, then it ought to apply to all the districts laid down in the Schedule which it is proposed to add to the Bill. You cannot have it both ways, and either the 5s. minimum must be applied all round or it must not. This House has no right to lay down any particular figure. Surely
  2262
  hon. Members must have faith in the Boards to be set up and the impartiality of the chairmen who are going to preside over them. As far as the coal owners are concerned, they are prepared to accept that machinery for settling these disputes, and it is not fair that this House should be asked to go any further than this Bill goes in initiating the principle of the minimum wage. If this rate of 5s. is carried it upsets and infringes the agreement which has been entered into between the men and the owners in South Wales. We heard a good deal yesterday about that agreement, and the hon. Member for South Glamorgan, in his very eloquent speech, defended the action which had been taken in regard to the breaking of that agreement. I do not want to go back on the discussion of yesterday, but the facts of that agreement are plain and obvious to everyone. It took three months to prepare that agreement, and it was ballotted for by all the miners in the federated area of South Wales. It was also approved of by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and signed by their representatives in South Wales. They now tell us that this question of abnormal places should have been dealt with in the agreement.
  Mr. RICHARDS: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing that agreement, because we are now dealing with another question?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I think the hon. Member is going rather wide of this particular Amendment.
  Mr. DAVID DAVIES: If this Amendment is agreed to it is a direct breach of the agreement in South Wales. The hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) pointed out yesterday that there is nothing in the Bill which encroaches on that agreement, but if this figure is put in it will raise the standard of 35 per cent, to 50 per cent., and that would be a direct infringement of the agreement. I do not think that is a course which hon. Members really wish to adopt. From the beginning hon. Members have been in favour of retaining that agreement, and they fought for it during the earlier part of the negotiations. I agree with all that has fallen from the Prime Minister in regard to this matter. If the House is going to adopt this particular figure, I fail to see how it can possibly reject similar applications in the future from railway workers, or even

  2263
  from agricultural labourers, for the fixing of a minimum wage. I very strongly urge the Government to adhere to their decision.
  Mr. SWIFT: As an hon. Member who is exceedingly interested in the principle of this Bill, and most earnestly desirous of seeing it carried into law at the earliest possible moment, I rise to express the hope that the Government will not give way by inserting any figures into the Bill which they have brought before the House. My reason for objecting to the insertion of these figures is not one based upon any consequences which may follow when we have to discuss, on some subsequent date, other situations which may arise between employers and employed. My objection to these figures being inserted in this Bill at the present time is that the House has not got before it, and cannot possibly have before it, the materials upon which the figures ought to be arrived at; and, in the second place, to fix the figures will not be beneficial to those whom this Bill is proposing to benefit. Reference has been made to a series of figures which have been mentioned by those who represent the miners in this House. I think it is utterly impossible for this Committee to deal at this time with the question of the figures. I find here a number of districts to which varying considerations apply, and for which varying prices are suggested, and those prices differ from 4s. 11d. up to 7s. 6d.
  I have not the slightest doubt that the Gentlemen who put forward those figures honestly believe that they are the right figures to be adopted in those particular districts. I am convinced, from what I know of them personally, that they are satisfied that those are the right figures. On the other hand, there are people who say they are not the right figures, and, therefore, you cannot decide without hearing both sides. It may be that some of those figures are too high and some are too low, but how can this Committee determine which is right and which is wrong. As the Prime Minister said, if you once fix the figure by Act of Parliament you will have the greatest difficulty in the world in ever getting that figure altered by anybody. If I may respectfully say so, the Bill seems to me to provide the fairest possible method for arriving at what the correct figure in each particular district
  2264
  ought to be. Instead of fixing it without a full knowledge of the whole of the circumstances, as we are asked to do by this Amendment and by other Amendments on the Paper, those Gentlemen who advocate these figures will be able to go to their District Boards and persuade the other members and the independent chairmen that their figures are right. I am prepared, for the purposes of my argument, to accept those figures, and I will assume that they are right. Even then we have no business to put them in the Bill without having more information about them. We have by this Bill provided the best means by which those figures, if correct, can be enforced in the various districts, and if not correct they can be amended so as to be just to all parties. I am sincerely anxious for the success of this Bill, and I do not think our hopes are likely to be realised if you introduce into the Bill the defect of having a Schedule which must be a subject of dispute and discussion between the parties, and upon which this House certainly is not in a position to give a final word.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Most hon. Members who have spoken have expressed agreement with the hon. Member for Hanley that 5s. per day is not too much for the men who work underground. This is the opinion practically unanimously held by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and yet we are told that it is not possible for us to give expression to the general view that 5s. is a standard wage for a day's work underground. If that is our view, it ought not to be difficult to put it into an Act of Parliament without carrying all those dangers foreseen by our opponents. I do not quite understand what the 5s. in the Amendment means. Unfortunately, in the colliery trade, the custom varies. Does the 5s. referred to in the Amendment include any rent? In many places coals are supplied free, and I want to know whether the 5s. suggested is to be the minimum wage for the man who has a house free, or is it for a man who has not a house free? [An HON. MEMBER: "They have free coals."] I shall come to that point later. I know that in some cases coal is supplied free, but in other cases the houses are free, and there are cases in which only nominal rents are charged. It is idle to pretend that giving a minimum wage of 5s. to a daily worker is the same as giving the same wage to a man with a free house, a cheap house, or a house at a nominal rent. I am aware

  2265
  that in some cases coal is given free, but in other places they have to buy their own coal, Sometimes at a cheaper rate and sometimes at the ordinary market price.
  You have a variety of circumstances which must be dealt with by people who possess local knowledge. Having said that I do not think what I have stated relieves this House of the responsibility for fixing a standard wage. The hon. and learned Member opposite suggested that the Districts Boards should be left free to consider the local circumstances, but he wants them to start with nothing to guide thorn, while I want them to start with a standard wage fixed at the starting point. I think it is better to have something to guide them. In Bristol and some other districts which have been mentioned you can depend upon those acting with local knowledge to make such departures from the scale as may be necessary, but I do not think they ought to start without any guidance at all as the Bill stands at present, in the hope that they will arrive at some reasonable minimum. In any case the work of these District Boards will be very difficult, but it will be all the more difficult if this House does not lay down a general rule to guide them; therefore I appeal to the Government, after listening to the Prime Minister's speech and carefully weighing the arguments which he advanced, to consider whether it is not possible in a Schedule to this Bill to lay down some general rule in regard to the rates of wages, so that the arbitrator may have a standard laid down instead of entering into the arbitration with no guidance from Parliament that this House has declared that 5s. a day is a reasonable wage for men working underground. I think it is a confession of failure on the part of the House not to give some indication of that kind in the Bill itself.
  Earl WINTERTON: I think the hon. Gentleman opposite has missed the principal point of our objection to this Amendment. If you are going to have a Wages Board set up to fix what the minimum wage is to be, you must leave to those Boards the whole question. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe is connected with business, and I think he will agree with me when I say that in any business settlement it is only right and fair that the Wages Board should have the fullest opportunity of deciding the actual minimum wage.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The narrower you can make the area the easier it is to arrive at such a division, because you can say it varies a little more or a little less than 5s.
  Earl WINTERTON: If this Minimum Wage Board which is going to be set up in this Bill is going to be one which will arrive at a fair settlement, if you are going to embody a minimum amount of 5s. for men and 2s. for boys, you certainly ought to embody a proposal that the maximum should not be higher than a certain sum, otherwise it will be a one-sided settlement. If you are going to lay down that it shall not be less than a certain sum, you must also provide that it shall not be greater than a certain sum. Hon. Members below the Gangway have supported the Second Heading of this Bill, and if they support and accept the principle of setting up the Wages Board, then they must accept the principle that the Wages Board should be the people to decide what the minimum wage should be, otherwise it will not be a settlement at all. You will enormously increase the difficulties beforehand if you prejudice the case by saying that it shall not be less than a certain sum. I think this was pointed out with unanswerable force by the Prime Minister. There is a serious principle involved, and because the House accepts in a crisis the theory of a minimum wage that is no reason why we should go to the greater length of arbitrarily fixing the amount when we cannot judge what it should be under varying circumstances. The only result would be that if this principle is carried out you will eventually have to fix an arbitrary rule in the case of other trades. That must be a most serious thing, much more serious even than the acceptance by the House of the principle of the minimum wage. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite who are connected with great business enterprises if they do not think it is a most dangerous principle for the House arbitrarily to fix a rate in any trade. What have hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to be afraid of in the case of the Wage Board? They have practically admitted in their speeches that these Wages Boards would be fair to them. They have not suggested that they will fix a wage which is not a living wage. We cannot escape the feeling, after listening to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, that they are sticking to the principle not

  2267
  so much because they believe in it as because the representatives of the miners outside the House, I believe perfectly wrongly, have taken up this attitude. I do not think they themselves think there is such an important principle involved. It would be very interesting to know what has happened. As far as I can judge the Bill is wrecked by the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment, a refusal which, I believe, will be endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the House. I think it would be very important, before we go to a Division, that we should hear from some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway if that is the case. It will be more in the interests of business if Progress is reported. What is the use of further discussion?
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I think I am expressing the opinion of a great many of my Liberal Friends that it is very like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel if, having established the principle of a minimum wage, you refuse to deal with this comparatively minor problem. The reasons which have been advanced by the Prime Minister, with all due respect, have been almost purely academic. He stated, and I do not presume to question the force of his observation from a purely economic point of view, that the tendency of fixing a minimum wage would be to make that minimum a maximum. He further stated, another purely academic objection, that if this minimum wage were fixed by Parliament there would be very grave danger that the miners, through their representatives, men like myself and my hon. Friends around me, would come back to the House and would endeavour to get that scale of wages altered to a higher level. I entirely decline to consider arguments of that kind as serious in face of the great contingency which confronts us. I have had communications from my Constituency, nearly the largest mining constituency in the country, to the effect that if the Government will meet us by making this concession it will be regarded as an assurance that the treatment by this House of the miners' proposals is sympathetic, and would facilitate the conclusion of a settlement involving the return of the workmen next week. I said straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. What do I mean by that? Undoubtedly in my own county the proportion is somewhat higher, but I believe I am absolutely correct in stating that not more than 12 per cent.,

  2268
  perhaps less, of the men employed in the mines would be affected by this proposal. I go a step further. What, is the ordinary wage of a boy now? In Yorkshire at present it is about 1s. 10½d., and in many cases it is larger. In Durham, where, of course, boy labour is very largely employed, although not boys as young as fourteen years of age, the figure is approximately identical with that which is suggested, and if you take the daily wage of a man in Durham, and I suppose about 50 per cent, of the workmen are daily men, the proportion affected would certainly not be 20 per cent. The conditions there are somewhat different. I think the average daily wage is about 3s. 6d., and to that in many cases you have to add houses and coal, which brings it up to 4s. 6d. Therefore in asking for this minimum wage of 5s. we are not materially affecting the wages.
  Even if the economic position were worse than it is, or can be, so far as the owners, are concerned, what does the Government understand by the warnings they have received throughout this Debate? Has it not been demonstrated to them by the earnest and thoughtful speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Enoch Edwards) that they regard the concession of this demand as opening the door to a settlement next week, and yet, in face of that statement, and in face of the economic facts which are presented to them, the Government persist in insisting that they will not make this concession. I speak with comparatively little knowledge compared with that which my friends possess, but I feel confident that so far as the county of Durham is concerned, unless this concession is made, and it must be a real concession, events that I hardly dare contemplate will happen in Durham and probably in other parts of the country within a very brief space of time, although the miners of Durham have observed, as they have throughout the country generally, a perfectly peaceful and orderly demeanour which must win the admiration of all people whether they sympathise with them or not. I do urge the Government to think well before they lake up the position of actual non possumus. They take a tremendous responsibility, a responsibility which, in view of the microscopic character of what is demanded, is a responsibility that, in my judgment no Government should take. I feel constrained, if the matter is pressed to a Division, to support my hon. Friend?
  Mr. NEWTON: It may be because I am a young Member of this House, having been in it only two years, but I must say the speeches made to-day have produced a feeling of depression in me which I should hardly have expected. We had in the speech of the Prime Minister very cogent and strong reasons why the Committee should not accede to this suggestion. That was followed by a speech from the hon. Gentleman who represented the miners during the conferences with the Prime Minister, a speech which undoubtedly was in the nature of a threat to this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."]—if they failed to accede to the Labour party's demand. The very fact of that speech was a threat, and no man can deny it. We were told that, unless their demands were granted, the door which is, perhaps, now ajar would be closed next week. Those words have been repeated by the hon. Gentleman who last spoke. Whatever the merits of the case, I as a citizen shall register my vote against being threatened and blackmailed in this way. Perhaps I am speaking too strongly, but I can assure hon. Gentlemen that I am speaking from my heart, as I have no doubt they spoke from theirs. What is the position? The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken says that if the Government will accept their terms, well and good. But the terms offered must be accepted. What would the hon. Gentleman have said if the terms proposed had been 6s. and 3s., or 7s. and 3s.? We should have been in identically the same position and liable to the same compulsion. This Committee is not called upon to consider the merits of these figures. When the case is put to us, as it has been put today, with a brutal frankness which has never been exceeded in this House, I say, whatever the merits of the case may be, speaking as a man who refuses to be dictated to and bullied, we cannot accede to these requests. The manner in which a case is presented has a great deal to do with the reception that that case receives, and I deeply regret that it should have been put before this Committee in this extraordinary and regrettable manner, however just the claim may be.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: The hon. Member who has just sat down stated that the demand which has been put forward for a 5s. and 2s. minimum wage is blackmail.
  Mr. NEWTON: I did not say that. I made no statement of that kind. My whole
  2270
  complaint was that we were told that unless we accepted this demand the door would be closed on us. [HON. MEMBERS: "And you refused to be blackmailed."]
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member will perhaps allow me to complete my sentence. I was going to say that he definitely stated that the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards) made a statement in putting forward the case of the miners which was in the form of blackmail.
  Mr. NEWTON: It had a very different, context.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If I understood the argument, it was that the miners would not go back to work. If the hon. Member reads a report of his speech tomorrow, he will see that that is what he stated. I want to deal with the two questions of principle raised by the Prime Minister. The weight of his argument was this: He said, "Here we are asked, as a legislative body, to put into an Act of Parliament a specific rate of wage," and he seemed to take the view that it was a most undesirable proceeding. Railways and mines are two industries which can inflict peculiar hardship upon the nation as a whole, and this House will have to recognise at an early date State control in regard to these two industries. Therefore, not only shall we see the principle of arbitration in some form or another incorporated in the Statutes, but I am perfectly convinced that we shall see before very long wages regulated by this. House in respect to these two great trades. I am the last person to suggest, and I am sure every Member of this Committee does not desire, that this House should go back to the policy of years gone by with regard to the regulation of the wages of adult labourers; but in consequence of the fact that these are two industries which, owing to their character, can inflict such grievous harm on the interests of the nation as a whole, Parliament, in the interests of the nation as a whole must regulate the wages. I think it is an incontrovertible fact that this House will have-to get a grip upon these two industries. What is the real position now before the Committee? The men have come out on strike to get what I believe to be a reasonable demand. It is not denied, and it is not questioned, that the men who have done a fair day's work are not getting a fair day's wages. The Noble Lord opposite (Viscount Helmsley) admitted that last night.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I did not go so far as that. I said it might be so.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: There is no doubt that that statement is correct. The question is whether or not the men are entitled to strike for fair wages. The Government came on the scene, and rightly so, in the interests of the nation. But the Labour Members have made it perfectly clear that if this Amendment is rejected, although we are meeting here today under special circumstances, we shall see a continuation of this deplorable condition in which the nation finds itself at the present moment. The hon. Member says that is a condition which the House of Commons must not have forced upon it, and that you ought to put the position of this House above all questions of blackmail. Is that really the position? What is this 5s.? In many mines it will not apply at all. It will apply in a very limited number of mines. What is going to be the cost to the industries of the country? The men are willing to drop their Schedules, and therefore they have met the House more than halfway. They have placed themselves largely in the hands of this House to do justice to them. The demand of 5s. for men and 2s. for boys no one can say is an unreasonable demand. Only a week before the strike started boys of the ages of fourteen and fifteen were constantly employed in the mines. Surely, having regard to the danger they run, a claim for 2s. cannot be held to be a black-mailing demand. The Prime Minister's objection seems to be that he does not wish to put into an Act of Parliament these specific rates of wages. But I would remind him—I am glad to see him in his place—that the railways and the mines are industries of a national character which sooner or later the Government of the country will have to deal with, because they are interests by means of which grievous injury may be inflicted on the community. It may be said that this measure is only a temporary one and intended to meet an emergency. The Government ask us to pass the measure for a period of three years, but it cannot be imagined for one minute that at the end of that time we are to return to exactly the same conditions as before.
  3.0 P.M.
  The number of mines likely to be closed by the operation of this Amendment is very limited, and that fact is not going to inflict on the community at large any
  2272
  grievance in regard to the increase in price. The Prime Minister, time after time, in defending Free Trade in this House, has told the manufacturers of this country that they mast use modern machinery. But it seems to me that when a man sinks a hole in the ground he claims to have a prescriptive right to pay lower rates of wages than are compatible with a proper standard of living. I may point out that the output of these small mines in the aggregate will not, probably, equal the output of one modern mine in the Midland counties, and therefore, if you do, by the operation of this Clause, close a number of small mines, there can be no hardship inflicted on the community. The House should consider what it will do by rejecting this Amendment. I am quite certain of this, that the miners, having dropped their Schedule, and having shown that they are willing to meet the Government half way, the Government might meet them on this comparatively infinitesimal point. Why cannnot the Government, in the crisis in which we find ourselves, accept an Amendment like this? If they will say that the rate of wages paid in any mine shall be equal to the average rate paid in the majority of mines in the district that will have the same effect practically as this Amendment. If the Government later on accept an Amendment to provide that the average daily wage to be paid to the men shall be the average rate paid by the majority of mine owners in the district, that would accomplish all that this Amendment aims at. But for the Government to put forward, as they are now doing, an absolute stone wall resistance to this Amendment, is only to lead to the regrettable possibility of the refusal of the men to accept this Bill. I am not putting that forward as a threat. But I believe that if this Amendment is rejected the miners as a body will say, "We have been fighting for a principle—for the Schedules which have been practically agreed to in the federated area," and when they find that this demand for the insertion of the 2s. and 5s. is opposed by the House, they will come to the conclusion that the House of Commons is not anxious to meet them. Working men do not study the economics of politics, and they will simply come to the conclusion that what they believe to be an admittedly fair claim is being unfairly resisted by the Government. I believe the average number of days worked

  2273
  in mines throughout the country is. 5.14 per week. But in the districts where I come from many mines are not working in summer time for more than three days a fortnight, and in some districts men do not work more than one day a week. There are mines in one district I can speak of where the output of coal is 3,000 or 4,000 tons daily in the winter time, but in summer time they are not worked more than one and a-half days per week. All the men ask for under this Amendment is that for a clear day's work they shall be allowed a sum of 5s. per day, and if the House should refuse to accept so reasonable a proposition as that it does not seem to me that such action will be likely to conduce to a permanent settlement of the existing difficulties. Will the Prime Minister not give favourable consideration to the suggestion that the average rate paid to the men in any county or district shall be the minimum rate? The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the House has no knowledge of the facts, and that we are not in a position to decide definitely what the rate should be in the different districts. But I repeat that it would be well to take the average rate, and that would accomplish, in very large measure, what this Amendment seeks to do. At all events, I shall have no other option but to support this Amendment. I do not think the view of the Prime Minister is well founded that this minimum wage would be treated as a maximum. This is a Minimum Wages Bill, and I cannot conceive it is possible that an arbitrator, knowing that the Bill is entitled a Bill for the purpose of providing a minimum wage, would treat the 5s. as a maximum. Therefore I do earnestly ask the House to pause and consider before they reject this Amendment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member (Sir A. Markham), and I find the effect of it on my mind is to strengthen the case against the Amendment. The hon. Member, no doubt, has great knowledge of coal mines, and he was not disposed to deny that there were a certain number of mines which it would be difficult to carry on profitably if this minimum wage had to be paid to the men. He said also that it would not do great harm to the community supposing there was a slight rise in the price of coal. I confess it does surprise me very much that hon. Members opposite seem to keep their minds in what may be called water-tight compartments. How is it possible for hon. Members who argue in
  2274
  favour of a policy of Free Trade to say that a small rise in the price of coal would do no great harm to the community? What is the principle they associate with that line of reasoning? When the dispute took place in Lancashire in the cotton trade it was contended that a small rise in the price of food, any article of consumption, might overstep the bounds within which profits could be made in that trade. It appears to me therefore that precisely the same argument may be used with regard to a slight rise in the price of coal. If the occasion had been less serious than the present, it would have seemed absurd to hear the Foreign Secretary stating, as he did last night, almost in terms the same argument which we have heard already on this side of the House in regard to Tariff Reform. It is perfectly amazing the present Government, apparently without realising the application of the argument, saying that if you raise the price of an article of general consumption you are not doing the very thing which is charged against Tariff Reformers, and which is by far the most considerable objection to Tariff Reform, if the objection be well founded.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: The miners ask a minimum wage supposing it did increase the cost of production.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: We must take the Bill as the basis of our argument. The Government are setting up Boards of Arbitration which will, presumably, come to just and reasonable decisions in respect to the wages of each particular man in each particular district. No miner in the country will be worse off, supposing that the demand made be within the meaning of the Bill just and reasonable, because where the demand is just and reasonable the Board will give 5s. On the other hand, in the small minority of mines where the payment of that minimum would not be within the meaning of the Bill just and reasonable, it would not be given. It would be better for the employers, the miners, and the community not to have this minimum in the Bill. It is better that a mine should be kept open with a slightly lower minimum wage than that it should be closed altogether. It is better to have some wages than none at all.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not think there is the slightest shadow of a doubt that all these miners will readily find employment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: This is not so trivial a matter to the man who earns his

  2275
  wages if he is to be suddenly put in a position, of unemployment. What good does it do? Nobody would be better off, and some people would be worse off. What is the good of passing an Amendment that cannot possibly do good to anyone, and which may possibly do harm to some? The only reason put forward in support of the 5s. minimum is that it seems to be a reasonable sum. Some weeks ago I went into the question of what determined wages. We hear constantly in these discussions of what are fair and reasonable wages, and of what men deserve. If I were go to and fix wages on the principle of what was deserved, I would fix them a great deal higher than 5s. The hon. Member gave a very tragic reason for this minimum when he pointed to the fact that boys are frequently killed in the mines. Is it reasonable that a boy should be killed for 2s. a day and not killed for 1s. 6d. a day? Surely that is an absurdity. If you once come to consider the matter from that point of view, it is impossible to say how high wages ought not to be.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If a man invests his money in risky securities he expects a high rate of interest, and if a man gives his labour in a mine he expects a high rate of wages.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: What determines the rate of interest on Consols and the wages of labour are the laws of competition. As a matter of fact whether for capital or labour people get the price determined by the demand for capital or labour, and you cannot get away from the law of competition. I do not admire the law of competition at all. It is a law dependent upon the supply which is available at the time the commodity is wanted, and you cannot escape from it. Though we speak of wages being fair or unfair, reasonable or unreasonable, such expressions have no exact meaning. You see what an extraordinarily difficult thing it will be for these unhappy Boards to fix wages upon hypothetical reasonableness, which is a rough and ready estimate of what the market is giving. Appeals have been made from the Labour benches to the Government to accept this Amendment. We cannot always give the amount that is deserved. The matter must in the end be determined by the laws of supply and demand and competition. The Boards are the mere machinery for putting these laws into force.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask if the Noble Lord is entitled to make a Second Reading speech raising the whole question of the reasonableness of a minimum wage which we have already decided.
  The CHAIRMAN: Of course, it is difficult to draw the line between the proposed 5s. and the general question. I should rather trust to hon. Members confining themselves as much as they can to the minimum of 5s. for miners.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I quite recognise the justice of what you say, and I have no intention of enlarging on the matter. My point as to the precise Amendment is that you are going to set up as a sort of Judicial Arbitrator to determine wages. If you say 5s. in this particular case there is no reason why you should not have a Schedule in the Bill, and no reason for appointing the Boards of Arbitrators at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a bare subsistence."] There are a great number of people in this country subsisting on a great deal less than 25s. a week. The Amendment is asking the House to do what it is not fit to do, what we are setting up an elaborate organisation to do, bodies whose decision will be given by perfectly impartial and highly skilled persons. We are asked to undertake judicial duties. It has never been anything but disastrous when you make legislative assemblies do judicial work. Let us leave that to the trained bodies we are appointing, they will decide upon it. If in a small minority of cases and in peculiar conditions the miners make an unreasonable demand they will decide. Both in one case and the other they will decide in the interests of the miners at large and in the interests of all the miners in all the mines.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope, in view of the many important outstanding questions to be decided, that we may come now to a decision on this particular Amendment. In making that appeal I should like to respond to two applications which have been made within the course of the day. The first was by my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards) whose speech we all listened to with so much sympathy. In reference to that I wish to make clear what I thought I had already clearly expressed when I previously addressed the Committee, and what was stated with the utmost emphasis by the Leader of the Opposition, that if the House is constrained to reject this Amend-

  2277
  merit it ought not to be taken. It would be a gross travesty of any intention which we have if it were taken, as an opinion on the part of the House of Commons that the rates suggested, 2s. and 5s., were not, and might not, be proved to be most reasonable rates. I have always said the same to those who were present at our negotiations. There is a Schedule put forward by the miners. I have never said for a moment that there was any information in my possession or in that of the Government convincing us that the rates put forward in that Schedule were otherwise than reasonable rates. But what we do say is the more reasonable they are the more certain they are to be justified when made the subject of local inquiry and impartial investigation. So I say it would be completely to misinterpret the intention of the House of Commons to let it go forth lo the country that they had passed a vote which was adverse to the demand of the miners for this minimum for men and boys respectively. Next, in regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) I should not in the least object to a provision being inserted in the Bill in appropriate terms that in settling the minimum of the wage regard should be had by the Joint District Boards to the average daily rate paid for work of that class in the district. I do not think that any Joint District Board which understood its functions would fail to take this into account. I think that that would be the very first thing which they would take into account, and I think that everybody would agree on this. How they could proceed to decide without taking that into account passes my comprehension. But naturally if there is any apprehension on that point, and if such apprehension as there is would be allayed by the insertion of specific words to that effect, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government would be very happy to accept an Amendment of that kind. I hope that with those few explanations the Committee may feel themselves able now to come to a decision on this point
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I regret very much that the Government has come to the decision which was announced earlier by the Prime Minister, and that it has not seen its way to modify that decision. We did not ask for legislation. We came out on strike for certain purposes. This Bill, although nominally a Minimum Wage Bill, is not actually a Minimum Wage Bill. This House has
  2278
  specifically declined to discuss all the problems that centre round the minimum wage. This House has stated by the overwhelming vote of last night, and previously in giving the right hon. Gentleman leave to introduce the Bill, that this Bill was to set no precedent, that it was not to be set in the general legislation of the country, and that it should be withdrawn at the very earliest possible moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The right hon. Gentleman himself has given three years, it is an ad hoc Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is a three years' Bill with the provision that if Parliament is satisfied with the working of it it can continue it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I should like to know when Parliament ever introduced a Bill without having that power. It is a very common practice in this House to pass a Bill called the "Expiring Laws Continuance Bill," and there is nothing new in that. But that is the point. The right hon. Gentleman stated in this House that this was a Bill specific, sui generis. I decline, and I think rightly decline, to consider the circumstances which would be created by this Bill if it was a permanent piece of our legislation, as, for instance, compulsory arbitration, which would be absolutely necessary if this Bill was going to be the beginning of a new code of industrial legislation. My point is this: In consequence of all that has taken place this Bill is in simple, plain English an attempt to settle this strike. This Bill is an attempt to get the men to declare their readiness to go down the pits on Monday morning. What is the use, if I may say so, of splitting hairs upon a minimum wage as opposed to 5s. expressed as the minimum? I may put it to the right hon. Gentleman himself: if he were one of those men out on strike now, with his experience as a miner, his membership of his union, and all the problems in front of him and behind him, and we being in the position of his leader, came to him and said: "We have got a minimum wage for you. That is all right." And then he said to us, "How much is it?" And we said, "My friend, you must take it that if you are a reasonable man you will assume that certain things will happen. You will assume that no District Board will give you a wage less than the average current rate that you have been enjoying before the strike and

  2279
  all that sort of thing." I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman would have some suspicions about that. I think he would, simply because the men are out in order to get some specific thing. They have asked for a schedule and they have asked for 5s. and 2s., and they are perfectly ready to waive the Scheduled They are perfectly willing to refer that, for the purpose of peace, without prejudice at all, to the local bodies.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: Why do not the men trust their leaders?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The men trust their leaders in precisely the same way as the hon. Gentleman trusts his own leader.
  Mr. C. LOWTHER: If they have full trust in their leaders, as I most certainly have in mine, surely it becomes the duty of the leaders to advise them.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We—
  Mr. C. LOWTHER: Why not own it?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The hon. Member might try quietly to listen to the argument. The leaders are perfectly prepared to advise; they are prepared to express a very definite and a very unmistakable opinion as to what ought to be done. But does the hon. Member, or any Member of this House, mean to suggest that the leaders ought to tell the men to do things that the leaders themselves do not believe in? The question is—and it is a question that must be asked at every stage of this Bill—is this measure, or is it not, a tolerable and bearable suggestion for stopping the strike? I candidly and I honestly say that I felt last night that we might have got some sort of agreement this morning on the 5s. and 2s. basis that would have enabled the strike to have been settled right away. I am sorry that the Government have banged the door in our face. I shall be very sorry if this House bangs the door in our face. Does this House clearly understand what it is doing? It can put in the 5s. and the 2s. subject to the safeguards under Sub-section (4) of Clause 2. These men really must have something that is tangible and something that is substantial. A minimum wage: what does it mean? How very difficult it is for responsible men to go to a great mass of men and talk about the minimum wage. Even
  2280
  if we had some more specific proposal, such as the proposal of the living wage made by an hon. Member opposite, there is still that very vagueness which settles nothing at all. Supposing it were referred to a committee which came to a decision in pounds, shillings and pence that was not satisfactory to the men. You have got to consider both sides of the matter. After great bodies of men with long experience have made up their minds that they must have an advance in wages, they offer to negotiate with the employers, as my hon. Friends about me did time after time. In fact, they got a large section of the employers practically to agree, and the margin of disagreement was so small hat, with a little encouragement, it would have been shown that all the employers agreed on this point. Of that I am perfectly certain.
  Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ince informs me that on this very point they were absolutely agreed altogether. The men, rightly or wrongly, took up the position that they must have an increase of pay—that with the expansion of their horizon and the increase of their requirements they must have more money, more personal possessions, in order to express their individualities. If this had been an engineering strike we would not have heard so much about it; but it happens to be in the coal industry which affects so many other industries. These men have asked for 5s. and 2s., and they cannot get that settled with the employers. We have created no other machinery for settling it, and we cannot create accurate working machinery for the settlement of disputes in the middle of a tremendous industrial war. In days of peace we did do it. But now suddenly in the midst of war, because it is the coal trade which, through the strike, paralyses every industry in the country, this House is suddenly asked to pass legislation. Let me repeat that we never asked for the legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I think I am right. The employers asked for it. The South Wales owners informed my hon. Friends from the very beginning that they would accept nothing at all until it was forced upon them by legislation.
  Sir CLIFFORD CORY: It is a very different thing for the South Wales owners to say that they would not agree to the minimum wage voluntarily, and that they would only submit to it if it were forced upon them by legislation, from saying that they asked for legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think this is strictly relevant to the Amendment.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The point I am turning round about is the one point that I do desire to impress upon the House before it goes into the Lobby to vote one way or the other, that when this House started legislation it started it for the purpose of settling the strike, or trying to settle the strike. For the purpose of trying to settle the strike it has got to meet the demands of the men, to a certain reasonable extent at any rate. The demands of the men are so and so and so and so, and the House knows them as well as I do. What I may call the remnants of the demands of the men are 5s. for the men and 2s. for the boys. It has been said that we are willing that variations may come in, because, even with the variations, we have got something that we can take grip of, we have got some declaration on the part of this House which is not merely sentimental, which may mean 5s. or 10s., just as anything can sway the amount one way or the other. If there is going to be any assurance in the matter I think there must be some figure put in the Bill. I appeal with all the earnestness I can command to the House not to defeat this Amendment, badly drafted as it is, but nevertheless expressing the idea of the men. Certain hon. Members may vote against the Amendment because it is badly drafted, and does not accurately express what is required. Nevertheless, if the House vote against the Amendment because it is badly drafted, they will vote against its spirit as well as its wording. I quite agree that it would be the greatest injustice to this House to say outside, whatever the vote may be, that it meant something less than 5s. would be sufficient, and I hope nobody will ever say that. Nevertheless the House must remember that people do not read speeches delivered in this House, and they do not all come into contact with Members of Parliament; and to-morrow morning, when the result of the Division is placed before them, I am certainly afraid that the people—for rich and poor alike are not all sufficiently well educated or informed to understand exactly the point that may arise in Debate here—will not be able to gather exactly the reason why the House decided one way or the other. I appeal to the Committee to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. BRACE: I should like to associate myself with the eloquent and powerful appeal made by my hon. Friend. The House is face to face with one of those determining positions which will make for an early settlement or delay the settlement. May I just make the point, that if we can have the 5s. and the 2s. in the Bill it will give us the opportunity to go to our people and ask them to commence work and leave the other matters to be settled by the Board of Arbitration. If we do not have the 2s. and the 5s. in the Bill our people must remain idle, or will remain idle, until we have settled the whole of the Schedules, and, this is important, not in one coalfield, but in all the coalfields of the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Sir, I am simply trying, in plain language, to put before the House the exact position. We therefore ask the Government to put this 2s. and 5s. in the Bill to give us the opportunity for our men to go to work and relieve the burden from off the nation.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: If a Division be taken now that settles the matter, but if this Amendment were to be now withdrawn the same point could be raised on Clause 2. We would like to give the Government time to consider. [Laughter.] I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is more of tragedy than comedy in this. That would give the Government time to consider the valuable suggestion which has just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). If that suggestion were to be adopted, it would leave the Board to be set up free to exempt either collieries and classes of workmen, or even districts, from the operation of the 5s. and the 2s. I put it to the Committee that there you have a basis upon which you can obtain a settlement, an honourable settlement on both sides. This Bill, as has been said over and over again, was brought in to settle the strike. If the Bill is not going to settle the strike it ought to be withdrawn. Unless something goes in which the miner can understand, which he can see and feel and handle, he will throw your Bill back again with something like scorn. I suggest this matter may be held over until Clause 2, and if there is no change in the situation then there need be no further talk, but leave the door open to the last possible moment before closing it.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I have nothing to add to what the Prime

  2283
  Minister said with regard to the actual introduction of the figures into the Bill, but the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) was very important and may have a very important bearing, if we understand it aright, on future events. I should like to be quite clear as to how much that speech exactly means. It would be very unfortunate if expressions were given in this House as to what the attitude of the Miners' Federation is unless they are absolutely authoritative. I understood the hon. Member for Leicester to say that the Miners' Federation was prepared to waive the Schedule of prices which had been originally put forward, waive it temporarily, in order that the point might be dealt with in this Bill. In other words, this Bill would be accepted as a means to deciding the Schedule of prices of minimum rates. That is what I understood the hon. Member for Leicester to say. I understood him to say that the Schedule of prices for hewers was waived, or would be waived, if the Bill is going to effect that object. If it is going to be accepted as effecting that object there remains the demand for the 5s. and the 2s. That demand is urged and insisted on with undiminished strength by the hon. Member for Leicester, but if the first question, the Schedule of prices for hewers, if this Bill is going to be accepted as dealing with that, though the demand for the 5s. and the 2s. remains undiminished in strength, the issue is narrowed as between the owners and the miners. But we ought to be quite clear as to whether the issue has really been narrowed by our proceedings to that point of 5s. and 2s. If the issue has been narrowed to that point of the 5s. and the 2s., if it is also, as the hon. Member for Leicester said, agreed that there must be some elasticity, the Federation themselves have said that certain districts would be excepted from the 5s. and the 2s., and we are not in a position to say those are the only districts, but if that issue is narrowed then it must have a direct bearing on our proceedings this afternoon. It is important it should be known, because, after all, there are two parties to this dispute, the owners and the miners, who are still on friendly terms with each other, still able to resume conferences in a perfectly friendly spirit if there is a chance of agreement. And if the issue has been narrowed I think it is worth while the hon. Member and his Friends considering whether they should not make the
  2284
  matter so clear that there may be the prospect of accepting this Bill as it stands for what, in their opinion, it is worth in regard to the Schedule and prices for hewers, and then that our attention should be devoted to see whether, not by putting figures in this Bill, but by further conference between, owners and miners on this point of the 5s. and the 2s., some agreement might not be arrived at which would achieve a settlement.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I intervened in the interests of peace to see if it was not possible to have the Amendment withdrawn, so that further conversations might be conducted and enable us to come to this point in the other place. We do not want to discuss it again. I will give the Committee that pledge, that if it does come up again, if it is hopeless, we can have it over right away, as far as we are concerned, with the Chairman putting the words. But surely the Committee is undertaking a very grave responsibility if it is going lo proceed, but I am making this suggestion on the assumption it may be possible to put the 5s. and 2s. in the Bill, with the limitations and on the understandings that I gave in my speech. I frankly state I am not in the position at the moment to pledge the Miners' Federation. I am not, and I never said so; but I am in a position to inform the Committee that before the Committee rises this afternoon that the Miners' Federation will pledge itself. We are in that position. But before the Committee adjourns we can give it the necessary information, so that, so far as it is concerned, it can give a decisive vote upon the question.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I was hoping that something might really come of the speech of the Foreign Secretary, and if anyone on those benches had been in a position to say that the demand for the Schedule was waived, and that the issue was reduced simply to the question of 5s. and 2s., I should certainly have been delighted to have recommended my hon. Friends behind me to agree to postpone this Amendment, in order that, there might be conferences between the masters and men to see whether it could be settled or not. Since that is not possible, I do not see that the House of Commons can do otherwise than give its decision now on what, after all, is a vital question of principle, and has been so declared by the Prime Minister.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman opposite to come to some satisfactory conclusion in this matter. I recognise to the full the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester in the intervention he has made. The hon. Member tells us quite frankly that he is not authorised to speak on behalf of the Miners' Federation.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? I think there is a misunderstanding in regard to what my hon. Friend said. He said he was not prepared to pledge the Miners' Federation. But I think I am justified at this stage in saying that there was a joint consultation this morning between the two bodies, the Labour party and the executive of the Miners' Federation. There was no definite arrangement come to, but there was a sort of agreement and understanding that the scheduled rates could be left to the Boards if the 5s. and 2s. went into the Bill. If there is an understanding now that that is to be done the Federation and ourselves will get together and give a definite answer before the afternoon is over.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is quite obvious we can give no such pledge. If the Miners' Federation, or those who speak on their behalf and with their authority, would tell us definitely that they withdraw the Schedule, and if we are to understand that in regard to all outstanding matters the elasticity of the Subsection is accepted—for without the elasticity of the Subsection the Bill cannot be brought into practice—and that with regard to these two figures of 5s. and 2s. the elasticity of the Sub-section is to be applied in practice, I see no reason why the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should not meet the circumstances of the case. But in the present state of our information, I am totally unable to come to any understanding or agreement on the matter. It can be discussed again on Report, and in the interval the conferences referred to can take place, but for the moment I do not feel that the Government can say anything more.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman says that he understood that the Schedule might be withdrawn. Do I apprehend him aright when I assume he meant it might be withdrawn from this Bill, or does he mean withdrawn from the District Boards that are to be set up?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, no. Let me make that plain. I have always said—and nobody knows it better than the representatives of the miners who are here, such as the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards); it was common ground between us during all the negotiations—that the Schedule put forward by the miners on 2nd February last, containing various suggested minimum rates for the several areas, was put forward by them, as they said, in the interests of peace, but that in their view, in their honest judgment, they had reduced the rates suggested by them to the lowest possible minimum, and they did not feel that they could go below them. We have consistently accepted that view. I have always said to them and to the coal owners, and I think I said to the House last night, that when we introduced the machinery proposed by this Bill, it had in it nothing whatever to estop or prevent the representatives of the miners from putting forward higher Schedules or higher rates in regard to every one of those districts. That is left at large. They may reasonably think they are entitled to higher figures, and they may be able to prove it in argument and evidence before the District Boards. They are perfectly at large in regard to that matter. But I have always thought that they would be much better off in the presentation of their case under the elastic provisions of the Government Bill than by stereotyping by the force of law the Schedule which they themselves put forward as not representing the full measure of their due.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The whole of this discussion has taken place with reference to one party, and not to two parties, in the matter. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister that the question can be raised again on Report, I think it is desirable that the coal owners should understand exactly what is the point at issue at this moment. They have not developed their argument this afternoon in connection with these two points, on account of the firm attitude taken by the Prime Minister in his opening speech. We are now told that something may happen between now and to-morrow, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given some idea that they are going to put a new provision in the Bill. [Several Hon. MEMBEKS: "No."] If we are to confer let us understand exactly what we are to confer about. I understand that figures are not to be named in any way in the

  2287
  Bill, and there is to be elasticity in the districts. If that is so, I am quite ready to accept that; but I ask the Prime Minister to make it quite clear, if we are to confer, what it is we are to confer about.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I thought I had stated it quite explicitly. Although we are ready to put in words, in response to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham)—I believe there would be a general disposition in all quarters of the House to agree to that—so far as we are concerned, and as at present advised, we have the Bill as it stands. The point the Foreign Secretary suggested for further conference is simply the question of 5s. and 2s., subject to the elasticity of the provisions with regard to the various districts. If the issue is narrowed down to that—
  Lord HUGH CECIL: They are not to be put into the Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No. I have said that several times. If there is this disposition between now and Report, I hope we may make some arrangement to settle the whole matter.
  Mr. KING: In view of the very delicate situation and of the very near approach of the two sides to one another I beg leave to ask to withdraw my Motion. If necessary the matter can be raised on Report, but for the moment may I withdraw?
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. ENOCH EDWARDS: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "rate" ["at not less than the minimum rate"], to insert the words "provided in the Second Schedule (A) to this Act, or in the absence of such provision otherwise."
  4.0 P.M.
  The rates in the Schedule fairly approximate to the rates now being paid. I have heard the observations of the Prime Minister, and I understood from him that they should be submitted to arbitration. The Miners' Federation, as at present advised, would prefer rather that these rates should form part of this Bill. The whole struggle has been for these rates. There is nothing in them but has been again and again discussed; it is quite true that had they been accepted there would have appeared to have been no necessity for this Bill at all. The Miners' Federation believe that the course they have taken all through has been fairly consistent. I observe in the discus-
  2288
  sion that some hon. Members ridicule our position because we have not put the same rate in the Schedule for each district. I venture to suggest that if we had put in the same rate for Yorkshire as we have put in for the Forest of Dean that this House would have had less faith in us now and in the Federation. Those are the rates that are obtaining largely at the collieries in the districts. We do not think that these rates will at all bring about that disaster that has been predicted. Miners, like many other people, have heard these predictions of failure often. It is not the first time in the history of this great trade that we have been reminded that if we interfere with rates we shall destroy the trade. Let me venture a prediction. I do not often pretend to prophesy; it is generally a mistake; but I dare to predict thus far: that many years will roll over our heads before anything we are able to do will drive the trade away, and many years will roll over the heads of the Federation before there is even the remotest desire to do any damage to trade. I am satisfied that in their desire to promote these rates, which are fair and honest, there is no notion at the back of the Miners' Federation that they are at all going to damage anyone. It is not on the ground of destroying trade that these rates are put forward, but because we believe that the districts are capable of paying them. They are a reasoned-out attempt to settle this very vexed question of a minimum wage.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The main point and operation of this Act as regards this particular business is the adoption of the principle of a minimum wage for hewers and other underground workers. I can quite understand that my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, and those for whom he speaks, should desire that the minimum rate should be put into the Bill in the form of a Schedule. They desire to know what will be the upshot of this Bill, and they desire to see it introduced. I recognise fully, and I am sure my colleagues who went through the conference, recognise that those rates which are put forward by the Miners' Federation represent figures to which they have given careful consideration, and I recognise also that they have cut the figures down to the lowest possible point consistent, in their belief, with the carrying on of the trade under proper conditions. But whilst I am sure that these figures were carefully considered by the Miners' Federation, I

  2289
  cannot quite accept what the hon. Member said, that they were submitted again and again to the employers and discussed by them. That may be true with regard to some of the rates in the federated areas, but it is not so with regard to many of the other rates. They have not been discussed again and again in all the districts. In some cases they have been discussed only once by the employers. That is really one of the reasons why this Rill is introduced. My hon. Friend knows that this Schedule is divided into seventeen districts, whereas there are twenty-one in the Bill. The question whether there should be seventeen or twenty-one districts may come up again, and that is a proper subject for discussion.
  What has been said from the beginning by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government is that it is quite impossible for the Government in the first instance, or for the House of Commons in the second place, to decide without having all the facts and the information before them, whether the scheduled rate should or should not be the minimum rate for a particular district, and therefore this Bill proposes what I think is only a commonsense plan. You cannot have a scale or schedule of rates, as put forward by either side, accepted by the House of Commons, but there must be proper discussion and consideration with regard to them. If my hon. Friend believes, as I have no doubt he does, that this Schedule is fair and just, then he will bring it before the District Board and it will be thrashed out, and if he is able to prove his case he will get the Schedule rate, and if he is unable to prove his case he will not be able to obtain it. Let me point out what happened in the conference when he made an endeavour to go into this matter. At the conference, as my hon. Friend knows, there was an attempt made actually across the table to go into those matters, and I am sure that everybody at the conference came to the conclusion that if we had gone on endeavouring to deal with these matters it would have taken us many months before we could have come to a decision. In the special circumstances, of the continuance of the strike and the urgent necessity for action, the only possible way open to us was that these Schedules should be referred to these Joint Committees, equally representative of the two sides, with an independent chairman, in order that we might arrive at a decision. I am afraid, therefore, that I must say, on the part of the
  2290
  Government, on the grounds of common sense, and on other grounds, that in this matter of dispute between two parties the question of wages must be referred to a Joint Representative Committee, with an independent chairman, before a decision can be come to as to whether all these rates are fair and reasonable.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I have always regretted that we were not able to persuade all those who met at the Foreign Office to accept the Government proposal. We did succeed with regard to federated owners, and I am glad that we succeeded in getting them to agree unanimously, but it was a matter of very deep regret to me that these proposals were not accepted by the Miners' Federation. If they had been so accepted the pits would be working now, and the miners would to-day be working and enjoying what they hope to get now out of the Bill, but, unfortunately, they did not see their way to accept the Government proposals for fixing the rates of wages in the various districts by a District Board. They arranged a set of prices which was, in their opinion, fair; they may have been fair—I do not say they were not—but I do say that the fixing of a fixed charge over large areas, without any variety, of a minimum to be paid by good pits and bad pits alike was an impossible position for practical men to adopt. May I give an illustration from the large county which I represent, the county of Yorkshire? That coalfield varies very much. In some parts where new pits are sunk the pits are prosperous and the men are getting a minimum of 7s. 6d. a day. These will probably not be affected very much. If they were affected it would be on the good side, because prices of coal would be raised and the cost of production would hot be raised to the same extent, and practically they would benefit as well as the miners, but when I come to the old and poor pits, they are struggling along at the present moment in great difficulties, I may tell the Committee that in a district which I know pretty well the average wage of a large number of men runs to about 7s. 6d., the figure which they propose. What will be the only result of fixing it at 7s. 6d.? It would be impossible by any safeguard to guarantee the present output. There would be an inducement not to do quite as much if the man was sure of his 7s. 6d. whatever the output was. These poor pits I am speaking about are not

  2291
  putting out less tonnage than the good new pits; they are practically turning out about the same tonnage. What is the reason then why the men do not get such good wages? Because the individual miners cannot produce so much output, because the seam is not such a good and thick one. If you are to say that in these poor pits the wage would be the same, whether they have earned it or not, the result would be that a large portion of the workmen who are now working would be thrown out of employment; they would be thrown on the community, and the community would suffer. Many of those old pits T aim speaking of I know would have to close down.
  I view with feelings of satisfaction the position the Government have taken up, and their decision in this matter. I have not spoken before in this Debate, and I should like to speak of the manner in which the Prime Minister stuck to his business. I must say it has won the admiration of myself, and I believe I am able to speak for all the coal owners, for the patience and tact with which he endeavoured to bring both parties to a settlement. He is not to blame that no settlement has been come to. I do not wish to lay the blame on anyone. It is a misfortune to the country that this calamity has happened. What I, for one, wish from the bottom of my heart is that as soon as possible this crisis may be brought to a termination, and that the pits may be working again, and we may be saved weeks of suffering, both to trade and human beings, which will come to pass unless a settlement is arrived at speedily. I believe that if the miners will give way on this Schedule we can come to a settlement. I do not say anything about the 5s. and the 2s., because that would not affect the pit with which, at all events, I have the honour to be connected. The wages we pay are very high wages indeed, and I do not believe we should feel this Bill at all. I am speaking for my poorer neighbours, who are not able at the present time to make ends meet. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards) is a man whom I respect from the bottom of my heart, because I know he is an honest man, and he has conducted these negotiations with very great ability. I hope I may appeal to him not to press the Amendment, because the result will only be that the Government and ourselves will have to oppose it.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said he was not appealing for himself, because this Amendment would not adversely affect his interests.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: Not very much.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: He was appealing for his poorer neighbours. That is a most charitable and Christian-like attitude which I fully appreciate. The same fact is true in regard to the miners. The men also the hon. Gentleman employs would not be affected by this Schedule, but they are out on strike none the less for the benefit of their poorer neighbours. There never was a more unselfish dispute in the whole history of the working-class movement. The men who have forced this on are not the Syndicalists, who seem to have got on the brains of some hon. Members, nor are they even the underpaid workmen. They are for the most part men who themselves are fairly well paid, and who do not stand to gain individually from the contest when successful. They are fighting the battle of their poorer neighbours. It is said that to apply this Schedule uniformly would close certain pits, and that men would be thrown on to the streets and would become a burden on the community. I do not admit, first of all, that pits would be closed. It is astonishing the elasticity with which a mine or any other form of industry can be expanded when the necessity arises, and, while it may be true that under existing conditions there are collieries in some parts of the country that could not pay the rates in the Schedules, yet if they were compelled to do so they would find ways and means of paying them and making the mines pay, as they had done in the past. Even if mines were closed the men would not be thrown out. If a colliery is closed in one district that does not lessen the demand for coal, and the men who are dismissed from that mine tramp to the nearest district where there are other collieries, and find employment to maintain the supply according to the demand. Therefore you may eliminate both these arguments from serious consideration.
  The President of the Board of Trade said this matter could not be expected to be settled by Parliament if the owners and workmen meeting under the Prime Minister's guidance were unable to decide it, and one reason he gave was that we have not the necessary information. He said many months would be required to

  2293
  elapse before that information could be got together. If that is true, it is a sad reflection upon the Board of Trade. It has been said in the course of this Debate that the Government has seriously prejudiced the situation by its delay in introducing this measure, and a like statement is true in regard to the Amendment before the Committee. The Board of Trade has a Labour Department, and it would have been the easiest matter in the world when it was known this conflict was going to take place for the Board of Trade to have instructed its Labour Department to get together all the facts and figures available. The Government would then have been in a position to come to some decision which it is difficult for them to come to in the absence of information. The Schedule does not set up any new and fresh standards. That is one point the Committee must bear in mind. It is not for me to say whether the figures in the Schedule are absolutely correct or not, but there can be no dispute about the intention of the Schedule. It is that where a rate of wages has been agreed upon between the miners and the mine owners every workman who performs a day's work shall be guaranteed that wage. This dispute had its origin in connection with a strike in my own Constituency. In November, 1910, a strike took place there on this very question. It was then proved by actual figures which were not challenged that whilst the rate of pay should have been about 6s. 9d. at that time more than half the men were receiving less than 4s. through causes over which they themselves had no control. There were numbers of them receiving from 2s. to 3s. a day, and there were one or two cases where after a collier had worked for a full fortnight he was actually 1s. 8d. in debt to his employer.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: What colliery was that?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The Aberavon Colliery, in the Aberdare Valley. It was an authorised strike, and the men were defeated. The agitation has been growing from then to now all over the country. Similar cases have been found in every district, until now it has culminated into the strike which is paralysing the trade of the country. The miners ask the House of Commons to put this Schedule into the Bill, which has been brought before the House without them asking for it, in order that this question of the minimum wage
  2294
  shall be taken out of the region of possible dispute in the future. The one way to do that is to insert the Schedule which has been moved. The same outcry in regard to profits and the closing of collieries was raised in 1893, when the Miners' Federation succeeded in fixing what was then thought to be a minimum wage. Since then the wages of colliers have been steadier than before, and the profits of the mine owners have been greater during those seventeen years than they have ever been in any corresponding period of the history of the coal trade. I hope therefore the House of Commons will not be frightened by the statement that the Schedule would mean the closing of mines, the throwing of men out of employment, or even appreciably reducing the profits of the owners. The one thing we seek is to guarantee that every workman who performs a day's work underground shall be paid for that work. A late Member of this House, in a letter to the "Times" the other day—it has since been reproduced in pamphlet form—has made a statement which neither does credit to his ability nor enhances his reputation for honour and fair play. He wants to make it clear this is a Syndicalist strike with a political motive. The cause of the strike is the absence of the Schedule rates which this House is now discussing. It has nothing whatever to do with politics. Syndicalists are anti-Parliamentarians. They are Anarchists, and opposed to political action. Therefore, if the Syndicalists have forced the strike upon the miners of the country, it is because of their anti-political opinions, and not because of their political opinions.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Anti-Parliamentarian?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I am not going to be drawn into a discussion. They are anti-political in the sense that they are anti-Parliamentarians, and therefore the statement is not correct. Since the House and the Government have refused to accept the minimised demands contained in the last Amendment, there is all the more reason why the Amendment now before the House should be considered seriously and forced, as I hope it will be, to a Division.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I should like to support the Amendment. The Committee will remember that one hon. Member on the opposite side referred to the blackmailing methods of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Enoch Edwards). It is very encouraging to note that the last speaker

  2295
  on the other side of the House went out of his way to pay a tribute to the honesty of the hon. Member for Hanley. The mere fact that this Amendment has been moved by that hon. Member is in itself a guarantee of its moderation and of the fact that it is acceptable among the miners of the country. I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) that this is not in any way a political movement. I fully support the miners in their desire to secure this Schedule. They are based upon a twofold principle. First of all, there is the discrimination between one district and another and between one colliery and another. They take cognisance of the differences between one district and another, and I think it is exceedingly fair in that way. Then they are also based upon a recognition of the different rates that exist in different parts of the country. If they had brought in one minimum wage, one could have understood how hard and harshly it would have acted upon certain districts and certain collieries; but the rates vary as much as from 4s. 11d. to 7s. 6d. We have been told again and again that this Bill does not secure finality in this great struggle. I venture to say the one way to secure finality is to give legislative enactment to these Schedules. If we were to adopt these Schedules it would be many a long year before this country were plunged into another strike. They are based upon the principles of moderation and justice. They take cognisance of the various conditions prevailing in different parts of the country, and for that reason, representing as I do men of moderate opinions who are anxious to see the struggle brought to an end, I very heartily support the Amendment.
  Sir CLIFFORD CORY: The last speaker commended the Schedule to the favour of the House on the ground that it differentiates between district and district. That is not sufficient, inasmuch as, to take South Wales for example, there are different rates not only in different districts but in different collieries in each district, and even in different seams in each colliery. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) and the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) spoke very lightly of closing old or small collieries on the ground that if they were closed it would not make much difference to the community at large, because the men, employed in them would find their
  2296
  way to newer collieries in other districts. That may be all very well for the proprietors and workmen in good collieries, but it would not at all commend itself to the workmen in these old collieries anymore than to the proprietors of them. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division said the output of the collieries in the Forest of Dean was not more than one large colliery in the Midlands.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I excluded the Forest of Dean and the Bristol coalfields as not worth consideration.
  Sir C. CORY: The hon. Member said: "What does it matter if the collieries in the Forest of Dean are closed? Their output is not greater than a big colliery in another district, and it would not therefore make much difference if they were closed." It would make a great deal of difference to the people in the Forest of Dean. It would make a great deal of difference to the miners there. The hon. Member talks lightly about miners moving from one district to another. I have had experience of that, and I know how difficult it is to get them to settle in a new district. I know of one instance where they were moved to another district where the wages were higher, but in a few years the families found their way back to the place from which they came because, although the wages were lower, they were attached to that district and all their friends were there. Is it not very hard on these men, if they desire to live in a particular district, and are even willing, in order to do so, to take less wages, that they should be forced to go to some other district, although the wages may be higher, simply because the collieries are closed in their own districts? Of course, we know that now-a-days owners are deemed to be the last people to be considered, but I would suggest that it is equally hard on the proprietors of small collieries. They are not the only people to be considered; there are the interests of the general community to be borne in mind; the interests of the small tradesman, the mason and the carpenter, and others who obtain their living, and who, undoubtedly, by the closing of these small collieries, would suffer. Seven shillings and sixpence, of course, is not a very high minimum. There are mines where the wages range from 6s. 1d. to 16s., and if the minimum were put at 7s. 6d. it is not likely that the man who is now content to earn 6s. 1d. would bother himself

  2297
  to earn any more; he would not be inclined to make bigger efforts like the man who is getting 16s.
  The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield contended that mines and railways ought to be brought under State control. But why should not steamers be treated in the same way? Shipping is quite as important to this country as either the colliery or the railway. If your steamers are stopped or hung up, what about the food supply of this country? Shipping is just as important an industry as either mines or railways. The hon. Member for Hanley said that very often, at the end of the week, a man found he had only 25s., 18s., or even 15s. to draw. But he did not tell us how many days such a man had worked, and it makes all the difference whether he works one day a week or five or six days. It is easy to say he only gets 15s., but even that would not be a bad wage if he only worked one day for it. I remember a case in South Glamorganshire where a man took the owners into Court. He was dissatisfied with the allowance made to him on account of his fortnight's pay. But it turned out that he had only worked four days in the fortnight. In the next place, it had been agreed by the Joint Conciliation Board that the holidays should extend three days over the holiday period. Instead of that the man took eight days' holiday and when he came back he found that his working place had practically fallen in, and the injury had to be repaired before he could earn any wages. He was, consequently, discontented, but the cause of his discontent was brought about entirely by his own conduct. Of course he lost his case in the Court. But that is only a sample of the way in which misrepresentations are placed before this House. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil spoke of a case in a Welsh colliery where, at the end of a fortnight, a man, instead of receiving wages, had to pay his boy 1s. 6d.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going back to the Second Reading stage, whereas we are discussing the applicability on the Second Schedule.
  Sir C. CORY: I was replying to a speech made on this very Second Schedule. If statements are made it is surely only fair that an opportunity should be given to reply to them.
  The CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Baronet was replying to a speech delivered yesterday.
  Sir C. CORY: Oh, no.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I mention that the case referred to was one in which a miner had to employ a boy, and, at the end of the day, he had to borrow 1s. 6d. with which to pay him, having earned nothing himself.
  Sir C. CORY: My experience is this: It has been laid down that if any man is dissatisfied with the allowance made by the manager, he shall be at liberty to apply to the general manager or agent. But during the large number of years in which I have had experience, there has never been one appeal against the allowance made by the owner or general manager. In South Wales the scarcity of men is such that managers are not likely to drive hard bargains. They know a good workman when they have him, and they are also perfectly well aware that if he gives notice he will probably be received by a neighbouring colliery with open arms. In certain quarters of this House it apparently is considered right to tear up agreements entered into deliberately and after long negotiations, and these Schedules will involve the absolute tearing up of agreements in South Wales. Practically 50 per cent, of the men underground are paid a fixed day's wage, with a varying percentage according to the price list; some of them get 16¼ per cent, over and above the 35 per cent, in addition to the fixed day wage. Men working on piece-work have a standard minimum rate plus the standard of 35 per cent., with a varying percentage over and above that. Therefore it is desirable, from my point of view, that these Schedules should be put into the Bill.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: I am not at all sure what the effect of putting these Schedules into this Bill will be. It is impossible to say if they will involve an increase in prices, and, until we know that, one cannot say whether certain collieries would be obliged to shut down. With reference to remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr, I was surprised to hear that any colliery in the land pays wages such as those to which he has referred. Whoever is responsible for that state of things should be condemned. I am not one of those who attribute evil motives to others. I consider that many of those who are trying to put these Schedules into the Bill are actuated by the same motives as those by which I am myself actuated. As far as collieries in the county of Durham are concerned, I am perfectly certain that no wages of the kind which have been suggested are paid. If a miner works five

  2299
  days in the week he certainly is able to earn a living wage, a wage which compares favourably with that paid to men working in other industries requiring an equal amount of skill and involving the same amount of danger. What I would point out to the Committee is that this Bill refers not only to coal mines but to ironstone mines as well. That is a very important fact. We ought to take into consideration the fact that the iron and steel trades are dependent in every case on the price of coal. I do not know what hon Members think as to what will be the increase in the price in coal if these Schedules are placed in the Bill. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the increase would be very considerable, that the diminution of the output in many districts would be considerable, and that therefore the increase in the price to the consumer would be considerable. Supposing that the increase in the price is 1s. a ton. That would be 2s. per ton on iron, because it takes twenty-two hundredweight of coke to make a ton of iron, and thirty-two hundredweight of coal to make a ton of coke, so that an increase in the price of coal of 1s. per ton would actually be 3s. in the case of steel. In the iron and steel trade competition is very keen, and we ought to consider what effect a rate like this would have upon the steel trade. I should like to see all miners receiving not less than 10s. a day, but it cannot be done at the present moment. We must consider what the general effect of our action may be when we are trying to arrange the wages of any particular class. When we consider the whole interests of the country I am convinced that, although mining work in many respects is dangerous, yet, if we are going to place on our Statute Book a Bill for a minimum wage, with a Schedule such as this, we ought to consider the trades that require a minimum wage much more than this particular trade.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: The question we are discussing now is one that has been before the districts for a long time, and the Schedule rates that are before us are practically what are in existence at the present time. I am surprised to hear from any quarter of the Committee that these rates are going to ruin collieries. If you take my own county, the scheduled rates for that are 7s. 1½d. for one part of the district, and 7s. 6d. for the other part of the district. Those rates have been paid for
  2300
  years. I have been asked to explain to the Committee the exact operation of the working of those rates. I have worked in a pit for twenty years, and I know something of the working of the mines. Supposing I am a contractor, and am getting coal at so much per ton, and that so much per ton brings me in a certain wage, but I am called out to do different work for the company. They may select me as a man to do some work on the roads. There may be a difficult question of timbering, and they ask me to go out to see to this timbering. The company pay me 7s. 6d. for day work, or if I am on the other side of the district they pay me 7s. 1½d. a day, because I am recognised as an efficient workman. But the man who attends on me, who carries my timber, or who supplies me with the material necessary for repairing, gets not 7s. 6d., but, in some cases, 6s., and in others 6s. 6d. Now we are asking for the most skilled workman in the mine, the man who is proficient in everything he touches in the mine, exactly what he has been given before.
  I am going to make a revelation to the Committee. There is a considerable number of employers in this country who come into conversation with their workmen, and I am glad to give my praise to those employers. The largest company we have in Derbyshire, which employs 7,000 men is paying the minimum wage to-day, which was agreed to and signed by my association and by the manager of that company. What is it? If any man on Friday night—they pay on Friday night—if any contractor has not his 7s. 6d. per day for that week he is not allowed to leave the colliery till he takes the money out of the office. The same thing is in operation in the collieries in Derbyshire belonging to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Arthur Markham). The question of malingering has boon raised. I have asked the general manager of the largest firm we have if he has any complaint to make about malingering, and, although this Schedule has been in operation for a considerable time, he has not a single case to give of a man who has been guilty of malingering. It is an insult upon our miners to say that they will malinger, or shirk their duty, or refuse to perform a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.
  Let us get to the truth of the matter. I charge the unrest, and I charge this strike, upon the bad management of mines, and I am going to give a case for which I will give chapter and verse. We have had so

  2301
  much theorising about the question that it is time we came down to the practical thing, and that somebody should speak who understands the question from the workmen's standpoint. The hon. Member behind me (Sir Clifford Cory) spoke from the employers' standpoint and the capitalists' standpoint, but that is not a practical standpoint, and it does not deal with the workman's position in the matter. Let me give a case. At one colliery, employing 600 men, for two years there was a dispute, verging on a stoppage. It was in a fine part of the country, with a fine class of men, well-built and of good physique, and I could not understand it. I was called to that colliery to go into the matter. I found that there were plenty of tubs coming out of the pit, and that the value of these tubs was sufficient to give every contractor in that pit 9s. a day, and to give every loader in that pit 7s. a day, and yet there were some men going home with 12s., and others with 4s. or 5s. The manager's attention was called to it, and he asked for a report as to how many tubs a day it would take to give these men their wages, and he was told it would take so many. He then said he would see that it was put in the price list, that the tubs were fairly distributed, and, in order that there should not be a complaint, that every facility should be given. From that day to this, although it is two and a half years ago, there has not been a single complaint in this colliery. The fact is the management was at fault. They rushed the tubs to the stall nearest the shaft, and some men did not get a day's wage, while there were others getting more than a day's wage. We want the minimum wage to stop bad management, and I believe when the managers realise that they have a minimum wage to pay, whether the men get the tubs or not, whether they have bad roads or bad roofs, they will take care that the tubs are more equally distributed, or they will shift the managers, because they will say, "Here is a man who has 12s. a day whose stall is no better than a man who is getting 4s. a day. Tell me how it is that the pit is managed like that?" If they have the minimum to pay, they will see that they have a management and that facilities are properly given to the men to earn their living. If the management will look to these things, while 75 per cent. of the men to-day get more than the minimum by piece-work that figure will go up to 90 per cent., and we should have very little
  2302
  cause of complaint. Then there is the overcrowding of mines. Sometimes five or six men are sent to a stall where there ought only to be four, and at the same time they have to supply them with tubs to make up the day's wage. I am glad to say there are managers and managers, and there are collieries and collieries, but the good collieries and the good managers are tabooed by the miners because of the bad managers. These are not the maximum wages. The men who work by piecework get much more than this. When men are asked to be in the pit the whole of the time and are willing to perform a day's work, given the facilities, and are willing, to earn a day's wage, if these facilities are not given through bad management or from causes over which they have no control, whoever employs these men has the right to see that they have an honest day's wage.
  Mr. BOOTH: I should be very loth to say anything which would bring me into collision with the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Markham) as an authority. At the same time, I hope he will forgive me if I say there are some parts of the coalfields with which he is not so well acquainted as I am. He has not favoured the House with any reason why there is an item of 4s. 11d. in one part of the Schedule and 7s. 6d. in another. Members who have supported the Schedule have almost entirely taken the humanitarian standpoint. They want a man when he goes into the mine to be assured of a very definite wage. I want to ask them, if they take that standpoint, how they can justify asking for 4s. 11d. in Somerset and in Bristol? What is the explanation of that figure?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: They are the existing rates.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. BOOTH: There are some things that the hon. Gentleman has to be instructed upon. I admit it requires a great amount of courage to differ from him, but I hope I possess it. If the answer is that these are the existing rates, I feel it my duty to give it a flat denial. I have been asked to put forward the case of the West Yorkshire mines, and I am very sorry that there are no miners' representatives from the Yorkshire district present. I express that regret the more fervently, because I do not think there is any good owner or good coal manager in Yorkshire who is not deeply indebted to the Miners'

  2303
  Association of Barnsley. If this Bill and this Schedule have any chance whatever of being a success in our district we must look forward to friendship from Barnsley, the Miners' Association, rather than from owners like the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Markham). If he takes that view he would be liable to do great injustice to the men I am now speaking for. The rate paid is not 7s. 6d., the rate at the head of this Schedule. I was interviewed yesterday by the managers of a colliery, some of whose workmen live in my Constituency and many of whose colliers live in the village where I reside, in the Osgoldcross Division, on the banks of a very famous river. I have taken the opportunity of verifying as well as I could the views of the workmen and the views of that manager. The manager assures me that the only minimum rate at which he could keep his pit open, is 5s. 6d. I am not here to vouch for these figures. I know they are given by a public man who supplies figures to the board of guardians in my Constituency regularly with regard to the wages of his workpeople in answer to inquiries, and I should not at all wish to challenge his statement. What I know is that in many collieries in West Yorkshire the average is between 6s. and 6s. 6d. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Markham) to say that the colliers should quit that district and go to Doncaster, where he is sinking some new pits. Many of these thrifty miners are purchasing their houses through building societies and co-operative societies, and occasionally their womenfolk are working at the textile mills in the immediate neighbourhood, and a man does not wish to go and work at these collieries in Doncaster where there is no employment for his girls. There are considerations of that kind, and I know it is a big question how far female labour is keeping down the wages of men. I know all the evils which result but I am here to tell the House the facts of the situation, because it is quite evident that some of the speakers who claim to speak for the mining industry are entirely ignorant of them.
  I am not putting my claim on behalf of these owners. They tell me there is a matter of about forty coal mines, and from 13,000 to 15,000 workpeople who would be actually affected if this Schedule were adopted. I am not here to condemn
  2304
  the Schedule, but I ask those who advocate it how they can justify a Schedule of 7s. 6d. for West Yorkshire, where I he average rate is 5s. or 6s., without imposing it upon the Forest of Dean and Somerset. I do not admit that the cost of living can account for the difference between 4s. 11d. and 7s. 6d. I am not here to plead for a victory for one side over the other, but rather to plead that these questions can only be determined in consultation on the spot. I have never been one to take the interests of the masters against the trade unions in my life, and I have not joined any masters' federation, and I think I am perfectly clear upon all these points. I am here to say that if these matters are left to be settled between our colliery and the Miners' Association at Barnsley—I am not anxious whether an independent chairman is there, at all—an arrangement would be come to, but I say it would not be proper to impose blindly a rate on the district which is not quite applicable. A rate which would be applicable to Doncaster would not be quite applicable to the thin seams which are being worked in West Yorkshire of one foot ten inches. It is not on account of any sentimental ground or the desirability of paying a wage to provide bread and butter that I take this view. Their own officials admit that the thickness of the seam and the depth of the mine affects the question of the rate to be paid. I am not afraid of having all the considerations put on the table at a joint meeting, provided that there are not too many owners present who have the disposition of the hon. Member for Mansfield. I have the highest respect for the hon. Member's ability and politics, but when I hear another owner openly advocate that the old mines should be closed because he wants labour in Doncaster. I hope, friend as he is, he will excuse rue if I am obliged to tell the House the truth. I am quite aware that the Yorkshire Federation and others have agreed to the rates in the Schedule. I also know that the miners' agents at Barnsley think that 7s. to 7s. 6d., which would be a proper rate in some districts, would be inapplicable if certain mines in Yorkshire are to exist at all. What I am advocating is that the men themselves at these collieries shall have the choice of saying whether they will continue, and what they think a fair minimum rate at a colliery. I am not at all afraid to meet our own men. I think a scheme could be devised. Mines with thin seams, a great deal of dirty coal, and a great many

  2305
  faults, are entitled to have their position investigated on the spot. The men are entitled to know the difficulties of the masters, so that in joint conference they may decide what the rate should be.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: As the hon. Member made an attack upon me I wish to reply to him. He said that I wanted to close mines in West Yorkshire in order to get labour at Doncaster. I have not the slightest intention of taking any miners from Yorkshire to Doncaster. The men are coming out of my own Constituency. I told the House last night that I have advocated a minimum wage for the last ten years. I have carried out that principle in the mines with which I am connected, and it is not true to say that I am advocating certain principles which are contrary to those which I have carried out for years past. The hon. Member who made the statement knew it to be without any foundation.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not think I made any charge. I was referring to the statement the hon. Member made earlier in the Debate, that naturally a number of old mines would close because the labour of the miners would be wanted in the new ones.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If the hon. Member had confined his remarks to the statement he now makes I should not have risen, but he said I wanted to bring labour from Yorkshire to Doncaster. That statement is untrue, and he knows it is untrue.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it in order for one hon. Member to accuse another of making a statement which he knows to be untrue?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it in order for one hon. Member to make a charge against another of dishonesty?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I understood that the hon. Baronet was simply replying to some suggestion made by the hon. Member for Pontefract to the effect that his business arrangements were matters of interest to him. I heard no words which called for my intervention.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On the point of Order. No doubt we have some sympathy with the hon. Baronet, if I may be permitted to say so, in the language he used. No doubt an hon. Member is entitled to repudiate any charge brought against him, but what your ruling is
  2306
  desired upon is whether in repudiating a charge he is entitled to charge another hon. Member with knowingly making an untrue statement. The words which the hon. Member for Mansfield used were that the hon. Member for Pontefract had made a statement which was untrue, and which he knew to be untrue. I submit to you that while he has a perfect right to say that the statement was unfounded, he had no right to say the hon. Member knew it was untrue.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I am quite willing to withdraw it. I did not intend myself to say that the hon. Member knew that the statement is quite untrue. As to the other points raised, let me say that this is no new charge. I do not think it is fair of the Labour party to press the Schedule to a Division. If they were the party in power to-day and had to deal with a trade dispute, they could not come here and ask the House of Commons to accept without investigation certain schedules of rates when the Government had no knowledge whether the figures were correct or incorrect. I think the schedule rates are as low as they ought to be. My opinion is that no man should work in a mine unless he is paid 8s. a day. That is not the question before the House, and I think the Labour party are ill-advised in pressing the Amendment to a Division. I think that any self-respecting man in the House realises the absolute impracticability of the suggestion.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL: As one of the representatives of the workmen in Yorkshire, I cannot sit by and allow the statement which the hon. Member for Pontefract made to go by default, knowing something of the other side of the question. I am not going to dispute that my hon. Friend knows something of his side, but I claim to know something of the other side, and I cannot accept the statement that in the thin seams in the western portion of Yorkshire the miners are only getting the wages he has quoted. I have in my hands a document which probably I shall use later on on another Amendment, and which would clearly prove to the House that the great bulk of the owners of thin seams in the western portion of the county pay a minimum now of 7s. 6d. per day. The great majority of the thin seams pay 7s. 6d. per day, and a greater number of the collieries in that particular county pay 7s. 6d. than pay any other figure. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give the names of collieries

  2307
  that pay as low as 5s. 6d., which he has quoted as a figure to the Committee this afternoon. There it not a single price list in existence, agreed to between the two parties in the western portion of our county which has a less rate, plus 50 per cent. than 4s. 4d. per ton.
  Mr. BOOTH: What I said was that they could not work at a greater minimum than 5s. 6d.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL: They are actually paid more at this moment, and
  when they are paying a higher rate of wages it is useless for the hon. Member to say that someone has told him he cannot work his collieries at a profit if he has to pay a greater minimum than 5s. 6d. He must have been doing that for years, and would have continued doing it, and would be doing it to-day but for the strike. I shall have something to say about dividing the districts later on.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 367.

  Division No. 49.]

  AYES.

  [5.19 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sutton, John E.

  Barnes, George N.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Brace, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lansbury, George

  Wadsworth, John

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Martin, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wardle, G. J.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Morrell, Philip

  Watt, Henry A.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  O'Grady, James

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Fenwick, Ft. Hon. Charles

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richards, Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Pointer.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Snowden, Philip

  Hodge, John

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Clough, William

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Bird, Alfred

  Clyde, James Avon

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Coates, Major sir Edward Feetham

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Black, Arthur W.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Boscawen, Sir Arhur S. T. Griffith-

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Boyton, James

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Armitage, Robert

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bryce, John Anan

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Daziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, David (Montgomery)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Butcher, John George

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Dawes, J. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cameron, Robert

  De Forest, Baron

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Denman, Rt. Hon. R. D.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Campion, W. R.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Barnston, Harry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Cassel, Felix

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Doughty, Sir George

  Barton, William

  Cator, John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bathurst, Hon. Alien B. (GIouc, E.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cave, George

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Beale, William Phipson

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Falconer, J.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Fell, Arthur

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Reddy, M.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lawson, sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  France, G. A.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Rothschild, Lonel de

  Furness, Stephen

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lanes, Darwen)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  M'Callum, John M.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas. Bridgeton)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Grant, James Augustus

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

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Shortt, Edward

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Manfieid, Harry

  Smith, Rt, Hon. F. E. (Llv'rp'l, Walton)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Masterman, C. F, G.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanier, Beville

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Hall, Marshall, (E. Toxteth)

  Middlebrook, William

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Mildrnay, Francis Bingham

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Mills, Hon, Charles Thomas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Munro, Robert

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Havelock-Alan, Sir Henry

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Newman, John R. P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Won., S.)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles. N. (Doncaster)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Nuttall, Harry

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hinds, John

  Ogden, Fred

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

  Webb, H.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman, H. M.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Hunt, Rowland

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

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

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Winterton, Earl

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge))

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Kemp, Sir George

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  King, J.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Younger, Sir George

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S. Molton)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "regularity" ["with respect to the regularity,"] to insert the word "amount."
  I think the Government will see that in this case we do require a little more definition in connection with this very important matter, namely, the exclusion of those who do not really earn the minimum wage. There is no point which has been more discussed, and it is one on which there has been agreement to a great extent in those districts where safeguards have really been considered. If the federated area terms are referred to—and I know the Government have them in their possession—it will be seen they are framed on the principle that the output is to be equally considered. I need only refer to two speeches delivered in this House yesterday. The Prime Minister, in describing the demand that was made, said:—
  "I have never met any kind of denial or repudiation or qualification on the part of the representatives of the miners, that if they were to have a minimum wage the owners should have adequate security for proper output and efficiency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1912, col. 2083.]
  Therefore he acknowledged that besides efficiency you must have something directed towards the amount of output. The Foreign Secretary, on the same subject, said:—
  "The owners who accept the principle, asked that there shall be safeguards to secure that if the principle of the minimum wage is conceded, there remained a due incentive to each miner to give an adequate output for the minimum wage which he is bound to receive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1912, col. 2174.]
  Then the right hon. Gentleman added that the men had never denied this, and that it was necessary to have a safeguard as to output. The word "efficiency" does not really, as was shown by the Prime Minister himself, cover the whole matter, and it is the fear of the owners that this minimum wage without adequate safeguards might reduce the amount of output to such an extent as to cause a very great loss to them. Output, and not merely efficiency, therefore, is a thing to be considered in reference to providing these safeguards, which will bar a particular man from receiving the minimum wage if he does not earn it. The two points taken by the owners have been regularity of work, and the amount of output in certain defined periods. These are the two points in the federated area about which there is practically no dispute. The Government have themselves introduced
  2312
  the word "efficiency," which we cannot regard as accurate or covering what we desire. Therefore m framing instructions to the District Boards I think it is very desirable that we should have this special point alluded to, namely, the amount of output, in order that they may give it full and due consideration. The words are not sufficient in the Bill as it stands, and I do hope the Government will add this word which I propose, and which is entirely in accordance with the utterances of the Prime Minister and of others who have spoken on the matter.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am thoroughly in accord with the hon. Gentleman's object, and the Government from the beginning have said that the minimum wage should always be accompanied with adequate safeguards to the owners. There has been no difference of opinion from the beginning of our discussions on either side, and the matter has been put several times, as my hon. Friend knows, to the conferences of the men. It is admitted that the owners are entitled to sufficient and adequate safeguards in connection with the minimum wage. Therefore there is no difference of opinion in any quarter of the House in regard to the object we have in view. I can assure the hon. Member that this matter was very carefully considered in drafting the Bill, and, in our opinion, the word efficiency covers the object which he has especially in view—namely, the question of output and the particular amount. I am not sure that by putting in special words you would not limit instead of extending the provision. The words were considered very carefully, because there is no difference of opinion between us in the object we have in view. We believe, on the whole, the words in the Bill really carry out the objects he has in view, and that the words of the Amendment are not necessary.
  Mr. L. HARDY: As to the statement that the word "efficiency" covers the "amount." The workman may be very efficient in point of character, and I do not desire in any way to doubt that all the miners are absolutely efficient; but unless the Board gets some idea as to efficiency, I do not see how they will be able to arrive at the particular point which the right hon. Gentleman himself acknowledges he desired to cover in the wording of the Bill. I still would urge the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he cannot introduce some words.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will reconsider his position. I very much doubt whether the words in the Bill do cover the question of amount. The question is how much coal is got—that is the essential point. Why not put in the word "amount" to make it as clear as you can. That is not open to the objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman, that the putting in of words sometimes leads to confusion and obscurity. It would make the thing absolutely clear, and at present, I confess, I think it is doubtful.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: Hon. Members opposite who have no experience of mines cannot realise what the actual facts are. The amount of coal depends on a thousand and one things, such as the amount of tubs, the quality of the roof, whether there is water in the roof, whether the roads are good or bad. To put "amount" in would be to rob this Clause of all its value and meaning. That is what we get from men who do not understand this question at all. If some men would go and work a week in a mine they would understand it, but they do not now. If the coal is 6 ft. thick on a Tuesday and only 2 ft. on a Friday, is the amount going to be common to every day? It is this practical knowledge which brings us into close quarters with the other side, and it is because we understand this question that we say the words proposed would be very misleading. I suggest the Amendment, which I have on the Paper, subsequently to insert, instead of "regularity and efficiency," the words "regular performance."
  Mr. CASSEL: The hon. Member, I admit, has great knowledge in connection with the working of mines to which we cannot lay claim, but I am not sure that he has read Sub-section (2) of this Clause, because that makes it clear that a workman only forfeits the right to a minimum wage if he does not comply with those conditions,
  "except in cases where failure to comply with the conditions is due to some cause over which he has no control."
  The difficulty of the tubs and the physical difficulties would be covered by those words. The President of the Board of Trade said that he thought the word "amount" was included in the words "efficiency and regularity"—or, at all events, he intended that it should. We
  2314
  start with that and we have it, on the authority of the late Attorney-General, that those words do not include amount. If the President of the Board of Trade intends they should, and if the right hon. Gentleman, who is able to speak with so much authority, says he considers that doubtful, I cannot see what objection the Government can have to words giving effect to their intention. Surely it is in accordance with what is stated to be the views of the miners themselves that there should be safeguards, both as to regularity and efficiency and as to amount.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I do not think that there really is any serious question as to the meaning of these words. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews University (Sir R. Finlay) stated that at least they were doubtful. At first sight they may appear to him not to be quite clear, but I can assure him, speaking as one who has considered them with very great care, I am satisfied they do cover amount, and that the conditions which have to be laid down by the Board with respect to regularity and efficiency of work must have included conditions which will apply equally to amount. It is one of the elements to be considered. You cannot possibly lay down all the elements to be considered, and there is always the danger that if you name one you may exclude others. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. We mean the same thing; we have carefully considered the mutter; and with the assistance of those who are used to drafting we have come to the conclusion that these words really meet the point, and that there can be no doubt in the minds of the Joint District Boards that they must lay down conditions applying both to amount and other matters which would come within the words "regularity and efficiency." With reference to the insertion of the words "regular performance," the same observations would apply. I quite agree with what my hon. Friend said, but we have covered it by the words in the Bill, and he need have no anxiety on the point.
  Mr. L. HARDY: The Government have answered my question to some extent; they have shown that they have given great consideration to the matter, and that, so far as they are concerned, they have determined that my object is

  2315
  obtained by their words. I do not altogether agree with them, but in my anxiety to get on with business I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "and" ["regularity and efficiency"], and insert instead thereof the word "or."
  As the Clause reads now, in order that a workman may forfeit his right to a minimum wage he will have to fail to comply with the conditions in respect of both the regularity and the efficiency of his work. A man might be very regular, but wholly inefficient, or very efficient and wholly irregular, and yet he would not come within the exception. It is perfectly clear from the Prime Minister's statement that it is intended that a man who is either irregular or inefficient in his work should not be entitled to the minimum wage—
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "wages" ["and any agreement for the payment of wages"], insert the words "in so far as it is."—[Mr. A. Stanley.]
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "provide, as respects the district to which they apply, for the exclusion from the right to wages at the minimum rate of aged and infirm workmen, and shall."
  This is a point of some importance, and if my apprehensions are correct it is a matter into which I hope the Committee will look very carefully indeed. There has been an understanding all along between the miners' representatives and the owners as to the exclusion of aged and infirm workmen, but that understanding I take it has not been that there shall not be any kind of minimum wage for these men set up by the District Boards. If the Government are under the impression that that was the understanding, I am afraid they are mistaken. What the miners and the owners agreed was that the aged and infirm workmen should be exempt from the general minimum as laid down in the general Schedule. It must be obvious that if you allow the aged and infirm workmen to be without any minimum at all you will absolutely defeat the whole object of the Bill. What will happen in practice is that
  2316
  the management will put the workmen classed as aged and infirm into the abnormal places, and you will come back to the position where you will have in the abnormal places aged and infirm workmen, or workmen without a minimum. Thus the whole object of the agitation to get a minimum rate in obnormal places may be defeated if you have a class of workmen without a minimum at all. The question whether these aged and infirm workmen are intended by the drafting of the Bill to be without a minimum is one in regard to which I want the Government to give a very clear answer.

  Another practical difficulty is, who is to decide whether an individual workman is aged and infirm? What is to make him aged and infirm? I know an old friend of mine who, because he suffers from miner's asthma, took three hours to get to the pit in the morning and another three hours to get home at night, but while at work in the stall he could do as much as any other two men in the pit, who were much younger and apparently much healthier. Is a man smitten with chronic asthma to be put down as infirm? If you said that an aged and infirm workman was one declared to be such by the District Committee, that might be something; but you have not got that in the Bill. There is no provision defining what makes an aged and infirm workman, and I am afraid we shall get a considerable amount of litigation, unless it is made clear. I cannot see why it is necessary to exclude aged and infirm workmen unless you intend cutting them out from the minimum altogether. Why not leave the aged and infirm, like other special classes of workmen, to Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Clause 2? There, especially in Sub-section (4), power is given to the District Committee to draw up special minimum rates and special district rules in certain special circumstances. The argument from the point of view of the Government has been that all these details ought to be left to the District Boards. As I read this Clause, you are preventing the District Boards altogether from setting up a minimum scale for the aged workmen. You are telling them to draft district rules excluding the aged and infirm workmen, whoever they may be. It is for the purpose of being perfectly clear that this type of workman shall not be penalised and driven into the abnormal and dangerous places that I move my Amendment. I am personally acquainted with many men sixty years of age who, because of their

  2317
  particular skill, do more work and turn out more coal than many men of thirty or thirty-five years of age. Is a man of sixty to be classed as an aged and infirm workman? If so, you will be cutting out from the provisions of this Bill and from the security it is intended to afford some of the best and most responsible workmen whom we have in the districts of South Wales.
  Mr. BUXTON: There is no question as between owners and the representatives of the miners in regard to this point—that the aged and infirm might be defined to be outside the scope of the minimum wage.
  Mr. E. JONES: Of any minimum?
  Mr. BUXTON: Of the minimum wage; for the very good reason that if they were to be brought into the minimum wage fixed for the whole district it would lower the minimum for the rest of the workmen. My hon. Friend seems to think that these words exclude aged and infirm workmen altogether from the operation of the Bill. Sub-section (2) says that district rules shall be drawn up by District Committees with a view to defining what persons, and under what conditions those persons may be entitled to receive the minimum rate. There are already Conciliation Boards, composed of representatives of the owners and of the miners, to deal with this sort of thing, and these will draw up amongst themselves rules in regard to the aged and the infirm class. I think the hon. Member will recognise that we cannot have a minimum wage in regard to what are called the aged and the infirm workmen. Each case must be treated on its own merits. We cannot fix a definite minimum wage for a class of this sort. Each differs from the other. I quite believe, with the hon. Member, that some of those approaching sixty or more are very capable workmen. I should be very sorry to think that anyone approaching that age, or even above that age, was not capable of doing a fair day's work. The provision is that the District Council will give power to the boards to draw up rules providing for these cases by Conciliation Boards. I do not think, therefore, if those persons are excluded from the operation of the district minimum rates, that they will be in any way damnified or the worse for it.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I feel that these unhappy aged and infirm workmen are in danger, perhaps, of not receiving quite sufficient consideration from either side in
  2318
  this dispute. The danger appears to me that if you enact the minimum wage for all aged and infirm people the result would be that they will be dismissed the moment they fail to produce an output equal to the average.
  Mr. E. JONES: I want to leave it to the District Boards. They can draft the conditions with plenty of elasticity.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, no. I know the hon. Gentleman's proposal—namely, that they should be put into a special class in respect of the minimum wage. I will deal with that in a moment. What I want to say is that if they are in the ordinary class with the ordinary minimum wage it will really be destructive of their own interests. As to the argument for a special class, surely the President of the Board of Trade's answer to that is overwhelming. You cannot make a class of aged and infirm workmen. Each man differs from another man. One man will be able to do much more than another man, and will be worthy of a higher wage. If you had a special class you would be merely postponing a difficulty which exists in putting these into the general class. At the same time I do feel there is a, great difficulty in this matter. If you exclude the aged and infirm workmen by anything like a red tape rule you may do a great injury to them. You may put a man into the aged and infirm class because of a temporary difficulty, and then when the man so put gets over that temporary difficulty he will find that, or something of the kind, constantly against him whenever he applies for work elsewhere. There is, I think, great danger in labelling men as "aged and infirm," and I should ask the Government to consider this point very carefully.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Not "aged 'and' infirm," but "aged 'or' infirm."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think you will have to say "aged and infirm." Obviously you would excuse a man injured in an accident. A man meets an accident down the mine which renders him less fit, though not totally unfit, than before.
  6.0 P.M.
  What I want to press upon the Government is this: Is it impossible to devise words whereby a man shall not be put into the aged and infirm class except upon his own application? That seems to me to be the rule of justice. The man should apply to be put into this class, or to be taken out of

  2319
  the minimum wage class. I should like the Government to give me an assurance that they will consider that point.
  Mr. BUXTON: We will consider the matter.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I should like to have that point explained, because we have been given to understand repeatedly from the Government that this is a Bill in which one can trace the hand of three or four extreme experts, and tie provisions of this Bill, mainly with regard to machinery and the conditions under which the machinery is to act, have been framed mainly on the deliberations of the federated areas before the whole of the negotiations broke down.
  Mr. BUXTON: This Bill very carefully excludes the question of machinery, and as to how these safeguards "so-called." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I make use of that phrase because it has been in use. We cannot consider whether we can put district rules into the Bill or not.
  Mr. S. WALSH: It depends upon examination.
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not quite understand.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I mean the guiding line upon which masters and men had almost wholly agreed in the federated areas a few weeks ago, before the notices were finished. The guiding line of those deliberations are the main lines upon which this Bill is framed. That was admitted last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, it has been repeatedly stated. As we understand it, the employers and ourselves were practically in agreement upon one phrase, and that phrase was as to whom you exclude from the operation of this minimum. We said that one class would be the aged and the physically infirm. It is perfectly true that there are men in the mines who would be nominally termed aged, but they retain their physical powers to a very advanced age, and they are able to earn, because of their accumulated skill and experience, tremendously more than many of the younger men who go into the mines. Indeed, it is not merely a question of output. These men are engaged in the stonework of the mine—where there is no question of output at all. If they can earn above the minimum there is no reason to exclude them. It has always been a combined phrase. It was an inclusive phrase
  2320
  that we agreed to, and that the employers themselves accepted. Where the age is accompanied by physical infirmity, of course we do not ask the employers to pay a particular wage, because that would be unfair. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin spoke about a compensation scheme. That would not come in under this Section, because this does not override the law of workmen's compensation; such men are almost always put upon reduced earnings.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: This would override it.
  Mr. WALSH: The district rules would include that case.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think as the Bill is drafted the rules could include that case.
  Mr. WALSH: The case of men injured and in receipt of compensation would come under the provisions in this case. These men would be put in light employment; they are admittedly, while they are only partially recovered, not filly capable workmen, and of course arrangements would be made to deal with that class of case under the district rules. We had an agreement that the phrase should be an inclusive phrase. A man who might come under old age might be a very efficient workman, capable of earning much more than many a younger man. We cannot have the word "or" instead of "and."
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That particular point will arise later on on an. Amendment lower down on the Paper.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: It seems to me you want to exclude men either infirm from age or from any other cause, but it does not follow that age makes a man an infirm workman. I think the question of age introduces confusion.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Are you to have a, Board to examine every one of these men?
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: The District Board is what is proposed.
  Mr. CAVE: There may be cases where a man is too old to earn a full day's wage, yet could not be called infirm. Would not the right phrase be, "workmen partially disabled by age or infirmity." Some expression of that kind would cover the case. I take it the object is to cover the cases of men who for one reason or another are not fully capable.
  Mr. WALSH: The words as they stand are the best, and they were really agreed upon.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think there is any real difference of opinion, although I think there is something to be said for the words as used. We will consider these words very carefully to see if we can give effect to the point in the minds of the Committee. Of course the words used here are used expressly, because they formed the subject of discussion already; they are always used in that connection not as "aged and infirm," but as "aged or infirm." The mere fact of a man being aged does not, of course, make him infirm; a man may be infirm without being aged, and he may be aged and infirm. You cannot rule him out as totally incapacitated or disabled. There is a little difficulty in using the phrase "partially disabled" in every case. I think the proper way is to follow the policy we have adopted throughout. I cannot help thinking that this discussion has helped to confirm the view we formed, namely, that these matters ought to be dealt with by District Boards. Both sides are represented on these Boards and can make themselves heard. I think the suggestion of the Noble Lord is worthy of consideration, and it will be considered. I understand his point to be this: that although a man may come within the term "aged," as defined by the rules, he may nevertheless be capable of doing a good day's work, and, therefore, he ought not to be ruled out because he is superannuated, and that something ought to be introduced as showing that the District Boards need not rule a man out as aged, except on his own application, provided he is capable of doing an ordinary day's work. We will give careful consideration to that, supposing it is not sufficiently provided for by the words. If that is so, we will introduce proper words.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "aged" ["for the exclusion from the right to wages at the minimum rate of aged and infirm workmen"], to insert the word "workman."
  If the Government desire to clear this matter up upon Report stage, I will not press this Amendment, but I desire to make it quite clear that one thing which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Walsh)
  2322
  said might be misunderstood. After much deliberation in the federated areas, it was quite clear that two classes of men were considered in the form of the proposal, old men and infirm men showing there were two classes. The Amendment I am now moving is to add the word "workman" after "aged," in order to make it read "aged workman or infirm workman." Perhaps the Government will accept it now and consider on Report stage.
  Mr. BUXTON: My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has already promised he will give these words very careful consideration between now and Report stage.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the hon. Member (Mr. Walsh) will not be satisfied at all with the words as proposed, because it really makes the Bill read that an aged workman per se is to be excluded. I do not think that is the intention of the Government or the Committee; but, of course, if the Government are merely accepting it to give the matter further consideration, it is different.
  Mr. WALSH: My recollection is absolutely accurate in this regard that we answered the employers that old age and physical infirmity were to be regarded as one of the excluding classes. Unless that is accepted, or very carefully guarded, you will have two distinct classes of workmen excluded; we cannot have that at all. Of course the House can impose its will upon anybody, but we must guard against that; we do not want two distinct classes of workmen.
  Mr. BUXTON: There are two distinct classes of workmen, those incapacitated by age and those incapacitated by infirmity. It does not follow that they belong to the same class. The words there are "workmen incapacitated by age or infirmity." We have already said we will consider the matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WALSH: The point I wished to raise has already been mentioned, and it relates to the words "regularity and efficiency." These words are very deceptive terms. I know it is no good for me to inflict a lot of rather technical terms upon the House, but I hope the Government will guard against bringing into the arena anything which may be a technical offence against the regulations; but which

  2323
  ought not to interfere with a man's right to a minimum wage. I shall not move my Amendment.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "workmen" ["work to be performed by the workmen"], to insert the words "as, respects their right to wages at the minimum rate." I do not know what the Attorney-General thinks in regard to this Amendment, but I am afraid there is a danger that these district rules may apply to all the workmen at the colliery.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have carefully considered the hon. Member's Amendment, and am sure he need be under no Apprehension in regard to the point he raises.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: After that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir C. CORY: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "workmen" ["work to be performed by the workmen"], to insert the words "so as to provide adequate safeguards to protect the employers against abuse." The Prime Minister, in his proposals, laid down very strongly that he would only grant the minimum wage provided that employers had adequate safeguards. There is nothing in the Bill to provide those safeguards, and the words of my Amendment are the exact words in the proposals of the Government.
  Mr. BUXTON: There is no difference with regard to the object we have in view, although we do not think it necessary to put in the particular words which the hon. Baronet suggests. Words to meet this point ought to have been put in the declaratory part of the Clause. I am advised that to insert these words in regard to adequate safeguards might lead to a good deal of litigation. Under these circumstances I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
  Sir C. CORY: I really cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should object to putting in these words.
  Mr. J. WARD: A proposal to protect employers against abuse is a most curious provision, and it looks as though you were trying to protect the coal owners against the usual language used by colliers.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Although the Government may not be willing to put a provision of this sort in this particular place, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to put it in the declaratory part, and that could easily be done on Report. Just as the Government are prepared to put in a declaratory statement as to what should be considered in arriving at a, minimum wage by the District Boards, so I think it would be useful to have some indication of the object for which these rules are to be devised which at the present time are not contained in the Bill.
  Mr. BUXTON: It would be better to insert at the end of Sub-section (1) the words "for safeguarding the employer." I should be prepared to accept them on Report. The reason I am objecting to these words is that they are in too vague terms, and might give rise to legal proceedings.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: To insert those words at the end of line 25 ["and provide that"] would be quite out of place.
  Mr. NEWTON: Is there any appeal from the decision of the chairman of the District Board? If this proposal is likely to lead to litigation I hope we shall provide some other solution of this difficulty.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "and" ["by the workmen, and provide that a workman"], to insert the words "conditions under which employers may, in the case of a total or partial stoppage of work arising from causes over which the employer has no control, pay such proportion of wages at the minimum rate as may be prescribed by the district rules, and shall."
  This Amendment raises an important point, because there is nothing in the Bill which deals with this particular question. It is necessary that, there should be something in this measure directing the Board to give attention to this matter. The words at the end of this Sub-section deal with the question of a workman getting his wages if it is a cause over which he has no control. There are a number of causes over which he has no control and over which the master has also no control. This was very clearly laid down in those conditions which have been again and again referred to when the federated areas were endeavouring to arrive at a settlement of this question. It was

  2325
  admitted by the men there were occasions, such as a breakdown on the railway or of the machinery within the pit, when it was not fair to ask the owners to pay a full day's wage, and when the wage should only be paid for that part of the day it is possible for the men to have work. It is not a debatable question; it is a question which was agreed upon by both parties, but, under the Bill as it is framed, it does not seem to me there would be any possibility for the District Boards to consider it, and it is necessary to put in words to safeguard those cases where the owner has no control. I am not, of course, particular as to the actual framing of the words, but I do ask the Government that they should secure in the directions which go to the District Boards that this point of view shall not be omitted or forgotten.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I understand the Government are prepared to virtually accept the Amendment, but suggest other words which I think would practically carry out all the suggestions of my hon. Friend. I think some such words must be inserted in the Bill to make it workable at all. If they are not, it will be necessary that the workmen should be paid a whole day's wage according to the minimum wage. I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment in order that the words suggested by the Government may be inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I was with others for ten days in negotiation with the coal owners of the federated areas trying to master the details and come to a settlement in regard to safeguards. We came to an agreement which the Government have seen and which makes provision that if a pit knocked off at quarter-time the miners would only have a quarter day's minimum wage, and, if it knocked off at half-time, they would only have that portion of a day's minimum wage. The agreement made provision for all conceivable difficulties, and the representatives of the owners agreed we had been fair in assenting to these arrangements. There was a general consent on the part of the owners that we had done our level best to safeguard their interests against malingering, accidents, and every conceivable thing that might be objected to. I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It is too wide and might be applied very unjustly to the workmen who are seeking to get this minimum wage.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think there is any real difference of opinion between us upon this Amendment. The words actually upon the Paper I think go a little too far, but it is plain there must be some provision to protect the employers where there is a stoppage or a partial stoppage of work owing to some emergency. The words we suggest are based really upon the agreement which was arrived at with regard to this matter, and I think they will carry out the views of the Committee. They are these:—
  "With respect to the time for which a workman is to be paid in the event of any interruption of work due to an emergency, and shall."
  The effect of that will be that the District Boards will have to make rules to provide for the time workmen are to be paid when there is an interruption of work due to an emergency. I think these words really meet the exact point raised by my hon. Friend and also the substance of the point raised by the Noble Lord opposite.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: It must be an accompaniment that, if in the case of a shaft accident or some breakage of machinery the owners let the men know and they get out, there will be no claim for a minimum wage, but that they have no right to keep the men in the pit and only pay them a quarter day's minimum wage.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Certainly, that is what I should imagine the rules would provide.
  Mr. L. HARDY: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member has said with regard to the conduct of the miners in reference to this matter, and I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment in favour of the words suggested by the Attorney-General. Providing there are words in the Bill which point to this question of emergency, I think that would meet our views.
  Sir C. CORY: I quite agree the words are satisfactory if they are not limited to emergencies in the colliery.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is exactly for the purpose of making rules to cover these points that District Boards are proposed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "and," insert the words "with respect to the time for which a

  2327
  workman is to be paid in the event of any interruption of work due to an emergency, and shall."
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "control" ["some cause over which he has no control"], to insert the words "District Boards shall have authority to ratify and confirm individual agreements between employers and workmen as to what constitutes age and infirmity."
  I know the hon. Member who put down this Amendment (Mr. Grant) attaches great importance to it, and I agree with his object, but I am not quite sure this is the right place to indicate this machinery.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the object aimed at by the hon. Member is already provided for in the earlier part of the Bill, and there will, therefore, be no difficulty whatever in this matter.
  Mr. BOOTH: Under those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved, in Subsection (2), after the word "decision" ["provide for the decision"], to insert the words "at each mine in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules."
  This Amendment is intended to make it clear in what way the decision is to be arrived at. The first Clause says that "the District rules shall also provide for the decision of any question whether any workman in the district is a workman to whom the minimum rate of wage is applicable." It is not quite clear from the wording of that Clause whether the rules say that the decision is to be arrived at by the Joint District Board or not. My point is that, under the present system, where differences arise with the workmen, they are generally settled between the workman and his own officials, and if the workman and the officials cannot arrange the matter, then it is referred to the manager of the colliery and the miners' agent. It is very desirable that that practice should continue; in fact, it must continue for this reason. It will be quite impossible for the Joint District Board, to settle a number of the cases which may be brought before it. It would have neither the time nor the machinery with which to do it. These matters must in the first place be dealt with as between the miners and their own officials, and if they cannot settle them
  2328
  the manager of the mine and the miners' agent must try and do so. In the event of their failure, then it should come on to the District Board. It is in order to secure this end that I wish to insert the words:—
  "At each mine in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules."
  Unless some words of this kind are put in, it will be construed that these matters will have to be decided by the Board itself, and I repeat, it would be impossible for the Board to do that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my Amendment.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I agree to a great extent with what has fallen from the last speaker. The duty of the District Boards will be to fix the minimum, but there are a thousand and one things these Boards will never touch. There is the question of the price list. I do not suppose they will ever be called upon to deal with that. Their sole function will be to fix the minimum for the area under their jurisdiction, and, having done that, until a revision is applied for by either side their work is-finished, and the miners' agent will have to go to the office or into the pit to deal with disputes arising outside the minimum wage question. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield that the disputes which will arise in a colliery outside the minimum wage question can be dealt with in a fair spirit by both sides as at present, and that that system had better continue.
  Mr. BUXTON: My attention was drawn, by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the words in the Bill were not quite clear, and that, unless some Amendment was introduced, they might give rise to the idea, that the District Board itself was going to deal with the thousand and one disputes which might arise. The Bill has to deal with the question of the minimum. The District Board will lay down rules providing for the persons, or method, or body who shall deal with these matters, and I should think that in all probability—I am speaking without authority in this matter—they would do, as my hon. Friend suggests, and leave them to be decided as is now the ease at the mine itself, or, if necessary, by the Conciliation Committee. I do not think the words suggested by the hon. Member opposite are quite wide enough. I would propose to insert after the word "decision," the words "And make provision in respect of the persons by whom

  2329
  and the mode in which these and other matters shall be decided." This will, therefore, make it clear that the District Board will have full power to utilise the test machinery for settling these disputes.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite met my point. I say it is very desirable that these minor questions should be settled at the colliery itself between the colliery manager and the miner's agent, and that is why I suggest the introduction of the words I have moved.
  Mr. BUXTON: What I want to make clear is this, that the District Boards shall have full power of referring these matters to the pit committee or the manager, as at present. But it may happen that in some mines or districts that particular system is either not working or is not working satisfactorily, and my words will give an opportunity for proposing an alternative plan that may work better. Obviously as these matters will be decided by representatives of the employers and of the workmen, they will desire to utilise whatever machinery is most likely to bring about a settlement of the dispute with the least possible delay. I make it rather wider than the hon. Member suggests, and his Amendment will be completely covered by these words.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: There are two things upon which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Samuel Roberts) and myself are agreed. The first is that the District Board shall fix the minimum. The second is that the other questions shall be dealt with as they have been dealt with before. We want that made perfectly clear. We do not want District Boards to interfere with matters we ought to settle ourselves.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I shall be glad to accept the altered words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, if he thinks they will give a distinct power to the District Boards to settle these disputes at the colliery.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "provide for the decision of" ["The district rules shall also provide for the decision of"], and insert instead thereof the words "mate provision in respect of the persons by whom and the mode in which."—[Mr. Buxton.]
  Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "applicable" ["work
  2330
  men to whom the minimum rate of wages is applicable"], to insert the words "or whether a workman has complied with the conditions laid down by the rules."
  I have put down this Amendment in order to clear up an ambiguity. The Bill provides that the workman who fails to comply with the conditions shall forfeit his right to a minimum wage, unless the failure is due to causes beyond his control. This paragraph provides:—
  "The district rules shall also provide for the decision of any question whether any workman in the district … who has not complied with the conditions laid down by the rules has forfeited his right to wages at the minimum rate."
  That assumes that it has been decided by some authority that the workman has not complied with the conditions. But I do not find in this paragraph any provision enabling rules to be made fixing the tribunal which decides the point referred to in my Amendment. Supposing a difference arises between employer and workman as to whether the workman has, or has not complied with the conditions. It is not said here that the rules are to provide any tribunal to determine that difference. It is only a tribunal which, on the assumption that the man has failed to comply with the condition, is to decide whether he has forfeited his right or not. I think the words I have suggested would clear up the ambiguity and make plain the meaning of the Government.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I quite appreciate the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. There is no difference between us as to what is intended, but I think the words that are in the Bill are sufficient to cover the point which he raises. At first sight it may not be so, but if he will look carefully at it, I think he will see that the district rules have to provide for the decision as to whether a man has broken the conditions which are laid down by the rules. The words, as they will read now, it is important to bear in mind, are not quite as they were when the hon. and learned Gentleman put down his Amendment. The words as they will read now are to this effect: that the district rules shall make provision with respect to the persons by whom and the mode in which a workman who has not complied with the conditions laid down by the rules has forfeited his right to wages at the minimum rate, and a subsequent Amendment, which is consequential, will then add the words

  2331
  "is to be decided," so that the point is actually met. I cannot conceive any difference of opinion upon this. What the District Board is to do is—first, to make rules to provide for the conditions; then it has to make rules as to how the question that arises is to be decided. Further, it has to say whether or not a, man has complied with the conditions before it can decide whether he has forfeited his wage. It must lay down rules for determining whether or not he has complied with the conditions. I should think that the words that we have now added and the consequential Amendment of my right hon. Friend fully meet the case.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is one point I should like to clear up. I do not quite understand the Attorney-General's observations that there are some words coming in after we have passed the point.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, the words are not yet before the Committee. May I read out how the Clause will read with the proposed Amendment:—
  "The district rules shall also make provision with respect to the persons by whom and the mode in which any question whether any workman in the district is a workman to whom the minimum rate of wages is applicable, or whether a workman who has not complied with the conditions laid down by the rules has forfeited his right to wages at the minimum rate, is to be decided."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: That leads me to make this observation, that it might be decided that the workman had not fulfilled the conditions, and yet that in the circumstances of the case it was not right for him to forfeit his minimum wage. I am not clear whether the Clause as drawn would give to the District Board the right to decide in the first place if the workman has broken the conditions, and in the second place whether, as a matter of good sense and common justice, the circumstances were such that he ought not to forfeit his minimum wage. I think some such words as those suggested by the Amendment are required to give them power to make that decision. I venture to suggest that the words cannot possibly do any harm, while they make the powers of the District Committee rather wider, and they are more just.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not know that the words proposed by the hon. and
  2332
  learned Gentleman are necessary, but, of course, we have amended the Clause, and there may be something in the point raised by the Noble Lord. I will consider it before Report, and if it is necessary to make it clear we will do so.
  Mr. CAVE: I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, though I am not convinced by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "rate" ["at the minimum rate"], insert the words "is to be decided."—[Mr. Buxton.]
  Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "operate" ["shall operate as from the date"], to insert the words "in each district."—
  "This is one of a series of Amendments which would make the Clause read as follows:—
  "The provisions of this Section as to payment of wages at a minimum rate shall operate in each district as from the date when the minimum rates of wages and the district rules for that district have been settled."
  The point at issue is perfectly clear, namely, whether the Act shall be retrospective from the date of its passing or whether it shall really only come into practical operation when the District Boards have arranged the rates. I think the latter is really the fairer method, and I believe it would also expedite the operations of the District Board. It will be greatly desired by both parties to know where they stand and to know what the minimum rates and rules are, and it will be a matter of very great complication if the owners have to carry on their collieries for a considerable number of weeks and then have to hark back and go over all their books and accounts to see in each individual case what the men are entitled to. I believe there will be a very strong desire to expedite the work of the District Boards. Of course the miners' agents and the committees will wish to expedite it and settle their difficulties and know what wages the men are to have, and the owners equally will be anxious to expedite it in order to know where they stand, and with regard to the making of new contracts how they are going to be affected. I am suggesting this alteration, not at all in the interests of either party,

  2333
  but in the interests of getting through the business and making the Boards work. It is certainly to the interests of everyone that they should do so, but it is a matter of the greatest complication if, supposing they took a month or six weeks, every individual miner's record for that period had to be raked up and analysed to see what he would be entitled to. The amount of book-keeping for a colliery company which employs perhaps 8,000 men would be very complicated indeed. I do not regard the Amendment as being especially in the interests of one side or the other.
  7.0 P.M.
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is an important point undoubtedly, and a point of some difficulty. There are arguments on one side and on the other. My hon. Friend has pointed out that there is retrospection as from the passing of the Act, which may have a deterring effect on employers. They might not be disposed to reopen the mines in uncertainty as to what the district rate will be when the inquiry is concluded. Looking at the matter, as we all do, with a desire to promote the resumption of work at the earliest possible moment, to make it absolutely restrospective might have a retarding rather than an accelerating effect. That, I think, is the case put forward—a case which requires to be considered—on the part of the owners. On the other hand there is another side to the matter, and the other side on the whole appears to the Government—and they gave the most impartial consideration they could to the question—to be perhaps the more weighty and the more decisive. The other side may be briefly stated thus: It is no doubt important that the owners should be willing to reopen their mines at the earliest possible moment, but it is at least equally important that the men should have some inducement to resume their work, as you cannot give a greater inducement to the men who go down at the earliest possible moment into the pits, than by telling them that if they do so when the inquiry by the District Board has taken place and reached its conclusion, they will not get less than the wage which is then ascertained. From the point of view of inducing the men to go down and curtailing the area of stoppage that seems to me a most important consideration.
  But there is a further point which the Committee ought also to bear in mind and
  2334
  which tends very much in the same direction. Of course when we say retrospective from the passing of the Act that means retrospective from the resumption of work. No one contends that a man should earn a minimum wage who does not go into the pit and perform his job. The thing is really retrospective as from the resumption of work by the men, and in that case you provide for a really careful and deliberate investigation by the District Boards. If the whole thing is to-be hung up, as it would be under the proposal of my hon. Friend, until after the District Board has undertaken its investigation and arrived at its conclusion, which could not be less than five weeks, and might be considerably more, there would be an enormous pressure brought to-bear by those concerned in the industry to hurry it up and to precipitate a conclusion. If, on the other hand, it was really" understood on both sides that the rate to-be subsequently ascertained should apply retrospectively, there would be every inducement to make the inquiry a thorough, one and not precipitate it either in point of time or of the consideration of the case presented by the employers and the employed, and there would be a better prospect of arriving at a result which, would be satisfactory to all parties concerned. These I think are the arguments on the one side and the other. I admit the force of the contention, put forward by my hon. Friend, but on the whole the considerations appear to be in favour of the course which the Government have proposed.
  Sir C. CORY: I am deeply sorry that the Prime Minister has not accepted this Amendment. I really think there is a great deal of substance in what my hon. Friends have said in favour of the Amendment. I am afraid the Prime Minister hardly realises the enormous difficulty that will arise if owners are to open their pits under the Clause as it stands, and if they are to have a large number of claims, accumulating before the minimum wages are fixed and before the district rules are made. It would be impossible for a manager to bear in mind or to take note of all the circumstances that will arise in each case, and which at the end of that period would have to be dealt with. I think the owners will not be induced to open their pits with this danger hanging over their heads—this great liability, which might amount to a very large sum—for an indefinite time. It might be a

  2335
  serious thing for collieries not financially strong. I understand that, the Prime Minister has said all along that what is desired is the bringing about of a resumption of work. I am afraid if this Amendment is not accepted, and if the minimum wage is made retrospective, the Bill will have the opposite effect. The Prime Minister said the Amendment, would have the effect of hanging up a settlement until the rates were fixed, and that the District Boards would be hurried too much in the work of arriving at the rates and the making of the rules. But I am afraid the effect of the Clause being retrospective will be to prevent pits being opened, as the District Boards would be induced to let the thing drag on as long as possible. I think it would be disastrous to the colliery owners, and I do trust the Prime Minister will not close the door against the acceptance of this most important Amendment. I do not think he realises the enormous importance of this Amendment and the way it will affect the districts.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Would it not be possible to allow the District Boards to make a difference, if they like, between the rate for the retrospective period and the rate fixed for the post period? They might say that up to a certain date such and such should be paid, and that afterwards a different rate should be paid. They might make such a rule as that, so that the owner would feel that in starting work lie is not incurring an unknown liability from which there would be no relief.
  The PRIME MINISTER: On what principle would the Noble Lord suggest that there should be differentiation between the earlier and the later periods?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: On the ground of the hardship to the owner in the circumstances of the case. The owner might say, "I cannot work my mine on these terms."
  The PRIME MINISTER: Not even temporarily?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The owner might not care to open a mine because he thought that it had been doing badly for a long time, and that it was not worth while going on when he would be face to face with paying up arrears which might be a considerable sum. The important thing is that the owner should not feel
  2336
  that he is incurring an unknown obligation against which there could not be any measure of relief. T think if there could be some elasticity left to the District Boards by which the owners could be given relief in respect of arrears, that would give them greater confidence in going on with the working of the mines, and it would also be of advantage to the miners and the community generally.
  Mr. BRACE: I was sorry to hear the lion. Baronet (Sir C. Cory) say that the colliery owners on account of this Clause would decline to open the mines.
  Sir C. CORY: I said I thought it possible.
  Mr. BRACE: I accept the correction, and there is no necessity to press the argument further. I was surprised to hear the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment laying before the House that there would be considerable difficulty in connection with the making of this Clause retrospective. The two hon. Members are members of the same Conciliation Board as myself. We do business regularly in connection with our own Conciliation Board, and one of the unwritten but accepted rules of that Board is that in the case of all disputes which may be referred to arbitration the award is retrospective, dating back to the time, not of the settlement, but to the time the dispute came before the Board. If some hon. Gentleman had moved and seconded this Amendment I should not have been surprised, but when I find my hon. Friends bringing it forward, in view of their own experience, I am really astonished, and I am glad the Government intend to stand by the Clause.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I do not think this matter can be settled off-hand as the hon. Member (Mr. Brace) appears to think. Of course, he has experience of a special district. This is really a matter in regard to which the Prime Minister himself feels some difficulty, for in his speech he balanced the one side against the other, and eventually he came down on the side which he believes is going to assist in the resumption of work. But in coming down on the side of the resumption of work on the part of the men he has forgotten the side of the opening of the, pits on the part of the owners. This is a real difficulty which has been put before me more emphatically than any other question which has been discussed to-day. In connection with the large pits which have now been

  2337
  out of work for some time an expenditure of some thousands of pounds will be required before they can be put in real order again. When the owner of those pits knows that the rate which was in the miners' Schedule is greatly adverse to the working of his pits, he will undoubtedly hesitate to open them, knowing that he has to pay the minimum rate fixed by the District Board back to the time of the passing of this Act. If he has spent all that sum in opening the pits, and if he has to face the payment of a large sum for working for a number of weeks, he may have to stop the pits again, and hesitate to reopen them. It must be in the interests of all those connected with the working of pits to wait and see what the rate is to be. If the rate is to be paid from the passing of the Act, I think the lion. Baronet was perfectly right in putting forward the view that undoubtedly this will make the action of the Boards slower, for they will know that nothing depends upon the actual date when they give their decision. If the rate is not to be promulgated for months, the difficulties in connection with these arrears may become extremely serious. It is, I admit, a question of balance of opinion, but I hope still that the Government may see their way to meet this point in some degree because after all there is behind it another point that has not been alluded to. I do not think there is any other Amendment on the Paper which in any way relieves the owners of the burden of the contracts which they have made both abroad and at home, and especially those who supply on a large scale. We know that in Wales they have sold more than half a year's supply forward, and we know that in inland collieries they have made their tenders for gas, coal, and so on, and any increase of burden must fall on them, and in that industry the owners have a claim that some little time should be given before they come under the burdens imposed upon them by this Act. I do still hope that the Government may flee their way to accept the suggestion made.
  Mr. ROCH: The hon. Member for South Glamorgan has entirely misapprehended the object of the Amendment and the point of view which I adopt and which I hope the Government will consider. I do not think from my own point of view that there is anything to be said for the great companies or collieries. The argument for the Clause being retrospective in their
  2338
  case is unanswerable for reasons put forward by the Prime Minister, but there are in South Wales in many districts collieries where it is still in the balance whether they will foe kept working or not. That is the special case in our minds that should be met. It is common ground in the interests of everybody that so far as possible the maximum number of collieries should continue working. What is the owner of a colliery which is on the verge of shutting down going to do when this Bill is law? He has got to consider how it affects him. He has also got to consider that after this stoppage some considerable delay will be necessary to clear the road so that he may keep his colliery working. There is also the uncertainty as to what the district rates may be. In the case of some South Wales collieries—I do not wish to exaggerate by saying that there are many, but I know that there are some—if they are faced with those two alternatives and the uncertainty of what the district rates will be those collieries will not be open again. That was the point which I think this Amendment was intended to meet, and it is a case which I do think, in the interests of various districts, should be considered, if possible. I do think that in some districts it is a matter of the utmost seriousness to consider the doing of something or another.
  Sir C. CORY: My hon. Friend, the Member for South Glamorgan, is quite right when he says that very often when disputes have been referred to the arbitration of the Conciliation Boards the decision is retrospective, but there is this great difference. In those cases they always only apply to one seam in a colliery, and generally to very few men, and therefore operate to a very limited extent; but this is a very much bigger thing, extending to all the collieries and to the case of a large number of men, and the magnitude of this question cannot be compared with the small question to which the hon. Member referred. Therefore I hope that the House will not be misled by Ms argument.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I am going to ask the Government to stand firm on this point. It means a great deal for the miner, and will help a settlement of this question as it will do away with unrest. It is perfectly true that you have never had a great coal crisis in this country. You have never had great Boards of Conciliation to go into this question, and you have never

  2339
  asked the men in any dispute to go back to work unless you had the immediate advance they sought for or unless the settlement was retrospective. If we had need in this House of evidence that there were reasons for a minimum wage, we have had it from the hon. Baronet, because we have heard for a long time that the men are getting the wages, and that this strike was the action of the leaders, and now he says that there will be such accumulation of cases in five weeks that they will have difficulty in paying them. It is a most inconsistent statement that they have made. On the one hand the men are having the minimum wage, and on the other, the accumulation who do not get the minimum wage will be so great that they cannot pay it.
  Sir C. CORY: I did not say that.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: Yes, you did. I appeal to those around me as witnesses, and the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will tell the truth. He will find there, I venture to say, the proof of my statement that what was said was that there will be such an accumulation of cases, that is an accumulation that have not got the minimum wage, that it will be difficult to pay them; so there is a justification for the action we are taking in trying to secure the minimum wage. Does not it seem strange that all these things come from South Wales? The Midland federated owners would not have brought about such a situation as this, and if there had been the same reason displayed in negotiating these questions this matter would never have been brought on the floor of the House of Commons. I trust that the Government will stand by this Clause, and that they are not going to insult the men again who are out. We who have been working for peace for months trying to bring about a settlement say that if the men are entitled to their minimum wage and the accumulations will be great they have a right to have them when they have done the work.
  Mr. KEATING: This question interests me as much, perhaps, as any Member of this House, because, although I have the honour to represent an Irish constituency, I still recall my early days working as a miner in South Wales, and I will appeal to the House to support the Prime Minister and the Government in retaining this Clause as it stands. It is a very important matter affecting the lives of many of the
  2340
  people engaged in the coal industry in South Wales. I think that the argument of the hon. Baronet has been dealt with adequately by the last speaker, but I would ask the House to judge the argument very carefully in coming to a decision. It seems to me that the whole matter may be decided, in the minds of hon. Members who do not know the special circumstances, and may be summed up in one sentence: have they got confidence in these Conciliation Boards or have they not? If they have confidence in the Conciliation Board then the decision of the Conciliation Board will be a fair one and a just one, and if they have not got confidence in the Conciliation Board I do not know why we are discussing this Bill at all. I think that the machinery set up by the Government would actually deal with fairness and justice both in the interests of the men and the masters, and on that I am prepared to support the Government Clause as it stands.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really agree very much with what the Prime Minister said on this subject, the: there is a great deal to be said on both sides with regard to justice and fairness of the case, and it would seem to be more important to the men than to anybody else. Much as I dislike the Bill, however, I am anxious that it should go through, and for that reason I hope that my hon. Friends behind me will allow the matter to be decided.
  Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: After the statement of the Prime Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "employer" ["his employer at any time"], to insert the words, "or if the workman has been overpaid, may be recovered by the employer."
  Under the Clause as it stands the proprietors, if a man has been underpaid, are liable to the workmen, who have a right to recover the amount from them. Surely it must follow, if a miner is being paid an unreasonable amount, that the employers should have a similar right to recover the amount overpaid to him. I think that the Clause should operate mutually.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If a workman has been overpaid, of course he is liable to repay the amount overpaid to the employer, who would be able to recover it as

  2341
  a civil liability. As I understand the hon. Member's Amendment, he desires to give the employer a right to recover as against the workmen, but there is no difficulty about that, and no provision is needed in the Bill, because it will be a civil liability on any man.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: There is so much talking going on around me that I do not quite understand what the Attorney-General said. Am I to understand that if a man is paid a higher existing rate before the minimum rate had been fixed, the owner would have the right to claim against the man?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As I understood the hon. Member's Amendment, it was this: Supposing the employer during the time that he had been occupied in settling the minimum wage had overpaid the workmen, having regard to the minimum rate settled, then, of course, he could recover the difference, provided it had been paid under stated facts. I said that was a civil liability, and we do not need the introduction of a new liability on the workmen or give the employer a further remedy than he has already got under the law to recover the sum overpaid.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: What I-want to put is this: If the existing rate is 7s. 6d. a day, and the award 6s., and the owner has paid 7s. 6d., will the owner have the right to say to the man that he had paid him at the rate of 7s. 6d., a rate exceeding the award of 6s., and claim the money back?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, certainly not.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Then what is the meaning of my hon. Friend's answer?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think I can understand perfectly well what is meant. Supposing the man is paid at such a rate as is agreed upon between him and his employer, it is perfectly plain, as the Attorney-General said, that nothing in this Act would enable the employer to recover anything back from the man because a minimum wage was afterwards fixed. But it is just conceivable, I do not know whether it is at all likely to happen, that the result of the passing of this Act would be to have agreements that the men shall be paid outside the minimum rate which shall be hereafter fixed. In that case it is evident that the contract would be void to pay such minimum rate as is hereafter fixed, and if the minimum rate in fact fixed is lower than the rate the men have been
  2342
  paid, there would be technically, at any rate, a right of action to recover the difference. I do not myself think that the Amendment put forward really deals with any difference at all, nor do I see the advantage of it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the word "is" ["at any time after the rate is settled"], and to insert instead thereof the words "and district rules applicable to him have been."
  This Sub-section deals with the case where a man has been working and no minimum rate has been fixed, and when the minimum rate is fixed, it subsequently operates retrospectively as from the date when he began to work. This Sub-section provides that he is entitled to recover after the time when the rate is fixed. It is quite obvious he ought not to be entitled to recover it until both the rate and the district rules have been settled, because it is on the district rules and the safeguards that the rate depends. Therefore, the rate and the rules and safeguards should be taken together, otherwise strictly, under the Clause as it stands, the amount could be recovered at once when the rate had been settled, although the rules had not been settled. The point is not one of very great importance, but as a matter of drafting, I think that both the rates and the rules should go together.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think that those words are necessary. Surely what is intended is, that after the rate is settled the man should be entitled to get his money. I should have thought that the conditions as to regularity and efficiency are all subject matter for the jurisdiction and exercise of the powers granted to the District Board. I do not think there is any reason to apprehend anything.
  Mr. CASSEL: If the Attorney-General puts that interpretation upon the Subsection, I do not desire to press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir C. CORY: I beg to move in Subsection (3), at the end, to add the words:—
  "(4) If it is certified in manner provided by the district rules that a workman has forfeited the right to wages at the minimum rate the amount of any wages paid to such workman in respect of the period to which the certificate

  2343
  relates, so far as that amount exceeds the wages actually earned by him at the tonnage or other rates, shall be recoverable from him as a debt due to the employer or, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Truck Acts, may be deducted from the next payment or payments of wages earned by such workman."
  The Amendment which stands in my name provides, in the case of a man who has been receiving the minimum wage and who has not done sufficient work to earn it, to take him before the District Board in respect to the period to which his certificate relates, and if it be found that he has not done a satisfactory amount of work, that he shall not be entitled to the minimum wage. In those circumstances, I think it will be admitted that the owner is distinctly entitled to recover the money. I think the Amendment which I submit is only reasonable and fair.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The case made by my hon. Friend would apply to every right of claim or cross claim by the employer against his workmen, and would enable the employer to deduct the amount of his cross claim from the wages, which is exactly what the Truck Acts forbid. The policy of the Legislature for years now has been to prevent the employer from deducting anything from the money which the workman earns. It was only recently discussed and laid down definitely and clearly. I cannot see why there should be any exception in the case of coal owners and coal miners. The man is entitled to receive the money he earns, and whatever claim there may be against him must be proceeded for in the ordinary way.
  Sir C. CORY: It is not a question of a cross claim, but that the money has not been earned.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move to add the following new Subsection:—
  "(4) Where in respect of any part of any period for which wages are due to a workman, such workman but for this Act would not be entitled to the payment of wages at the minimum rate and in respect of some other part of that period is entitled to the payment of wages above the minimum rate, the district rules shall provide that his earnings throughout the period may be averaged, and the provisions of this Act
  2344
  shall be complied with by the payment to the workman, of the total wages he has earned if, taken over the whole period in respect of which the payment is made, the amount of wages paid to him is equal to or more than the wages at the minimum rate applicable to him under this Act."
  This proposal is very important because it represents a custom amongst colliers now. It means that there should be an average taken of the wages during a certain period. Thus, if a man works five days, in two of which he is preparing the coal, and for which he gets 7s. per day, and for the other days, when the coal is ready, he gets 10s. per day, that would mean 44s., or an average of over 8s. The work of the first three days has really resulted in the production of the coal on the last three days. There is another point. At certain times the minimum wage is paid for certain work, and in the case of two colliers working side by side one has been known to hand over his coal of the other, the result being that that man gets his minimum wage, and in that way, as the first man is paid by the tub, the colliery owner is defrauded. We know that the men do not desire to encourage any such work, and I would ask the Attorney-General to accept or suggest some words which would do away with that difficulty, as at present a great wrong is being done to the colliery owner.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The District Boards will regulate this matter by the rules, and no doubt that will attain the hon. Gentleman's object. It is quite clear that the District Board will have to make rules in order to provide for a minimum rate so as to allow an average in some such form as is suggested. It is exactly one of those matters that, ought to be dealt with by the District Board.
  Mr. BRACE: I accept the principle which has been discussed with this reservation, that while I agree the matter should be one for settlement by the District Board, the Board itself and the joint representatives are the best authority to determine how it should be arranged. It must not be taken that we are agreeing to a weekly average or a fortnightly average, the circumstances of the case will have to determine that.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that under the Bill the District Board will have the power?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We have considered it is quite impossible to do their work unless they provide some average.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. T. RICHARDS: This Clause provides that for non-compliance with certain rules in various districts men are liable to forfeit their right to the minimum wage. What I want to know is, will that forfeiture apply for all time or is there some fixed period during which the workmen will be disqualified?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACSThere is no difficulty at all with regard to that. Whatever period is in the rule will be the only period to which the disqualification applies. It may be that during one particular week or fortnight irregularity or inefficiency is proved, and in that case the man will forfeit his right to the minimum wage for that particular week or fortnight. The disqualification will not endure for all time.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Settlement of Minimum Rate of Wages and District Rules.)
  (1) Minimum rates of wages and district rules for the purposes of this Act shall be settled separately for each of the districts named in the Schedule to this Act by a body of persons recognised by the Board of Trade as the Joint District Board for that district.
  (2) The Board of Trade may recognise as a Joint District Board for any district any body of persons, whether existing at the time of the passing of this Act or constituted for the purposes of this Act, which in the opinion of the Board of Trade fairly and adequately represents the workmen in coal mines in the district and the employers of those workmen, and the chairman of which is an independent person appointed by agreement between the persons representing the workmen and employers respectively on the body, or in default of agreement by the Board of Trade.
  The Board of Trade may, as a condition of recognising as a Joint District Board for the purposes of this Act any body the rules of which do not provide for the members representing workmen and the members representing employers voting as separate classes (if any member so requires), and for giving the chairman a casting vote in case of difference between
  2346
  the two classes, require that body to adopt any such rule as the Board of Trade may approve for the purpose, and any rule so adopted shall be deemed to be a rule governing the procedure of the body for the purposes of this Act.
  (3) The Joint District Board of a district shall settle a general minimum rates of wages and general district rules for their district (in this Act referred to as general district minimum rates and general district rules), and the general district minimum rates and general district rules shall be the rates and rules applicable throughout the whole of the district to all coal mines in the district and to all workmen or classes of workmen employed underground in those mines, other than mines to which and workmen to whom a special minimum rate or special district rules settled under the provisions of this Act is or are applicable, or mines to which and workmen to whom the Joint District Board declare that the general district rates and, general district rules shall not be applicable pending the decision of the question whether a special district rate or special district rules ought to be settled in their case.
  (4) The Joint District Board of any district shall, if it is shown to them that any general district minimum rate or general district rules are not applicable in the case of any coal mine within the district or of any class of coal mines within the district, or in the case of any class of workmen, owing to the special circumstances of the mine or class of mine or workmen, settle a special minimum rate (either higher or lower than the general district rate) or special district rules (either more or less stringent than the general district rules) for that mine or class of mines or class of workmen, and any such special rate or special rules shall be the rate or rules applicable to that mine, class of mine, or class of workmen instead of the general district minimum rate or general district rules.
  (5) For the purpose of settling a minimum rate of wage the Joint District Board may subdivide their district, and in that case each part of the district as so subdivided shall, for the purpose of the minimum rate, be treated as the district.
  (6) For the purpose of settling district rules, any Joint District Boards may agree that their districts shall be treated as one district, and in that case those districts shall be treated for that purpose as one combined district, with a combined

  2347
  district committee appointed as may be agreed between, the Joint District Boards concerned, and the chairman of such one of the districts forming the combination as may be agreed upon between the Joint District Boards concerned, or, in default of agreement, determined by the Board of Trade, shall be the chairman of the combined district committee.
  Mr. PARKES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "separately."
  It is quite possible that in some districts the conditions may be altogether different from those in the adjoining districts, but it is also possible that the conditions may toe exactly the same. In that case I think it is very desirable that adjoining districts should have power to make similar rules so that there may be uniformity.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I agree that it is very desirable that there should be power to make rules for more than one district, and if the hon. Member will turn to Clause 2, Sub-section (6), he will find the point expressly provided for. The word "separately" has to be taken subject to Subsection (6), which shows the circumstances under which you may have a combination of districts for the purpose of district rules.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: What are the districts? I know they are set out in the Schedule, but are they geographical—counties or parts of counties—or are they districts recognised by the Miners' Federation? Does it mean that a mine situated in a county not included in this Schedule of districts will be excluded?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words, "but such rates shall not be less than the existing rates in the district affected."
  Although this Amendment raises a matter of vital importance it will not be necessary for me to occupy more than a minute or two, because the arguments used in an earlier discussion to a large extent cover the same ground. This Amendment attempts to guard against the possibility of the minimum rate being a phrase only, or of the award of the Board leaving the miner worse off than he is at present. Earlier in the afternoon, when the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Earn-say Macdonald) made an appeal for some such arrangement as that which I am now
  2348
  suggesting, I understood the Prime Minister to express his approval of the principle and his willingness to embody it. If the words I suggest are not adequate, perhaps this will be a convenient opportunity for the Government to state in what form they propose to recognise the principle, which, I think, they have already accepted. I will only say, in conclusion, that this proposal is not open to the objections which the Prime Minister pointed out in the case of a definite minimum.
  Mr. BUXTON: If I understand the object of my hon. Friend, it is that, if in any district there is a minimum rate already existing and the rate settled by the District Board is less than the existing agreed rate, the miners should not be in any sense prejudiced by the fixing of the minimum rate. That principle seems to be a matter of justice, but, as the particular words do not really meet the point as clearly as it should be met, I will presently propose the following words: "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the operation of any agreement entered into or custom existing before the passing of this Act for the payment of wages at a minimum rate higher than that settled by this Act."
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not think that this Amendment goes as far as the Prime Minister indicated he was prepared to go. I have handed in a manuscript Amendment which may be out of order if the present Amendment is proceeded with.
  Mr. BUXTON: This particular Amendment applies to the hewers who would come under the Schedule.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I think perhaps the word "minimum" might come out. The point of the Amendment is to secure that a minimum rate of wages, even although there may not be a minimum rate, shall be safeguarded. The Board might hold that the rate of wages current at the time of the passing of the Act, which at that period was the minimum, could be reduced. We want to safeguard the men against that possibility.
  Mr. T. RICHARDSON: I hope that the Government appreciate the suggestion that has been made by hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil. I am certain of this, that the Committee will appreciate the importance of this matter from this standpoint, if from no other, that the men

  2349
  after this dispute has been settled want to have some assurance that the existing rates of wages are not intentionally interfered with in any degree at all by the Government measure.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: As I understand the intention of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, it was to cover the case of the day-wage men as well.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Hear, hear.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I think it is satisfactory to receive an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he intends to deal with this matter. The Committee ought however to be in a position, before finally disposing of this Amendment, to know whether or not a subsequent Amendment is to be accepted dealing with the day-wage men. As has already been pointed out, there are a large number of day-wage men whose case requires to be considered. I am very glad indeed that the Government are prepared to put an assurance into the Bill that will be acceptable to the men themselves. I regard this measure in the first place, as one intended to settle the strike. Therefore we want everything possible in the Bill to give the men the assurance of the intentions of the Government. I regard this as a very important matter, both in regard to those who are piece-workers and also In respect of the day-wage men. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us the assurance as to the scope of the present Amendment or of the Amendment he will accept at a later stage.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I would ask one question of the Government. My hon. Friend behind me quite rightly says, that this Amendment does raise the case of the day workers. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we cannot now discuss that point also and hear what the proposals of the Government are?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have here my own Amendment, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman also proposes in his Amendment to leave in the day rate. We desire to apply the same principle to the hewers. I was under the impression that the case of the day men had been included. I will look into the matter, and see that they are also covered. With regard to the particular point of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil I should like to look at it again. I
  2350
  appreciate the point. I have not quite considered it. Looking at it in the light pi what he has said, I will see how far his point is met, and how far we can meet it.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not quite know whether we are quite in order in discussing the Government words on the Amendment which is now before us. I daresay it is a convenient course to take.
  The CHAIRMAN: I may say on that point that I have, of course, the Amendment on the Paper; the Government Amendment I have not yet seen. I have also the manuscript Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield. I think it would be convenient to the Committee that they should be taken separately.
  Sir C. CORY: May we have the Government Amendment?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitehouse) is not going to press his Amendment in view of the Government's observations. Substantially what we are discussing at the present time is the Government Amendment.
  Sir C. CORY: I rise to a point of Order. Might we have the Government Amendment?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I say I am very much obliged for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us in this matter. May I, in view of his assurance, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, in order that the Government Amendment may be taken?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end, to add the words "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the operation of any agreement entered into or custom existing before the passing of this Act for the payment of wages at a minimum rate higher than that settled by this Act."
  8.0 P.M.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I must say that as the discussion on this Bill proceeds, I myself feel more and more convinced that the people who are going to suffer more immediately will be the miners. Personally, this proposed Amendment seems to me to illustrate that extremely well. To diminish the wages now paid is not what

  2351
  the Government desire by their Bill. They deal with that difficulty immediately, but if these rates are submitted to the District Boards it may well be that they will come to the conclusion that the minimum wage ought to be reduced. It is quite true that that would not interfere in any way with contracts actually entered into, but, unquestionably, it will interfere with all future contracts which may be entered into. What are the contracts which are entered into? I have asked my hon. Friend who sits beside me, and he tells me that the ordinary contract for wages payments are fortnightly—in some cases weekly. These contracts may come to an end a fortnight or a week after the minimum wage has been declared, and this Clause of this Bill will not in any way prevent a new contract being entered into for the minimum wages fixed by the Board, whether higher or lower than previously. I am not satisfied that the Board will not have power to vary, whether they like it or not. I suppose there will be a large number of contracts entered into. The effect will be undoubtedly, at the end of certain wages contracts, whether this provision of the Government is intended or not, that new contracts will, after a fortnight or a week when the minimum wage has been settled, be entered into, naturally and reasonably in view of the award that is being made by the District Committee. I see the words "custom existing" are used in this Amendment. I am sure the Attorney-General will not contradict me when I say that these words are of the vaguest possible description. I do not know what is meant by the words "custom existing." It will be exceedingly difficult to settle what is the "custom existing" at a mine. I should think it is a matter which changes from time to time, and is settled from time to time by the owners and the miners. I am profoundly convinced that the whole question of minimum wage as settled by Statute will be disastrous. I believe it will do nothing but harm, and that it will be a source of infinite trouble, and I press upon the Committee that it is an excellent example of the bad effects you will produce when you try to settle things by Statute that ought to be settled by agreement.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I have not seen the words of the Amendment moved by the President of the Board of Trade, and I could only do my best to gather their
  2352
  meaning as they were read out. Does this Amendment, moved on behalf of the Government, provide that no rate fixed in the future shall be lower than any rate at the present time?
  Mr. J. WARD: Shall not be lower than the lowest.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I put my question again, because it is a very important question. It is so important a question that I do not think we ought to deal with it now, as it is not on the Paper. Will the Attorney-General tell me what is the effect of this Amendment? I do not propose to move my own Amendment, because, although it is of a different character to that moved by the Government, all I want is that no rates shall be set up under this Bill lower than the existing rates, and that no right shall be given to the arbitrator to lower them.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As I understand, the effect of this Amendment is to prevent the lowering of wages in, cases of persons working underground at a rate which is higher than the minimum wage which may be settled by the District Board. I will give a concrete instance. Suppose the rate settled is 6s., and that there is an agreement existing in that district at 6s. 6d., what is done is that that shall not be lowered by anything done under this Act, and that that agreement shall have effect notwithstanding that the District Board shall settle a minimum rate lower. That is what this Amendment does, and that is what it is intended it should do.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: What is to be done in those districts where there is no minimum wage? Is there to be no protection given to the men in these districts? I respectfully think that if the Attorney-General will leave out the words of this Amendment and consider whether it is necessary to insert, them upon Report stage, we might proceed at once. There are large districts of the country where there is no agreement upon a minimum wage, and the Amendment, in its present form, gives no protection to those districts.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I wish to support the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). You are merely deciding by this Amendment that these District Boards shall not go below the lowest rate in any particular district.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We are dealing with the higher agreement. Where an agreement exists under which the man is entitled to get 7s. a day, notwithstanding the fact that the District Board may agree that 6s. a day is the wage, we want to protect the man who is getting the 7s. in order that he shall not receive the lower rate. It is intended to protect the higher agreement, so that it should not be reduced by the rate adopted by the District Board, which might make the rate lower than, it has hitherto been.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: After the explanation of the Attorney-General, it does look as though the possibility of a mistake is absolutely avoided. I would suggest that it should be, the rate accepted by custom rather than the minimum rate.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: An Amendment will be proposed during the course of the Committee stage which may meet the point in the mind of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. What my hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said is that we will consider when we have got to the end of the Committee stage how far the point he has raised has been met by words already introduced or to be introduced into this Bill. If the hon. Member's point has not been met then the point will be raised again on Report, and I cannot say more than that.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: May I point out that these are not actual agreements between the employer and the employed men, but the arrangement that has been made by the men's representatives and the employers in certain districts? This is a temporary measure, but these agreements are practically permanent at present until they are altered, and they should be kept in action, and where the minimum wage at present is by agreement between representatives of the workmen at a higher rate than might be fixed by the District Board the higher rate should be the rate of the future. That is what I should like some assurance upon.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is exactly what I have said.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Mr. WADSWORTH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end, to insert the words:—
  "Provided further, that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to be an interference with or in derogation of the
  2354
  right of any workman under any agreement in certain eventualities to receive any increase of wages."
  We do not want the minimum to become the maximum. There will be various, wages arranged in the future notwithstanding that we have a Minimum Wage Bill under which the miners will seek to secure a share of any prosperity that may occur in the industry as they have done in the past, and the Amendment is intended: to meet that situation. It is intended to provide that this Section shall not be an interference with the right of the miner to seek any advance that may become due to> him owing to any prosperity in the trade-or other causes.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment, but I do not think there is any necessity for it. It is perfectly plain we are dealing with a minimum wage. It is called a Minimum Wage Bill, and I do not think even in an Act of Parliament, where ave try to be very precise, we need step out of our way to-say a minimum is not a maximum.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The point is whether the Bill safeguards existing customs with regard to increases of wages. Hon. Members perhaps do not remember that wages rise and fall upon percentages according to the price of coal. The danger apprehended is that once a minimum wage has been fixed the right of the day-wage man who is not a hewer to receive an increase and be subject to a decrease down to the point of the minimum may be interfered with. If the Attorney-General could give us an assurance that the establishment of this minimum wage will not interfere with the right of the day-wage man-to be subject to the percentages as they fluctuate, then I suppose my hon. Friend would be content.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If I appreciate-the point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) it is this. Supposing in a district the rate of wage is settled at 5s. per day, and that is fixed upon a rate of wage which we will say is 50 per cent, above the rate settled some time in 1879, and supposing subsequently there is an increase in the percentage and the wage rises, say, to 60 or 70 per cent, above, there is nothing in this Bill which will prevent the person who is receiving that minimum wage from at the-same time receiving also an increased wage when there is an increase in the percentage. It is entirely, of course, for the

  2355
  Districts Boards. The Districts Boards, as I understand the Bill, may say, "We will settle once and for all for a period of fifteen months that the rate of wages shall be 5s. per day, and should there be an increase of 10 per cent, there shall be a rise of 6d. in the wage from that time forward And for so long as that percentage obtains." There is, nothing to prevent the Joint District Boards doing that most definitely.
  Mr. WADSWORTH: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir A. B. MARKHAM: I do not think the Attorney-General has met my point. I should like to move words, providing always that, in fixing the amount of the minimum wage for those engaged in working the coal face, the Joint District Board shall not settle any such rate at a lower scale than the average or minimum rates in the district prior to the passing of the Act. This Amendment goes a little further than the undertaking given by the Prime Minister. It is a rather complicated point, but perhaps the Government will meet it on Report.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: May I point out how the matter stands? The words referred to as having been used by the Prime Minister indicate what we would prefer to accept in regard to the rate of wage, namely, that regard should be had by the Joint District Board to the average daily rate paid to workmen in certain classes in the district. That was proposed in order to give effect to what was understood to be the view of everybody, and it was desired that there should be some words in the Bill making that perfectly clear.
  Sir A. B. MARKHAM: I want to go further, and make it a positive proposition; I will, however, bring the matter up on Report.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL Lord ROBERT CECIL moved, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "may" ["The Board of Trade may"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  This is the first of a series of Amendments. The object is to require that the Board of Trade shall appoint as the District Committee under this Act any Board upon which both sides have agreed, and, in the event of either side not appointing their portion of the Board, then the District Board shall nominate representa-
  2356
  tives of that side. The present scheme of the Bill is that there is to be power in the Board of Trade to recognise District Boards where existing for the purpose of securing a thoroughly adequate representation of employers and workmen, and if, for any reason, such a Board is not recognised, then the Board of Trade are entitled under Clause 4 to appoint a certain individual to exercise all the powers of that Board. Those at whose request I move the Amendment are very anxious indeed that, if possible, Boards should be established on which both sides shall be represented, with an impartial arbitrator sitting between them, but I do not at all desire, if it can possibly be avoided, that the matter shall be left to a single man appointed by the Board of Trade. I believe that will be the view taken by both sides. Therefore, the object of the Amendment is to make it compulsory on the Board of Trade to recognise a Board sitting in the way I have described, and to provide machinery for making that effectual in case one side or the other fails to appoint their representatives. It might happen that either the employers or the miners would not appoint their representatives, and the Board of Trade would not be able to find anyone who adequately represented that side. I will not, however, go into that at the present moment, but will simply move this Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: I can assure the Noble Lord that, as regards the whole of this Bill, the Board of Trade would infinitely rather that the two parties should arrange the matter between themselves, and that the intervention of the Board of Trade should be reduced to the smallest possible degree. There is this practical objection to the Amendment. We understand that in some of these divisions, and there are some very large divisions, there may be, and are, more than one of these District Boards already in existence. It is quite clear that it would not be to the advantage of anybody to have two or three District Boards all appointed for the same purpose, at different parts of the same division, to carry out the same work. That is the only case in which the Board of Trade's selection would come in. We shall endeavour, as far as we possibly can, if they are prepared to carry the matter out, to take the existing Boards. It is really because we must have some discretion left us, where there is more than one Board already in existence, that we take this power.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It may be, perhaps, irregular, but I am intervening in the general interests of the Committee. I want to say this: That, in the opinion of the Government, in the course of the discussion to-day, we have very much narrowed down the points at issue in this controversy. I most gladly recognise that it is by the most hearty and loyal cooperation of both sides of the House that we have attained that result. Really the outstanding point at issue, I do not say the main point, but a not unimportant point, is this question of the day wage, what we call the 2s. and 5s. question. That is the most serious matter still outstanding. The Government think that the best way of dealing with the situation would be this: They have taken, and are taking, steps to call together a conference of the owners here in London on Monday, and we hope also the men. We hope there to see if we cannot still further narrow the amount of difference which prevails between them in regard to this point, and, if so, we think it would be a waste of time for the House to be required to meet to-morrow in order to take the Report and Third Reading of this Bill. The House will retain possession of the Bill. We therefore propose that when the Committee stage has been completed to-night that the further consideration of the Bill should be adjourned until Monday.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not of course enter into the merits of the plans proposed by the right lion. Gentleman, but I can only say I hope they may have the success which he desires for them. As regards the time of the House, it would be putting Members in all quarters of the House to gratuitous trouble to meet tomorrow in the changed circumstances in which we stand, and on all sides of the House it will be considered reasonable that we should not do it. However, I am sure everyone wishes to finish the Committee stage if possible at a reasonable time, and if it should be found that it is not possible I should propose that we should adjourn at a reasonable hour and continue it on Monday.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: So far as we are concerned, we also prefer the arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope as the result of the conference on Monday, at which I am authorised to say the men will be present, that if a Bill is necessary it will be an agreed Bill, because without agreement it would be quite
  2358
  useless for us to go on and discuss and push through this House a Bill which would not produce anything.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not quite follow the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has rejected the Amendment because it does not provide that the Board of Trade is to recognise any Board that it proposes, but that he has to recognise some Board which is selected by agreement between the employers and the workmen concerned. That is the essential part. I quite agree that if the Clause was to stand exactly as it is, perhaps "may" is a reasonable word, but if it is to be amended, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will agree to its being amended so as to make it a Board representative of the workmen and the employers concerned, it is only in the case that it is so representative that the Board of Trade is to be bound to recognise it. The Clause goes on to say that it must be one which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, fairly and adequately represents the workmen in the coal mines in the districts and the employers of those workmen. I do not think the alteration from "may" to "shall" is very important, but it will do something to mitigate fears which, unhappily, still exist in the minds of some misguided persons. I cannot see that it will really have the practical defect which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. Perhaps he will not now see so much objection as he saw before. I know that Government Departments dislike the word "shall," but in a Bill of this kind there might be rather more freedom in dealing with it.
  Mr. BUXTON: I wish the Noble Lord to clearly understand that we have had to consider the Amendments of which notice has been given under very extreme pressure. If he will withdraw this Amendment now, I should be glad to consider it before the Report stage. I can assure him that the word "may" has not been introduced into the Clause through any desire to get patronage or power into the hands of the Board of Trade. If, after considering the Amendment, I find that I can accept it, I will do so on the Report stage.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and in these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) after the word "persons" ["any body of persons"], to insert the words "selected by agreement between the employers and workmen concerned."
  I think that is rather a reasonable proposal. It is to provide that, in the first instance, the employers and workmen shall agree as to the Board, and whether the word "may" or "shall" should ultimately remain in the Clause, the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is desirable to have an agreed Board, in which case it may not be necessary to have an independent Chairman appointed in the way provided for in the Clause. I am in great hopes that the Amendment will be accepted by the right lion. Gentleman.
  Mr. BUXTON: I would ask the Noble Lord not to press the Amendment now, as I wish to consider it further.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: In withdrawing the Amendment, perhaps I may be allowed to say that there are three points raised by this and the other Amendments I have on the Paper. The first is that "shall" should be inserted instead of "may." That I have already explained. The second Amendment is to provide that, in the first instance, the Board shall be selected by the employers and workmen by mutual agreement, if possible. Then follow four Amendments which are merely verbal and relate to matters of drafting, Then the proviso at the end deals with the case where one or other of the parties fail to make their selection. In that case, instead of as now—
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order, as to which I find a difficulty. May I point out that the Noble Lord has got down now about six Amendments below the one he is asking leave to withdraw?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think that what I am doing is really a matter of convenience for the President of the Board of Trade—at least, it is so intended.
  Mr. BOOTH: I merely ask if it is in order?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite customary to make explanations such as the Noble Lord is making.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: They are all connected, and it is almost impossible to make the thing intelligible without explaining all. Those four Amendments
  2360
  there are merely verbal, merely matters of drafting, about which I do not say a word. The proviso at the end is to cover any case where one or other of the bodies fails to make a selection of its part of the Boards. In that case the Board of Trade is directed to select persons who represent that interest which has failed to make a selection, because those interested in the matter feel that it is of immense importance to get a Board of some kind into existence so that the matter shall not be left, as it would be under Clause 4, to the decision of a single individual, but that before the arbitrator comes into operation he should have the advantage of discussion between those who understand the question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I will not move the next five Amendments.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: On behalf of my Noble Friend (Viscount Wolmer), I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "Board of Trade" ["The Board of Trade may, as a condition of"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "Lord Chief Justice of England, or in Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session."
  This is a matter which I raised on the First Reading and asked the Government to take into serious consideration before we got to this particular stage of the Bill. Conciliation Boards have been in existence and have, as a rule, had an independent party to choose the chairman. Mr. Speaker has been chosen in some cases. The Lord Chief Justice, I believe, and other authorities of that character, have also been chosen. It does seem to me most desirable that in a case like this, where undoubtedly the decisions of the chairmen are going to be of vast importance, the selection should be taken out of the hands of a Government Department. I do not wish in the least to throw any doubt whatever on the bona fides of any member of the Board of Trade, but there is undoubtedly a strong feeling that the Board of Trade necessarily has its own ideas on this subject and is influenced by certain influences, and that it would be very much more satisfactory to all parties that the appointments should be entirely taken out of the hands of a Government Department, and that some independent persons should be appointed who shall choose the list of arbitrators or umpires to preside

  2361
  over the District Boards. I think that this is one of the most important Amendments that can be brought forward to this Bill, and I ask for the very serious consideration of the Government of it. It is one as to which the owners feel very deeply, and I trust that my right lion. Friend, having had his consideration drawn to the matter, will see his way to agree to it.
  Mr. BUXTON: In regard to this Amendment, as in regard to the last, I have to say that the Board of Trade have no desire to keep this matter in their hands. I can assure my hon. Friend that they would be only too delighted if anybody else would undertake the duty. It is a very onerous and difficult matter to select these chairmen on very short notice, and I say it is a duty from which we would be very glad to be relieved if anyone else is prepared to take the responsibility. I do not admit for one moment that the hon. Gentleman is right in implying, or insinuating in any sense, that there are any sort of party of political considerations on the part of the Board of Trade in connection with appointments. We have to deal with these appointments under the Conciliation Act and Arbitration Act, and they are made absolutely apart from any party consideration. Selections are made from the panel for particular reasons connected with particular work, and, so far as that is concerned, I really must repudiate, very emphatically the suggestion that in these matters there is any question of politics at all. I would put a practical question to the hon. Member. Does he really think, in these circumstances and in the present emergency, that the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord President of the Court of Session should be called upon on Monday, say, to appoint some dozen or more persons to perform these duties. How could they set about it? I am inclined to think that if I accepted the Amendment these distinguished Gentlemen, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord President of the Court of Session, would not welcome the fact, and might use language which I can well conceive would not be of a very judicial character. The hon. Gentleman has not consulted either of these distinguished gentlemen, and I do not think the House of Commons should put upon them such a duty without having first consulted them. This is a practical matter, and though we have no desire to retain it in the hands of the Board of Trade, yet I do think it must be left to the Department to select these chairmen.
  Mr. BOOTH: I must protest against the suggestion implied in this Amendment, because it seems to me that if it were adopted the only persons who would be appointed would be lawyers. I protest against that idea getting abroad. I interpret the proposal to appoint the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord President of the Court of Session to mean that the appointments always go to barristers. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I am delighted to elicit from the House that such a class of appointments is contemplated.
  Mr. NEWTON: I agree with the view that it is better to leave these appointments in the charge of the Board of Trade. There would be great practical difficulty in leaving the decision to the distinguished judges proposed in the Amendment.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: There are difficulties in this case of a rather peculiar kind which entitle the hon. Gentleman to suggest that this Amendment is the better way of dealing with the matter. We have experience of appointments of this kind by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and we have many cases of this sort. Under the Land Act the arbitrators were appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session.
  Mr. BOOTH: All barristers.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: He never appoints barristers as arbitrators under that Act, but appoints men suitable for the job. He takes very good care to do so. As far as my experience is concerned, there is no man I would sooner see placed in the position of making these appointments than the Lord President of the Court of Session.
  Mr. L. HARDY: I do not wish to put the Committee to a Division. In this matter we ought to be guided by the Conciliation Boards, but I admit there are difficulties in connection with the urgent character of the work.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "may, as a condition of" ["The Board of Trade may"], and to insert instead thereof the words "shall before."
  This is a proposal to make the discretion of the Board of Trade obligatory. Those in the trade feel very strongly that the provisions of the Clause are so desirable that they ought to be enforced in

  2363
  every case. As far as the voting under the Clause is concerned, I believe the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out when I say that in the conciliation scheme at present a provision to that effect is found. From the experience of the men engaged in the trade they think this condition ought to be obligatory in the new Boards.
  Mr. BUXTON (was understood to say): I regret the Government are unable to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. NEWTON: If the Clause is left as it is would it be possible under any circumstances for a chairman not to have a casting vote?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is fully intended that the chairman should have a casting vote. I can undertake that the Board of Trade will not recognise any of those joint bodies unless the chairman has a casting vote, and unless he has under the further Clause power of final decision in the event of disagreement, because that is the essence of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "if any member so requires."—[Lord Robert Cecil.]
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to wove, in Sub-section (2), after the word "and" ["and for giving the chairman a casting vote"], to insert the words "without prejudice to freedom of discussion, for an equal number only of each class voting upon, any question, and".
  There is an obvious danger, with so many representing the employers and so many representing the workmen, if at any meeting of the Board it should happen there was not a full representation of the workmen, for instance, that the employers might be able to outvote them. That is not intended. I am not sure that the Clause does not mean that each class is to vote as a unit, but the commoner and clearer way of dealing with the matter is to provide that there shall be only an equal number of each class entitled to vote. I have here the rules of procedure of the Northumberland Conciliation Board, and the provision there is that when at any meeting of the Board the two classes are unequal in number all shall have the right to enter into the discussion of the matter brought before them, but only an equal number of each shall vote.
  Mr. BUXTON: The wording of the Bill was intended to carry out in another way exactly what the Noble Lord desires. It is obviously the right thing to do, because there might easily be a majority on one side or the other, and it would be obviously unfair that that majority should be able to decide any question at issue between the two sides. The provision in the Bill is a well-known method of securing the object in view, but I am told that the method suggested by the Noble Lord is the one usually adopted on Conciliation Boards. I think the method in the Bill is the better one, but I will consider the point before Report. There is really no difference in principle between us.
  Sir C. CORY: You may have associated owners and miners, and non-associated owners and miners. They will all be represented on the Boards, so that you will not be able to confine it merely to two classes. You will have to take into consideration the non-associated owners and men also.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. BUXTON: The point here is that these Boards are to be instituted as representing the mine owners on the one hand, and the miners on the other. There might, according to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, be five different classes of owners on, and one class of miners—
  Sir C. CORY: No.
  Mr. BUXTON: That would give the owners under this proposal—
  Sir C. CORY: The right hon. Gentleman does not quite grasp the proposal. I suggest that you might get associated and non-associated owners taking different views. You might get associated and non-associated men taking different views. You might get non-associated owners and non-associated men voting together and vice versâ. I am not prepared to draft an Amendment, but I think it is a point that should be considered.
  Mr. BUXTON: I will consider the point.
  Sir C. CORY: I think it requires it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "classes" ["difference between the two classes"], to insert the words "giving a decision which shall be final and conclusive."

  2365
  This is a matter of very great importance. It suggests that there shall be struck out of the Sub-section the words giving the chairman a casting vote merely, and of giving him the power of deciding what ought to be done. A casting vote involves simply that where the parties differ the chairman would have to vote for one or the other. If he thought, in point of fact, that both were wrong, he would have to decide, possibly, in favour of the least wrong side. This we know, from the time of Socrates, is a decision that ends very often in injustice. Clearly the right course is to give the chairman the right of saying, when a difference obtains, what, in his judgment, is the fair thing to do. I do not think that it is necessary to argue the thing at any length, but having regard to the previous answer of the right hon. Gentleman, it would appear that he thinks there is something or other in the Bill giving power to the chairman to do this very thing. I do not like to make a definite assertion, but I have not been able to come across that particular provision. If it is not there an Amendment should be inserted. It will give the chairman the power in case of a difference between the two classes, of giving a decision that shall be final and conclusive: in a word, a decision of substance.
  Mr. BUXTON: May I draw the attention of the Noble Lord to Clause 4, Subsection (2), where the chairman's decision is final? The Clause we are now considering deals with question of procedure in the first instance and before the final decision is reached. During the earlier stages of the negotiations and discussions I think it is sufficient to give the chairman a casting vote in reference to this matter. As a matter of fact, the chairman under the Conciliation Boards, as everyone having experience of them knows, is, in the earlier stages, really in the position of a conciliator rather than an arbitrator. It is, of course, essential in the earlier stages that he should have a casting vote, for he is not then giving a determining decision. That question comes up under Sub-section (2) of Clause 4, where he determines rates and district rules. Therefore I think the point is met in the better way in the Clause, where we are only dealing with procedure, and by leaving the question of final decision where it is in Sub-section (2) of Clause 4.
  Mr. WALSH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the form of words already in the Bill. The great desire of both the representatives of employers and employed on the Board will be that the chairman should be a conciliator. If the Amendment of the Noble Lord were put in, it would give him the powers of an arbitrator. He could cut in at any time between the parties and arbitrarily decide in a way that he and he alone is responsible for. During the last eighteeen or nineteen years I can speak of the working of the Conciliation Board in the Midland area, including two-fifths of the whole mining population of the country, and the Board has worked there with a smoothness and absence of friction greater than any other board of workmen and employers. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] Well, I will put it no further than to say there was a wonderful absence of friction and dispute. We have always given to the person presiding the powers of a conciliator. Of course, when it came to the end and both sides remained resolute, he had the power of decision, but he was unable at the beginning to cut in, and give an arbitrary decision. I think that which has worked so well in the English conciliation area is best to be applied here, and I hope the powers of arbitrator will not be given in this instance.
  Mr. CAVE: There is not much difference between us, but I do not think the hon. Member or the President of the Board of Trade quite follows the points made by my Noble Friend. Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 only comes into operation immediately after the passing of this Bill. That is in the first five weeks. If during these five weeks no decision is come to as to the minimum wage, then the chairman has power to determine the rates of wages and district rules himself. But after the first performance of that duty that power has gone, and then we are-thrown back upon the Clause we are now considering. Take this case. Supposing a question arises a year or two years hence as to fixing the minimum rate of wages, and supposing the employers as a class propose 5s., and the workmen as a class propose 5s. 6d., then the chairman under this Clause has nothing but a casting vote. He must choose one or the other or negative both. It may be that he sees his way to fix a sum which will, on the whole, be adopted as a compromise. The effect of the Amendment is to enable the chairman in the case I have mentioned

  2367
  to fix the sum at (say) 5s. 3d., and if he has nothing but the casting vote he cannot do that. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has met the point, and, without pressing him as to the particular form of words proposed, I think it is a point which might very well be sympathetically considered upon the Report stage.
  Mr. BUXTON: While it is quite true that Sub-section (2) applies to the person performing the duties of settling the minimum wages and the district rules, under Clause 3, which deals with any variation during the period the Act exists, it is provided that
  "the provisions of this Act as to the settlement of minimum rates of wages or district rules shall, so far as applicable, apply to the variation of any such rate or rules."
  Therefore, supposing there has been a variation during the period of the Act, the same rule with regard to the chairman would apply in this case, and if that is not so, we will make it so.
  Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: If this were merely a question of fixing the rate of wages, perhaps, a casting vote would be sufficient, but there will be endless rules and regulations and all kinds of considerations, and I am sure it would be far better to give the chairman as wide powers as possible. The chairman may take part in the discussion, and if the parties are irreconcilable he may be unwilling to give a casting vote. We have found from experience on our Boards dealing with these matters there are cases in which the casting vote would not be suitable, and, having regard to the intricate matters which will come before the Board, I beg the Government to give the chairman wide powers from the very beginning. There will be many differences which may seem irreconcilable, each one taking the extreme view in which a casting vote would be unfair, and where the duties of the chairman would be to reconcile the differences. If the Government desire these Boards to work smoothly and well they must let the chairman have the power of modifying the views of the contending parties, and he must be able to give a decision between the two. This matter will not work if it is left to a casting vote. Speaking with a long experience in this matter in connection
  2368
  with the Board of South Wales, and being familiar with what goes on in Durham and Yorkshire in regard to this point, I hope the Government will meet the full sense of the House and give the chairman the power of conciliating and modifying the views of the extreme parties, because they will be extreme parties in many cases, and the giving of the casting vote would only lead to soreness and irritation. The chairman should act as mediator and try to make things work smoothly. I think if three men could be rolled into one chairman in this particular case it would be far bettor, because three men can often find a happy solution when one man cannot. I think it is an admirable suggestion, and I beg the Government, in the interests of the smooth working of the Boards, to reconsider their position.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: My view of the effect of Clause 4, Sub-section (2), is absolutely different from that of the President of the Board of Trade. I think he must have misread it. It merely deals with the case of a District Board failing to do its duty within five weeks after the passing of the Act. It has nothing to do with the ordinary working of the District Boards. We are dealing with a case where the Board meets and discusses the matter and where the two sides disagree. That is not a failure to do their duty at all. They disagree, and then all you give the chairman under Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 is a casting vote. There is no question of failure. The Board has done exactly what it is intended to do It has brought the people together and made them discuss the matter. They differ, and therefore it is Clause 2 and not Clause 4, Sub-section (2), which comes into operation. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his construction of the Bill. That is not what was intended by Clause 4, Subsection (2), at all. I am sure he must agree upon reflection that it is absolutely essential, if these Boards are to succeed, that you should not merely have a chairman entitled to say: "Yes" or "No," but that he must be a man with full power. We all agree his main business is to be a conciliator. That should be his object. If he is there merely to say "Yes" or "No" he will have no powers of conciliation. Each side will press its view and will say, "You must say 'Yes' or 'No,'" but you want him to be able to say, "No, I shall not do that; I shall give a decision between you two which, in my opinion, is

  2369
  more just and equitable." I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman when he says it only deals with preliminary procedure. It deals with the whole affairs of the Board. It appears to me to be a point on which we are right. We are proposing an Amendment really to improve the practical working of the Act, and, if the right hon. Gentleman does not feel able to concede it, I do feel it is one of the few cases in which we must press the matter to a Division.
  Mr. BUXTON: I think the Noble Lord has misunderstood the Sub-section. The intention was this. In the first instance, you will have these Boards with a neutral chairman. During the course of their proceedings the neutral chairman has a casting vote on any question arising. We are all agreed that in the early stage and even up to the last he should act rather as a conciliator than as a chairman with arbitrary power. In the event of the two sides being unable to come to some agreement as to what should be the rule the chairman will in all probability elect, if there are two proposals, the one which appears to him to be fair and will give his casting vote for that proposal. But in the event of his thinking that neither of these proposas is good, and if he has a better one himself he will not give his casting vote.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: But nothing can then be done for five weeks.
  Mr. BUXTON: Five weeks is put in for a special object. It is the maximum time.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Sub-section he will see that the point is not to arise until five weeks have elapsed. I do not know what the draughtsman may have intended, but I take it the intention was to secure that should the Board prove futile then it should be superseded by the chairman after five weeks have elapsed.
  Mr. BUXTON: That is the object of the Clause. The arbitrary position of the chairman will come in there. I am, however, quite willing to consider the point put forward by hon. Members on both sides, although I hold there is a good deal more to be said for the proposal of the Bill than for that of the Noble Lord. Not only should the chairman have, in the final resort, the decision, but of the proceedings also he should have a deciding voice. I certainly think that the better method of
  2370
  procedure, but I am quite willing to further consider the point.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the powers given to the chairman in Section 4 will apply to future disputes as to altering the minimum wage.
  Mr. BUXTON: It is intended to have that effect, and I am quite prepared to see that it has that effect.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I want to make one or two observations in regard to the experience that we have had in regard to Conciliation Boards. I want as little interference from the outside man in these matters as is possible. I have been on the Conciliation Board for the federated area for the last nineteen years. We meet and discuss these questions without an independent chairman, and in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred we come to an agreement without this man being there. If the chairman is there, and is going to give a casting vote, each side is on the alert to put forward their very best case, and even exaggerate their claims, which they would not do if we were having a peaceful "confab" between employers and employed. Lord James of Hereford was our chairman, and we never called him in unless it was absolutely essential. I do not want anybody to believe that from our side we want an interfering chairman when a chairman is not required. What I would like to see carried out is this: that the two sides Should meet and discuss the question. They will discuss it in a friendly way if our federated areas are anything to go by, and if they fail to agree then an outside man should be called in. I believe that a system of mutual discussion on these questions is beneficial even before you call him in. I am not enamoured of these outside men dealing with these questions, which some of them, do not understand.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I quite agree with the hon. Member that it would be much better not to have independent chairmen at all, and that the matter should be settled between employers and employed. But that is not the Bill, and it is no use discussing that point. I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that where he has made the mistake is in introducing Clause 4, Sub-section (2). I cannot see that Clause 4, Sub-section (1) or (2) have anything whatever to do with the Amendment. Sub-section (1) of Clause 4 deals with the

  2371
  case which may arise if there are no recognised District Boards. That is not the case of my Noble Friend. Sub-section (2) deals with the case of a District Board failing to perform its duty. That is not the case of my Noble Friend. Therefore, neither of the arguments based upon that Clause which were advanced by the right hon. Gentleman have anything to do with the question. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Clause gives to the chairman a casting vote, and I understand that, in the event of neither side being able to come to an agreement, the casting vote does give to the chairman the power of deciding the question.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, he must say Aye or Nay.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Let us say that 6s. is proposed, and that neither side will agree to it. Has not the chairman the power of saying yes or no that the 6s. shall be given?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: He has no power of decision.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I see what my Noble Friend wants. It is that in the event of one side asking for 6s. and the other side 5s., the chairman shall be able to split the difference and say that it shall be 5s. 6d. I am not sure that I agree with my Noble Friend, because that is a spirit of compromise, which I believe to a great extent has brought about the situation we are faced with to-day. That being so, I really do not see why the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment, because the whole spirit of the Bill is to do exactly that which my Noble Friend desires to do. The Bill provides that in the event of there being no District Board, or in the event of the District Board failing to do its duty, there should be a chairman appointed, who can do what my Noble Friend desires. The actual case of a District Board being instituted and approved by the Board of Trade and then failing to come to an agreement has been omitted altogether. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do in that case?
  Mr. BUXTON: It would come under Sub-section (2) of Clause 4.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, it would not. That Sub-section says:—
  "If within five weeks after the passing of this Act the Joint District Board for any district fails to perform any duty."
  2372
  They have not failed to perform any duty. They have tried to perform their duty and have not been able to do so because they cannot, come to an agreement. That, again, is limited to five weeks though the Board of Trade may extend the time. All this leads to a further extension of the time. You will have to apply to the Board of Trade to extend the time even if you can prove that the District Board has failed in its duty. In the case quoted by my Noble Friend it will not have failed in its duty.
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, it will.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Its duty is to endeavour to settle the rate.
  Mr. BUXTON: To settle the rate?
  Sir F. BANBURY: To perform any duty with respect to the settling of the first minimum rate of wages and district rules. It has not settled it because it cannot do it because the chairman has not got the power. "Failing in its duty" does not mean that it has refused to perform it or owing to laxity has not done what it was appointed to do. That is quite a different thing from not being able to do it under the provisions of the Bill. But even supposing the right hon. Gentleman is right, the Board of Trade has to be approached and a further specific period has to be arranged. All that trouble would be avoided if the Amendment was adopted. According to the right hon. Gentleman himself the Amendment will eventually be carried after a considerable amount of trouble and many applications to the Board of Trade. If the Amendment is accepted the Board of Trade will be spared a considerable amount of trouble and the masters and men will be spared a considerable waste of time and a conclusion will be arrived at far sooner, which I presume is what is desired.
  Mr. NEWTON: Surely the point can be put in very few words. It is that during the first five weeks of any negotiations-which follow the introduction of this Act the chairman will only be able to say yea or nay to a body of proposals put forward either by the men or by the masters. I suggest that if each side will be inclined to put forward exaggerated claims the result will be that the chairman will not be willing to say aye or nay to either set of proposals. Then the result will be that in some cases the minimum wage will not be fixed until after five weeks' delay. It is

  2373
  only after five weeks' delay that the chairmen will have power to act. They would say, "We cannot agree with either side entirely, and we will strike the happy medium, and so give a decision which will be satisfactory to both parties." I say that in settling the minimum wage and the rules it is desirable that the chairman should have the power at the start which he is going to have after five weeks.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: It seems to me that the House is getting into a bit of a fog in regard to this Amendment. The case can be put simply and tersely. It has so far been put by the hon. Member opposite. He said that, after a discussion as between 5s. and 5s. 6d., possibly the arbitrator will come in and give, not 5s., but 4s. or 4s. 6d. Therefore, the point is an exceedingly clear and simple one. I think the House would not be inclined to give the arbitrator such power.
  Mr. NEWTON: The chairman will have that power in five weeks.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: That is another matter.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The whole question is whether there is to be a chairman or an arbitrator. We have had plenty of experience of arbitrators in the Potteries, and I should advise the working men not to have arbitrators, who are generally men
  drawn from the upper classes. It is far better that the chairman should have merely the opportunity of voting "Yes" or "No," and that he should not be able to split the difference as between the masters and workmen, and so give a decision which would not be satisfactory to either party. The masters, members on the one hand, and the employés, members on the other, would each put forward an exaggerated case with the view of getting a decision as nearly as possible favourable to their own side. I do not think that is desirable in the interest of peace. I am of opinion that if the Government appoint an outside man he should merely have a casting vote, so that he may decide "Yes" or "No" directly on the proposals which come before him. You cannot possibly secure a Conciliation Board which will give absolute satisfaction in its results, but I feel confident that you will secure much more satisfactory results from the casting vote of the chairman than from the splitting of the difference by an arbitrator, who possibly does not carry the full confidence of the working classes. Therefore I hope the Government will stick absolutely to what they have in the Bill.
  Question put, "That the word 'giving' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 109.

  Division No. 50.]

  AYES.

  [9.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Clough, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Adamson, William

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cullinan, J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Alden, Percy

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hackett, J.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Armitage, R.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  De Forest, Baron

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Delany, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Barton, W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

  Doris, W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Boland, John Pius

  Duffy, William J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hayward, Evan

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brace, William

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Brady, P. J.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hinds, John

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Falconer, J.

  Hodge, John

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hogge, James Myles

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Field, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Hughes, S. L.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Furness, Stephen, W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Clancy, John Joseph

  George, Rt. Hon. D, Lloyd

  John, Edward Thomas

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Jowett, F. W.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Schwann, Rt Hon. Sir C. E.

  Joyce, Michael

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

  Keating, M.

  Nuttall, H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shortt, Edward

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Snowden, P.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  O'Dowd, John

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Grady, James

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Leach, Charles

  O'Malley, William

  Sutton, John E.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  O'Shee, James John

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Lundon, T.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Lynch, A. A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  McGhee, Richard

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  MecNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wardle, George J.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Waring, Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Webb, H.

  Manfield, Harry

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Pringle, William M. R.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Meagher, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Reddy, Michael

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Middlebrook, William

  Richards, Thomas

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Molloy, M.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worc, N.)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Muldoon, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Munro, R.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  NOES.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Barnston, Harry

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fleming, Valentine

  Malcolm, Ian

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Grant, J. A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Cator, John

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, J. F. P.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hills, John Waller

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Croft, H. P.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Stanier, Beville

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  2376

  2377

  Starkey, John R.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Touche, George Alexander

  Younger, Sir George

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cave and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "a" ["district shall settle a"].—[Mr. Buxton.]
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "wages" ["minimum rate of wages"], to insert the words "in respect of the different classes of workmen concerned." It is quite clear that the rules must provide for different classes of workmen.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: These words are really superfluous.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out all the words after the word "mines" ["underground in those mines"], and also to leave out Sub-sections (4) and (5).
  This is one of the things we entirely object to, as we are against districts being split up. This proposal is foreign to all precedents we have had for many years in the Midland Federation, and will make and create things that will cause trouble and dissatisfaction in the districts. Take a concrete case. In my own county we have regulated matters with the consent of the coal owners. We have forty thousand men who are not governed by sections, either from the men's standpoint or the employers' standpoint. We deal with them through the coal owners' association and the men's association, and we have a distinct objection to those districts being split up. We have price lists operating, not uniform I admit, in every colliery in the county. We look on this as a very serious innovation on the arrangements that have been in existence for very many years. This means that you can interfere with all the previous arrangements which are in existence and all the machinery that has been set up and has worked so well. I hope the Government will see the seriousness of this position. Since the settlement of the strike of 1893, at the Foreign Office by Lord Rosebery, and it lasted seventeen weeks, though there has been a little bit of trouble here and there, yet for nineteen years we have managed the business in counties and in sections representing the counties. This is a very serious matter to us, and we think it so
  2378
  important that we are bound to go to a Division. It is one of the matters about which the conference feels to be very serious. We are going to keep our Miners' Federation intact whatever happens, because it means the life and well-being of our men. I will do nothing that will tend to the disintegration or injury of the coal trade, and I want to see the old system, which has worked so well, preserved.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I fail to see how these words can affect the Miners' Federation, or in the slightest degree cause them to dissolve or to become less powerful. The hon. Member said, quite truly, that the question involved is a very serious one. It is serious to both men and employers. The very basis of the Bill is that there is to be a general minimum rate applicable to various classes of workmen, subject to various safeguards and conditions, but that in special conditions that general rate shall not apply. That is of supreme importance. What would be the effect upon miners generally if these elasticity Clauses were omitted? The District Boards will have to consider the different classes of workmen and all the various circumstances applicable to the several colleries throughout the districts, and without these elasticity Clauses they will inevitably fix a much lower general minimum rate than they otherwise would. Therefore these provisions are in the interest of the men themselves. Let me point out why. Take the case of a colliery working under special conditions. What the Government proposes is that a general minimum rate shall be fixed first of all; then, if there are special cases, special collieries, special classes of collieries, that they shall be taken into account by the General District Boards, who shall then determine what shall be the special rate applicable to them. I fail to see how it would be possible for us to continue with this Bill if you take out those Clauses, either in the interests of the men or the employers. I hope the House will keep these Clauses in, and will not support the Amendment, so that we may preserve impartiality, as it is the duty of the Government to do, between the men and the employers. If we have

  2379
  to do so, we submit to the House that it is essential that we should preserve these elasticity Clauses in the Bill as they are.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I cannot understand how this Amendment can be moved from the benches opposite, because it seems to me that one of two consequences must result. One has been very able enforced by the Attorney-General. If you compel the District Boards to settle their minimum rates, having regard to the general district, there is a grave chance of the minimum rate being set so low that all the mines in that district may be worked under it. Or you may, alternatively, have the minimum rate so high that certain mines in the district may foe shut out, and a considerable number of miners may be thus thrown out of employment. I have one instance of a mine in my mind which turns out many thousands of tons of coal per day. The miners are earning considerable wages. Not far away is another mine which has never yet paid a. dividend, and which, in all probability, cannot possibly, under the conditions under which they have to work, pay anything like the high minimum rate as the other mine. If you accept this Amendment you deprive the District Committee of all capability of providing special terms for that mine.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall be very glad to vote for him. After all, the question reduces itself down to a very simple one, namely, that the worst mines determine the wages of the whole of the people of the industry. If a few mines have to go under, I believe the great majority are in favour of that principle, although hardship may come to some, because it is for
  the general advantage of the greater number. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall vote with him.
  The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out to the end of line 15" [end of Sub-section 3], "stand part of the Clause." There were cries of "Aye" and "No," whereupon he said, "Clear the Lobby."
  Mr. J. W. WILSON Mr. J. W. WILSON (speaking seated with his hat on): On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. I understood you to put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," and that you declared "The Noes have it."
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not declare that either side had it. I put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out to the end of line 15 [end of Sub-section (3)] stand part of the Clause." There were cries of "Aye" and "No," and I therefore said, "Clear the Lobby." The Amendment proposed is, "To leave out from the word "mines" in Sub-section (3) to the end of Sub-section (5)" The Question I have to put is, "That the words, 'In the district and to all workmen or classes of workmen employed underground in those mines, other than mines to which and workmen to whom a special minimum rate or special district rules settled under the provisions of this Act is or are applicable, or mines to which and workmen to whom the Joint District Board declare that the general district rates and general district rules shall not be applicable pending the decision of the question whether a special district rate or special district rules ought to be settled in their case' proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 65.

  Division No. 51.]

  AYES.

  [10.8 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cator, John

  Agnew, Sir George William

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cave, George

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Armitage, R.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Chancellor, H. G.

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Clancy. John Joseph

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Clough, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Campion, W. R.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Barnston, Harry

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barran, Rowland Hint (Leeds N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W,

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Barton, William

  Cassel, Felix

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hughes, S. L.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Croft, H. P.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  De Forest, Baron

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Melton)

  Royds, Edmund

  Doughty, Sir George

  Larmor Sir J.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Duffy, William J.

  Leach, Charles

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Salter, Clavell

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Samuel, J. (Stocktan-on-Tees)

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Falconer, James

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyell, Chas. Henry

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon Dr. T. J.

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Fleming, Valentine

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Shortt, Edward

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  McNeil, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Manfield, Harry

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Stanier, Beville

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Stewart, Gershom

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Middlebrook, William

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Swift, Rigby

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hackett, J.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Munro, R.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Newman, John R. P.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Waring, Walter

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Webb, H.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Havelock-Alian, Sir Henry

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Whyte, A. F.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Helmsley, Visount

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

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

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worc., N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Hinds, John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Younger, Sir George

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Alden, Percy

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Brace, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hay ward, Evan

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Millar, James Duncan

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hodge, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morrell, Philip

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Grady, James

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Elverston, sir Harold

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  2382

  2383

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wadsworth, John

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Richards, Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Snowden, Philip

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. T. Richardson.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Mr. W. M'LAREN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), at the end, to add the words:—
  "(4) In settling the first minimum rate of wages a Joint District Board shall take into consideration contracts for the sale of coal existing at the date of the passing of this Act."
  I move this Amendment in order to enable the District Board to consider evidence of very great importance which may be brought before them, and which, if this Amendment is not included in the Bill, they may ignore. It is well known to all in the least degree familiar with the coal trade that large contracts are habitually made twelve months in advance. The great English railways buy their coal twelve months in advance, and the great bulk of our export trade is made in yearly contracts. In accordance with the usual practice, this has been done during the past year, and it has been done, at any rate, so far as Scotland and South Wales are concerned, with all the more confidence because the coal owners relied upon agreements which they were convinced would be kept. I hold with regard to the export coal trade the Fife coal owners have at least 40 per cent, of their output contracted for delivery before the end of the present year. And in South Wales at least three-quarters of the output is contracted for in advance. The colliery owners were all the more ready to make these contracts because they had a five years' agreement which still had two and a half years to run, and that agreement gave them a feeling of complete security that the ordinary rate of wages would not be disturbed in the case here of two collieries. One has an output of one and three-quarters million tons a year, and it has sold a million tons for delivery before the end of the year. The other has contract to deliver 1,100,000 tons before the end of the year—equal to three-quarters of their output. These contracts were only entered into because there was reasonable security that the existing agreement would be carried out. I have always been in favour of the principle of the minimum wage. Six years ago I declared in
  2384
  favour of it in my own colliery district, and I have never since deviated from that view. Our workmen can make far more than the minimum wage if they choose. But I want it to be borne in mind that contracts have been made in the security of the agreement, and we suggest that as the District Board are appointed to settle the new rate of wages, the owners shall be entitled to bring before them their order book to the end of the present year, and that that should be borne in mind in settling the rate of wages to the end of the year. We are quite willing to take the chance of what may happen afterwards, because if wages are increased no doubt the colliery owner will ask more for his coal. All I ask is that the District Board shall take into account in settling the rate of wages the existing contracts of the colliery owners. The Government may well accede to this request, because they cannot desire to keep back from the District Boards any evidence that may legitimately be put before them, and which undoubtedly ought to have a marked influence upon the rate of wages. I earnestly beg the Government to accept this Amendment. I am certain it will go very far indeed to calm the feeling and allay the irritation which undoubtedly does exist—and you cannot blame anybody for feeling strongly to some extent, no matter how much they are in favour of the principle of a minimum wage. These wages ought to have due regard to the existing interests that have been created. Seeing that the men are going to have in future the enormous advantage which this Bill unquestionably confers upon them, and having regard to the fact that the agreements they entered into two and a half years ago they are deliberately tearing up, they should try to meet the coal owners half way, and take into account the contracts that were made on the faith of the agreements, which all of them signed. I am only asking what is fair and reasonable, and a matter of ordinary business, when I ask that we should be allowed to bring to the District Boards evidence which is material to the fixing of the wages. I beg the Government to give this Amendment their friendly consideration, as they are trying in a conciliatory

  2385
  spirit—in which we sincerely desire to join and that we shall do our best to promote—to settle this question, and I ask that this particular class of evidence shall be brought before the Boards.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The case put forward by my hon. Friend is for a direction in the Bill to the local District Board. That would be a departure from the principle we have hitherto observed. Directions have not been given to the Boards, but the policy has been to leave it to the Joint District Board to take into account all the circumstances which bear upon the fixing of the minimum wage. That is where it seems to me this matter must be left. It is quite impossible to put this in without putting in a number of other directons. The inclusion of only one direction would be a very serious matter, because when the Boards saw that Parliament had said that this particular matter must be considered, they would regard it as something very special and would take it more into account than other circumstances. I cannot accede to the Amendment. I will not argue with the hon. Baronet and those associated with him as to the question of contracts. It is a little difficult to understand how anyone who had coal to sell and who had to make a contract during the last few months should not have taken into account the circumstance that a strike was threatened. As to the question of agreements, that is exactly the same kind of difficulty we get over and over again in a great number of the Bills we pass. I trust the Committee will be satisfied to leave the matter to the Joint. District Boards for them to determine, with the other matters, how far it shall affect the wages fixed by them.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: I agree with the Attorney-General, but I should like to say a word in reference to his remarks on the sanctity of contracts. We shall never have industrial peace or a satisfactory state of industrial enterprise in this country until both sides realise that a contract, is sacred. I am a director of a firm which has 1,000,000 tons of material sold, and it would not be an unreasonable thing for these Boards to take that fact into account. I want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the absolute necessity of the Government doing all they can to see all contracts carried out in future by both parties.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The Attorney-General said that owners must have
  2386
  considered the possibility of this strike, but owners have been innocent enough to believe they need not be anxious about contracts which were in existence and which would last for three years. That is what has happened in South Wales at present, and it is hardly fair to taunt them with not having considered the matter fairly and reasonably as men of business. This question of contracts undoubtedly is an extremely difficult one. I do not altogether agree with the Amendments from the opposite side as to the best manner of dealing with it, because apparently it would penalise the men for no fault of their own, but in a matter for which there is no precedent, in which they fling away almost without a word existing contracts of the most solemn nature, it is for them to consider whether they ought not to bring something into effect in order that those who have contracts may be saved from some of the evil influences which may be brought to bear on the action of the Government itself.
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: I am inclined to agree with the Attorney-General that the Amendment is not the best means, or indeed a possible means, of settling the difficulty which arises with regard to contracts in South Wales, but I am inclined also to agree that this will be an element in the fixing of the minimum wage which will not be satisfactory to the men nor is it a satisfactory way of dealing with the question. The Attorney-General said that the owners in South Wales, who are exporters of coal to the extent of about 60 per cent, of their output, as prudent men should have known that the strike was ahead, and should have adjusted their contracts on that basis. But the South Wales coal owners were dealing with the competition of the world in fixing their prices for export, and they had to make their contracts at the price then existing. As prudent men, too, the South Wales coal owners were not entitled to take into consideration that the Government of the day is opposed to contracts. The Government is put in the same legislative position as a trade union. They may break a contract, but they are not liable in damages for the breach. The Government are purchasers through the Admiralty of over a million tons of Welsh coal. They have broken the contract on which the price at which that coal was sold to them was fixed. [An HON. MEMBER: "In what way?"] The price at which the coal was sold to the Admiralty

  2387
  was based on the faith of a written agreement with the men, and without the legislative action of the Government that would now be in force. And yet the Government is now turning round and saying we will accept no liability for the position which we have ourselves created. There is an additional case of hardship on the South Wales owner Let us suppose that this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it is common ground with everbody that there will be a shortage of coal and that the supply will not meet the demand. I am perfectly ready to admit that the price of coal in the next six months will go up. In that case, what will be the position of the South Wales producers who have made contracts ahead. The effect will be that the wages of the men will automatically rise, and the South Wales coal owners, having contracted for the export of coal, will not foe able to take advantage of the advance in the price of coal. I venture to say that when the Government is interfering in the interest of the general community with a somewhat heavy hand this point ought to receive its consideration at some future stage of the discussion. I agree that the point is not met by the Amendment or by the argument of the Attorney-General that it could be dealt with by the District Board. It is a matter which deserves the careful consideration of the Government.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich): I should like to direct the attention of the Committee to one remark of the Attorney-General. He assumed that the contracts were entered into in the course of the last few months.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS Sir RUFUS ISAACS indicated dissent.
  Mr. FRED HALL: I am glad to know the hon. and learned Gentleman did not assume that, but he stated to the Committee that the colliery proprietors ought to have taken the possibility of the present dispute into account. I am afraid that the Attorney-General is unaware of the fact that the large majority of the contracts for the export of coal are made in August or September. Therefore, I venture to suggest that the colliery proprietors could not have been under the impression that any material increase would be put on the cost of production. I hope that, in going carefully into this matter, the Government will look into the question whether some consideration cannot be
  2388
  given to those who have made their coal contracts on the assumption that the contracts they had entered into with the miners would be binding on their part.
  Mr. T. RICHARDS: I hope the Government will stick to what they have put in the Bill, and that the special stipulation which has been proposed will not be inserted. I am very reluctant at this stage of the proceedings to say a word which would impart feeling or temper into the discussion in replying to my hon. Friends. If this Bill should be parsed, we shall have to meet and try to come to an arrangement as to all the difficulties that will arise. I do not find very much fault with what was said by the Mover of the Amendment. He repeated the old argument about the cost of production being increased 1s. per ton if this Bill were put in operation in South Wales. We have heard that so often in regard to previous legislation that I hardly think it worth while to deal with the statement. If the export contracts are to be taken into account, will attention also be given to the wealth which has been made by the coal owners—a question which has been a bone of contention for a great many years—will the coal owners immense profits be taken into consideration in fixing the minimum rate. We know that enhanced prices were charged for South Wales coal for several months before the strike took place. We also know from past experience that the obstinancy which they have displayed is largely due to the speciality of the article they have to sell. If they had the article of the midland owners, the South Wales owners would have been as reasonable, but the South Wales owners know that the longer the strike lasts the higher the prices they will get when they commence work. The year 1898, when we had five months of a dispute, is conclusive proof on that point. The prices of the South Wales best commodity that are sent out to depots to supply the world never come into the calculations of the workmen's wages. I do not want to enter into this matter now, but I hope to have an opportunity of doing so when we meet face to face across the table.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly vote with him. The case is quite unanswerable. At all events, the reply of the Attorney-General is absolutely ludicrous. He has replied that an agreement was

  2389
  entered into by force, that it was shoved by force down the throats of the Welsh colliers, and they were told that they would be locked out if they did not enter into it. But it was on the faith of that contract deliberately entered into that large quantities of coal have been sold. The hon. Member has referred to the large profits in South Wales. I am associated with a company which has sold in his constituency over a million tons of Welsh coal. This company has been a poor company, distributing an average of about 5 per cent, in dividends. No one is going to say that 5 per cent, is an unreasonable profit. At all events, I would not put my money into any mine unless I thought that I was going to get more than 5 per cent. There would be general astonishment among the British public if they knew the result of the working of Welsh collieries during the last year. In the case of many collieries the public will find, when they know the facts, that instead of large profits made in 1910, there was a large loss made in many of the Welsh collieries. I do not think that the whole burden of this should fall on the men, or that they should be kept back from receiving a fair advantage, but where
  it can be shown that under the operation of this Act, which is being forced on the owners in South Wales, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Why not? If the country breaks a contract, is not the honour of a nation equal to the honour of an individual? If a nation comes in and breaks deliberately a contract which entails a loss on innocent people, it is scrapping the whole of the principles on which our legislation has been based, and, therefore, if we can get no better answer from the Government than we have had from the Attorney-General, I shall certainly support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.
  Mr. KEATING: The effect of this Amendment will be to give instructions in one direction in the face of what the Committee have done in another, and I do not see why, if you give instructions in the interests of the coal owners, you rejected the miners' Schedule.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 248.

  Division No. 52.]

  AYES.

  [10.40 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Falle, B. G.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Armitage, Robert

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J.

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Harnpstead)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Newman, John R. P.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Barnston, H.

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Burdett Coutts, W.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Pryce-Jones, Col. S. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Quliter, Sir William Eley C.

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Cator, John

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cave, George

  Hills, John Waller

  Royds, Edmund

  Cecil, Evelyn (Astton Manor)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Chaloner, Col, R. G. W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hohler, G. F

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Rt. Hon. E. F. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Croft, H. P.

  Lewisham, viscount

  Stanler, Beville

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Stanley Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Starkey, John R.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Touche, George Alexander

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. W. M'Laren.

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Harmswerth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Adamson, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Barnes, G. N.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Hlgham, John Sharp

  O'Grady, James

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Hinds, John

  O'Malley, William

  Barton, W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

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

  Hodge, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Boland, John Plus

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Shee, James John

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brace, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Brady, P. J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Keating, M.

  Radford, G. H.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clough, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Collins, Godlrey P. (Greenock)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Richards, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cullinan, John

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  De Forest, Baron

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Delany, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lynch, A. A.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Dillon, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McGhee, Richard

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Doris, W.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shortt, E.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Simon, sir John Allsebrook

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Manfield, Harry

  Snowden, P.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Field, William

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

  Sutton, John E.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Swift, Rigby

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Middlebrook, William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gill, A. H.

  Molloy, M.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hackett, J.

  Muldoon, John

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Munro, R.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  2392

  2393

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Webb, H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Question proposed, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Sir CLIFFORD CORY Sir CLIFFORD CORY had given notice, after Sub-section (3), to insert the following new Sub-section:—
  "(4) In districts where existing rates of wages vary in the different coal mines, the Joint District Board shall settle the minimum rates of wages for the different coal mines in the district, and the respective minimum rates shall be the rates applicable to the respective coal mines in the district, and to all workmen or classes of workmen employed underground in those mines."
  The CHAIRMAN: This point has been covered by a decision already taken.
  Sir C. CORY: I think not.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was not in the House. An Amendment was moved to leave out that provision. A long Debate ensued, and on a Division the Committee decided to retain the provision. Is there any special point?
  Sir C. CORY: The proposal appears to refer to physical conditions, whereas there may be other conditions, such as different rates of wages.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I submit that this point has already been settled. It is entirely a question of elasticity, and that we have decided.
  The CHAIRMAN: That was my opinion. The Amendment cannot be moved.
  Mr. WALSH: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment to leave out Sub-section (4).
  The CHAIRMAN: That is covered by my previous ruling. I sent the hon. Member word. The hon. Member for Derbyshire moved to leave out the words from the middle of Sub-section (3) to the end of Sub-section (5). Owing to the technical rules of the House I put the Question "that the words proposed to be left out to the end of Sub-section (3) stand part." That was in order to save the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. McLaren). But that does not entitle hon. Members to raise again the question whether these Sub-sections should be left out.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALSH: I think there is a great deal of force in your ruling. But may I submit this point. The Division had reference only to the end of Sub-section (3). Since then there has been a complete Debate as to whether a certain form of words should be added at the end of Sub-section (3). I submit therefore that the Committee cannot act on the assumption that all the words after Sub-section (3) have been decided upon. The general Debate that has ensued since has been upon the question as to whether certain words should be added at the end of the specified line.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question is put that certain words down to a specified point should be left out to give the opportunity for a fresh point to be raised. But that does not give hon. Members the right to raise an issue already settled; for a Member with an Amendment of 500 words might wish to move it word by word. That would not be according to our rules.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to add the words: "In settling any minimum rate of wages the Joint District Boards shall have regard to the provision or payment by the employer of any dwelling-house, coal, or rent, or other allowance in the contract of employment made in addition to any money wages."
  The Attorney-General will probably answer that this should be left entirely to the District Boards. It might be held that nothing but the actual wage should be considered in dealing with the minimum wage; therefore words require to be added to give the District Boards power to consider further than the wage; to take into account the perquisites. In many districts there are customs that mean money value, as, for instance, in Durham county, where the married miners get house and coal. The fact of the money value is best proved by cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in relation to which, I am informed, the perquisites that I indicate in my Amendment are reckoned at 5s. per week. It is evident that there is a high money value in some districts attaching
  2395
  to these extras. I desire that on the face of the Bill there may be some statement which will enable the District Boards to go outside the question of the actual money wage.
  Mr. BUXTON: The District Committees will undoubtedly have the opportunity of taking all these various circumstances into account. There is no necessity—so far as we could see when we drafted our Bill—to deal with these specific questions. It is quite clear that the Joint Committee considering the question of the minimum wage will consider what the actual results of the trade are in relation to all matters, whether they be matters of rent, coal, or anything else. They might admit other matters also relevant to the question of the minimum wage which should be taken into consideration. I think it would be a mistake to put these matters into the Bill.
  Mr. L. HARDY: I do not wish to press the Amendment to a Division, but I am very glad to get that expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure the District Boards will appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that it was the intention of the Government that they should consider the whole matter of payment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (5) to leave out the word "sub-divide" ["the Joint District Board may sub-divide their district."]
  Perhaps I had better explain my full Amendment. If I succeed in deleting the word "sub-divide," I propose to insert the word "divide" and the Sub-section would then read "the Joint District Board may divide their district" into parts and then at the end of the Sub-section I should propose to add, "Provided the district may be further sub-divided if the two classes on the Joint District Board agree." I do not think the Committee has given the attention to this Clause it really deserves. We on these benches who are exceedingly anxious through this Bill to promote peace, recognise that this is one of the most dangerous parts of the entire Bill. The Bill proposes to set up machinery to establish a minimum wage, and in these Sub-sections it is possible to so divide the whole of the districts for the purpose of the minimum wage as to make it possible very largely to defeat, so far as the men
  2396
  are concerned, the whole object over which this dispute occurred. In moving to leave out the whole of the Sub-sections, as we did earlier in the evening, it might bethought that we were going a little too far.
  My Amendment is an alternative. It seems to me that if we erred too much in that, on our side, the Bill as it stands errs too much in the other direction, and my alternative is a middle course. We propose that one side of the Board by the power of the casting vote of the chairman might divide each district now in the schedule into two. It might be argued that there was necessity for further subdivision in the interests of the industry. The evidence must be brought forward by the other side of the Board, and they must be convinced it is in the interest of those concerned before further sub-division should be permitted. Those of us who have experience of the work in connection with our organisations, and from experience we have had in recent times of the working of the Government's "Fair Wages Clauses," know how the whole benefit intended by Parliament under those Clauses is being filched away from the workmen by the policy of divided districts. Along with the hon. Member for Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), I recently brought a case, before one of the departments, and the reply we got was that the firm was in a district by itself. It was a single firm in the district of Hammersmith where there was no other industry, and although it was separated from the whole of the metropolitan district, they established the right for that one firm alone. We were, convinced that that was a complete violation of the avowed intention of this House when it passed the Fair Wages Clause. I appeal to the Attorney-General on this point. There were three points on which our colleagues, the miners' leaders and the members of the Federation, were anxious to come to an agreement upon. The first was the 5s., which has been declined; the second was a proviso that the minimum should not come below existing rates, and that point has been met; and the third was one to which many of the miners' leaders attach great importance, namely, that some alteration should be secured in regard to this power of sub-dividing. A district might be divided down to a single man, and thus defeat the whole object of the Bill. I therefore appeal to the Attorney-General to give this proposal serious consideration.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Undoubtedly my hon. Friend has made out a case for some mitigation and reconsideration of this power of sub-dividing. I cannot, however, say that I can accept the words he has proposed. I am not at all sure that we can accept the hon. Member's words in their present form, but we will give this Amendment every consideration, because certainly it is not the intention of those responsible for this Bill that there should be unlimited sub-division. Therefore, I think there is a great deal to be said for the view put forward by the hon. Member, but the exact form in which the limitation must be proposed must form the subject of consideration and be brought up by us on Report. The only thing I desire to say is that we must allow some discretion.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I would like to ask whether Sub-section (5) has not slipped into the Bill by mistake. The President of the Board of Trade is aware that the miners submitted seventeen districts for the purpose of this wages settlement. The employers took exception to some of the districts and suggested that they were too large and should be divided, and Subsection (5) was probably drafted in order to meet the position. What has happened since then? The Government itself in the schedule to the Bill has made the division which the employers asked for, and instead of seventeen districts there are now twenty-one divisions in the schedule. Therefore, it seems a likely hypothesis that this Clause was recently framed to meet the claim of the owners. I think the Attorney-General and his colleagues ought to consider whether they cannot see their way to withdraw this Clause altogether. Tremendous powers of division are given to the Boards. They have power to separate any class of coal mines within a district, any class of workmen within a district, sections of mines within a district, and so on, and surely with the vast powers they already possess the Government should be content. This is one of two really big questions standing in the way of a settlement of this dispute, and I am sure the Government and the House do not want to accentuate the differences.
  Sir C. CORY: I see danger and the possibility of injustice ahead if this be agreed to, and I trust the Government, before they accept it, will give it their very careful consideration.
  Mr. BUXTON: This is not a matter on which we have been dictated to by the owners. The reason the seventeen areas have been extended to twenty-one in the schedule is that we could not put into the Bill the Midland area of the Miners' Federation if it includes Shropshire, Staffordshire, Worcestershire, and Warwickshire. It is obvious this area would have to be divided into districts. It is not a question in any sense between the owners and the miners. It is a geographical question which the Government has had to solve. We do not desire to split up the areas more than necessary, but the various District Boards, when they come to consider the matter, might think it expedient to have different rates in different areas under their control. We thought, therefore, they ought to have some discretion in regard to the matter. But I want to emphasise what fell from my hon. and learned Friend. There is no intention by putting in Subsection (5) to do anything in the nature of destroying the schedule as it stands. It was only intended to come into force in exceptional circumstances, where it was quite obvious that it would be an advantage to all parties to have a different minimum rate, and we shall certainly be prepared—we will consider it between now and Report—to see how far there should be some limitation on the power of sub-division because we have no desire in any sense of the term to give this power in order to destroy the schedule as a whole. It is quite possible that a certain amount of elasticity would be necessary, and that was the reason for the Sub-section being put in.
  Mr. LLOYD: I quite agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Henderson) in what he said as to the dangers in too much sub-division in this matter, but in view of an Amendment I have later on the paper, I hope the Committee will allow a certain latitude, that is to say, in view of the possibility of our losing the Amendments down on the paper they will not lose entire power in this matter to allow a division which would leave, to a district like Cannock Chase, the power and the right to have a district for themselves.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: It seems to me that there can be no satisfactory result without having complete trust in whoever is appointed to be Chairman of the Boards. It is in the interests of the workmen as much as the employers to make a division There are places in the county of Durham

  2399
  where large collieries employing a thousand men make practically no profit at all, while there are other collieries nearer the sea with a better quality of coal and much thicker seams which make a large profit. Under the circumstances naturally the colliery which is some distance from the coast cannot possibly pay the same minimum wage as the colliery nearer the coast and under the circumstances it would be well to realise that if we want to make a success of this we should express that confidence in the Chairman, which I am sure we all wish to feel.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman at all events not to accept the particular solution before us now. There is one district which I hoped some other Member who is much more acquainted with the subject would have brought up, but I think Scotland is one very much to the point. Scotland possesses at least three entirely different coalfields altogether, which are now included in one district, and very probably the district board would think it desirable that these three should be divided up. The Government ought to protect in every way the right of the District Board for Scotland to divide itself up at least into three parts. There is no intention of pressing for an undue division, but a certain amount of division ought to be provided under the Bill.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I hope that the point put forward by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson), will be reconsidered by the Government. The last speaker has given Scotland as an instance suitable for further sub-division. I should like the Government to take into consideration the facts as they relate to the Scotch collieries. For the past thirteen years we have had but one conciliation board, which has regulated the coal trade with the utmost satisfaction to both parties. There has been no occasion that called for sub-division of the districts.
  Mr. T. RICHARDSON: I think the Committee will more fully appreciate the fears entertained by members on these benches after the speech made by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Pike Pease). We have very substantial fears that Sub-section (4) is so elastic that it will be quite possible for the manager of a colliery to make application to these District Boards for a special rate of wages to be fixed for that colliery. I think that
  2400
  is borne out in a very substantial way by the observations of the hon. Member for Darlington. In this connection may I ask the Committee to remember that so far as Durham county is concerned, for the last thirty years the wages of the whole county have been governed by a body representative of the workmen and owners. If there is any possibility of this Bill being placed on the Statute Book in such an elastic form as to make it possible for the owner of a colliery, or the owners of a group of collieries, to make application to the District Board for a special minimum wage for that particular colliery or group of collieries, the purpose and intention of this agitation and industrial strife, and the purpose of the Government in this Bill, will have been frustrated, and its end deviated in a very unsatisfactory manner so far as the miners are concerned. I appeal to the Government, in considering this question, to safeguard the possible unlimited opportunities that the Bill now presents, and to see that the door is not only not wider opened, but that they will exercise the greatest possible care to retain those districts which are now specific districts for the fixing of wages, such as have been in existence in Durham and many other counties for twenty or thirty years. I can assure the Committee, from my knowledge of the miners and the miners' leaders, that they attach the utmost importance to this proposal.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: There seems to be a misapprehension on the part of hon. Members below the gangway. They seem to think some part of the area might separate itself from the District Board. But that is not so. The Joint District Board may sub-divide, but a district may not take the matter into its own hands and claim to sub-divide. I understand it is proposed to limit the power to sub-divide into two districts. That is a pity, as there may be cases where it may be desirable to have three districts. I hope the Attorney-General will give consideration to that point.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: In view of the promise of the Attorney-General to consider this point between now and Report, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CAWLEY: I wish to propose an Amendment to Sub-section (6) settling the minimum rate of wages, giving the District Board liberty to settle the rate in different

  2401
  mines from time to time in accordance with the average piece work.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Has not this point already been settled.
  Mr. BUXTON: I think it has. Subsection (4) Section 2 leaves entire elasticity.
  Mr. CAWLEY: I only want an assurance from the Attorney-General that there is a sliding scale in regard to the minimum work in different mines in different districts.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That seems to be substantially the same point.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I hope that between now and the Report stage, the Government will carefully consider Sub-section (4) of this Clause. This is one of the clauses which the miners will not accept if it remains in the Bill. I am not saying that as a threat. Sub-section (4) gives the Board cower—the Chairman of the Board, for that is what it comes to—to isolate a single mine, and to make a special rate for it, to isolate sections of workmen in thin mines, and to make a special rate for them, and to isolate groups of mines and to make special rates for them. The object of this Bill is to establish a minimum wage, and surely the same wage should apply within the same area The Noble Lord's Amendment raised the point that the fact of the circumstances being different should justify a different rate of wages. Probably the Noble Lord is not aware that different circumstances exist now. There is no different rate of wages in consequence of a difference in circumstances in a mine. All the day wage men employed in a mine receive the same rate of pay, whether they are in normal places or not. If there is a part of a mine which is deficient and not paying, the coalowners do not on (hat account pay a lower rate of wages to the men within that part. If that be so, why should you establish a new condition of wages under this Bill? The coalowners have, never claimed that there should be different rates of wages for these men within the mine. Now the Government for some mysterious reason has inserted this Clause in the Bill without having informed the miners of the intention to put it in, and without having consulted the miners upon it, and is thereby going to create fresh divisions throughout the coalfields, which
  2402
  will lead to friction and lay the foundation of possible strikes in future, and all for a chimera conjured up in the imagination of those who wish to put obstacles in the way of the miners being united. I hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will consider how far Subsection (4) is necessary at all. Under Subsection (5) there will be power to subdivide a district, and we submit that that is all the power that is needed to meet any exceptional case that may arise. If the Clause is brought forward in this form on the Report stage, the Labour party, acting on behalf of the miners will oppose it and do their best to have it deleted.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Provision for bringing Act into operation, etc.)
  (1) If within two weeks after the passing of this Act a Joint District Board has not been recognised by the Board of Trade for any district, or if at any time after the passing of the Act any occasion arises for the exercise or performance in any district of any power or duty under this Act by the Joint District Board, and there is no Joint District Board for the district, the Board of Trade may appoint such person as they think fit to act in the place of the Joint District Board, and, while that appointment continues, this Act shall be construed, so far as respects that district, as if the person so appointed were substituted for the Joint District Board.
  (2) If within five weeks after the passing of this Act the Joint District Board for any district fail to perform any duty with respect to the settling of the first minimum rate of wages and district rules in that district, the chairman of the Joint District Board shall perform that duty in place of the Joint District Board, and any minimum rate of wages or district rules settled by him shall have the same effect for the purposes of this Act as if they had been settled by the Joint District Board:
  Provided that, if the members of the Joint District Board representing the workmen and the members representing the employers agree, or if the Board of Trade on a report from the chairman of the District Board direct, that a specified period longer than five weeks shall for the purposes of this Sub-section be substituted for five weeks, this Sub-section shall have effect as if that specified period were therein substituted for five weeks.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "the Board of Trade may appoint such person as they think fit to act in the place of the Joint District Board, and, while that appointment continues, this Act shall be construed, so far as respects that district, as if the person so appointed were substituted for the Joint District Board," and to insert instead thereof the words, "representatives that have been elected by either the workmen or employers shall be recognised by the Board of Trade as a Joint District Board, and the decisions of the Board shall be construed, so far as respects that district, as if the Board so constituted complied with the provisions of Section 2 of this Act."
  Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend will remember that at an earlier stage the Committee decided that the Chairman should have a casting vote. Take the case of the owners forming their side of the Joint Board and the miners for some reason declining to form theirs, and then the owners fixing the rate at 3s. The Chairman could not vote against one side, and the 3s. rate would then be declared to be the district minimum. So from the practical point of view I think that the Chairman must act alone. Otherwise he might be put into an impossible position which might lead to grave injustice.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in Subsection (1) after the word "may" ["the Board of Trade may"] to insert the words "either forthwith or after such interval as may seem to them necessary or expedient,"
  The object of my Amendment is that as the Clause is now drawn it will be essential within five weeks after the passing of the Act that the decision by the Chairman shall be made with respect, both to the rate and to the district rule. It might happen that in the event of either the owners refusing to have the men back or the men not returning to work during that interval it might be impossible in the prescribed period to create joint committees district chairmen, and get them into working order. Therefore we think it is essential in order to provide, when any delay occurs in beginning work, that some latitude should be given to the Board of Trade in the selection of a Chairman, in the event of the Joint Board not being formed and a Chairman not being selected.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2) leave out the words "within five weeks after the passing of this Act."
  After the word "Board" ["Joint District Board"] insert the words "within three weeks after the time, at which it has been recognised under this Act."
  Leave out the word "rate" ["minimum rate of wages"] and insert instead thereof the word "rates."—[Mr. Buxton.]
  Consequential Amendments made.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "the Board of Trade, and report from" ["or if the Board of Trade on a report from."]
  This is an Amendment, which I think ought to be made to meet a practical difficulty. If at the end of five weeks an agreement is not come to, I think the Chairman ought to have the right to extend the time for consulting the Board of Trade. If that were not so, the time might elapse before our answer is received from the Board of Trade, and the whole thing becomes nought. My Amendment gives the Chairman the right to extend the time on his own authority, and that seems to be a perfectly reasonable proposal, and meets a practical difficulty.
  Mr. BUXTON: I think I am in agreement with the hon. Member, but I should like to consider the matter further, and bring it up on the report stage.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation and Provision as to Chainman)
  (1) In this Act—
  The expression "coal mine" includes a mine of stratified ironstone.
  The expression "workman" means any person employed in a mine below ground who is not a person employed solely in surveying or measuring, or an official of the mine.
  (2) If it is thought fit by any persons when appointing a Chairman for the purposes of this Act, or by the Board of Trade

  2405
  when so appointing a Chairman, the office of Chairman may be committed to three persons, and in that case those three persons acting by a majority shall be deemed to be the Chairman for the purposes of this Act.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "the expression 'coal mine' includes a mine of stratified ironstone."
  I move this Amendment for two reasons. I think the Committee will recognise that it is not an unreasonable desire to have a word of explanation from the Government as to why mines of stratified ironstone are included in a Coal Mines Bill. I asked a question yesterday in the course of the Second Reading Debate and the Secretary of State, who replied, did not answer me on the point. I make no complaint of that. His speech was not directed to my speech at all. He was addressing a different question of the House, and it would have been inconvenient for him to interfere with his argument, and turn aside to answer my question. I think it was perfectly natural under the circumstances that it should not be answered, but I do think that we ought to have some statement from the Government as to why this provision appears in the Bill before we assent to it, and pass it into law. I admit at once my information on the subject is not of a very complete kind. As far as it goes it is to this effect that in the Cleveland district of Yorkshire the workers in the stratified ironstone mines are included in the Miners' Federation in that area, and are involved in this strike.
  As far as they and any other district, if there be any other district where the same circumstances prevail are concerned, there is the prima facie reason for including those mines in the Bill. But my information—and I am subject to correction—is that there are many mines, I do not say very big ones, in other parts of the country, and notably in Scotland, of stratified ironstone, which are not affected by the present strike, where there is no disagreement between masters and men, where neither side has pursued the differences which prevail in the coal trade, and where there is no reason whatever for Parliament to step in and interfere with arrangements which are the result of mutual agreement between employers and employed, and are working satisfactorily, uninterrupted by the strike which prevails in the coal trade. That is the information as to the facts as far as I
  2406
  possess it. I think at any rate it justifies me in prima facie asking the Government for some explanation of why they have included the whole of the stratified ironstone mines of the United Kingdom in the Bill, and whether they have considered this diversity of circumstances which prevail in that trade. I am told different rates of wages prevail in those two classes of mines because the circumstances of the work are different, and that the regularity of work in the case of ironstone mines is greater than in the case of the coal mines.
  12.0 M.
  That is my first consideration, and now I come to the second. It will be, with the recollection of the Committee, that just at the close of the proceedings last night a point of order was raised as to these words. Mr. Speaker was in some doubt as to the facts of the case upon which his ruling would necessarily be based, and he applied to the Government for information as to the facts in order that he might give a ruling. Nothing could be further from my thought than to question the ruling of Mr. Speaker, or to suggest at this stage that that ruling could be revised. But I desire to question the Attorney-General as to the statement of fact supplied to Mr. Speaker by the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker inquired of the Government why these words were included. Prima facie. they were outside or beyond the scope of the title of the Bill. The answer of the Government was that they were restrictive words, that but for them the title of the Bill, which named only coal mines, must necessarily, in consequence of previous legislation, include not only stratified iron mines, but shale mines, and, I think, fire clay works. The Attorney - General said that the previous Acts dealing with the subject included these under the title of coal mines. The latest legislation on the subject is the Consolidation Act of 1911. What is the case of the Government? That the Coal Mines Act, and the title of that Act, is made to include these other mines, and that therefore the title "coal mines" in this Bill must include them also unless such words as these are put in. Let the House listen to the title and the first section of that Act, and judge of the merits of that contention. The title is "An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to coal mines and certain other mines." That is to say, if it had stopped at coal mines, it would have meant coal mines; but, because it meant other mines besides, it said other mines, and the first

  2407
  section of the Act, which the Prime Minister did not read, states that "Mines to which this Act applies are mines of coal, mines of stratified ironstone, mines of shale, and mines of fire-clay, and in this Act the expression 'mines,' unless the context otherwise requires, means the mines to which this Act applies." That does not bear out the contention of the Government.
  I go back to the previous Act—the Act of 1887. That is also a consolidating and amending Act of the Coal Mines Act, but it does not stop there. Its title is "An Act to consolidate with amendments the Coal Mines Acts of 1872 and 1886, and the Stratified Ironstone Mines (Gunpowder) Act, 1881." In both those cases, in order to include stratified ironstone mines, the title is expressly defined. In one case those mines are specifically mentioned, and in the other case coal mines and certain other mines are mentioned. There is a similar section in the latter Act, but I will not trouble the House by reading it. Therefore both those consolidating and amending Acts referring to coal mines specifically mention other mines besides coal mines in their title in order to include stratified ironstone mines amongst others. If those Acts had been presented to Mr. Speaker by the Government when Mr. Speaker appealed to the Government for the facts of the case, there is but one ruling that would have been possible under the rules of this House. The Government Bill has been drafted in such haste and so carelessly, that it is out of order, and had the facts been properly presented, Mr. Speaker would have been obliged to declare that if the objection were persisted in the Bill would have to be withdrawn and re-presented. I am quite sure my hon. Friend, and all my hon. Friends on this side, would not have desired, under the special circumstances of the case, to press such an objection. The Attorney-General asks me: Why then did we raise it? I think we have not only the right to raise it, but I think we have a duty to raise it. Then because of their slovenly action, and now in order to cover their slovenly action, they give careless and false information. I think it is right that the attention of the Committee should be called to these matters, and I think the Government should take some steps in consequence.
  What explanation the Attorney-General has to offer I do not know, and I am wait-
  2408

  ing to hear it, but I venture to say that, as a matter of order and regularity of our business, one of two courses is really necessary. If this provision for stratified ironstone is not required, the words can be struck out. If it is required for the purpose of the Bill, then the title of the Bill ought to be amended in accordance with the title of the other bills dealing with the regulation of coal and similar mines. Whatever the Mines (Eight Hours) Act says has no bearing on this point. It is not incorporated in this Act, and no lawyer would venture to say, after reflection, that a definition in a particular Act for the purpose of that Act is binding on another Act, in spite of the common use of language and statutory use of language in many Acts of Parliament, unless that definition is incorporated in the Bill by a special reference. I have stated my case, and I should be glad to hear what the Attorney-General has to say.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The first point which I desire to make in answer to the right hon. Gentleman is us to the inclusion of the stratified ironstone in the definition of coal mines. As I gather from his observations, the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that, at least as regards the Cleveland District, the stratified ironstone mine stands very much in the same category as the coal mine. It is no doubt perfectly true that it is worked in the same way. The miners belong to the same Federation; and, indeed, I understand, one of the representatives of the ironstone miners is on the executive which has waited on the Government. Except that they are smaller in numbers, they are as interested in this question as the coal-miners. The right hon. Gentleman said there were some stratified ironstone mines in Scotland not included in the dispute. I am not aware of it, but will inquire to see if that is the case. I will take steps to see that if they are not included in the dispute they shall not be included by way of definition.
  I now approach the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made with so much emphasis, and which, I gather, he regards as the most important, in the Bill. My experience of the law as a rule has been that when a layman wants to make a point which is based on technicality he has recourse to a lawyer, but in this particular case the right hon. Gentleman has discovered by himself, or with the assistance of a distinguished lawyer—he is quite capable, however, of discovering it

  2409
  for himself—that this Bill is entirely out of order, and that if only the Speaker had known what we now know this Bill would have been ruled out of order, and, I suppose, the strike would go on. I quite fail to understand the point of the objection taken last night, unless it was to get this Bill ruled out of order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me when I say that I am not at all certain that it is not the junior Member for the City of London who is entitled to the credit of the point. If our attention had been called to this particular point more than just half-a-minute before the question was put by the Speaker, of course it would have been easy to have replied. But this question was kept quite dark. I am not complaining, I want to say that whatever the Prime Minister said last night was said very hurriedly, because he had no time to consider the matter, and what was said was said entirely upon my suggestion. Therefore, whatever blame there is, is due to me, and not to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to dispute anything the Attorney-General has said so far, but I do want to relieve him of one misapprehension. He seems to think that we had become aware that there was this point of order a long time in advance and had kept it deliberately in the dark. That is not so. We had only just become aware of it. My hon. Friend gave notice to Mr. Speaker of his intention to raise it the moment he became aware of it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think it is exactly what I have stated. But really what point is it we are discussing. Here we are at this moment discussing as important a Bill as has ever been before the House of Commons. We have been engaged the whole day in fighting this Bill and in attempting to pass it through Committee, and the question raised now by the right hon. Gentleman with so much emphasis and passion, and on which he lays so much stress, is that we said last night that stratified ironstone has been dealt with in other Bills dealing with coal mines. It is included in the Act of 1911, and the Act of 1887. The whole point is that in these Acts stratified ironstone, shale, and fire clay, were all dealt with along with coal mines. We are quite entitled to say it deals with coal mines and other mines. That is the whole point. The whole point is, that in the title, instead of confining it to coal mines, it says coal mines and other mines. The whole
  2410
  question arises through dealing with coal mines and other mines.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: What the Prime Minister told me was that in a former Act was included shale mines, stratified iron, and something else—fire clay. That is not the fact.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Really, if that is the point that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester and the hon. Baronet are making, I make them a present of it. So far as I am concerned, in my view it is not worth another moment's discussion. The whole point is that in this Bill we intended, by calling it the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill, that it should apply not only to coal mines, but to stratified ironstone. The whole contention of right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they are able to say that the Bill has been badly drafted.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: The point to which my right hon. Friend has called attention to is very much more important than any question of the drafting of the Bill. The question is not whether the Bill is well or ill-drafted. The question is whether, when the Speaker appealed to the Prime Minister for information, the Prime Minister gave correct or incorrect information. I may relieve my hon. and learned Friend from any idea that there was any intention to keep back information from him. I never heard of this point until the junior Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) rose to take the point of order and the Speaker then appealed to the Prime Minister on the point. The Prime Minister in reply said distinctly, "These words are not words of extension; they are words of limitation"—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—and he gave this reason—"There is in a previous Act of Parliament a definition of coal mines which includes shale, ironstone, and fire-clay." That was the information which was given to the Speaker and, on that information, the Speaker very naturally gave the ruling which he gave. It turns out that that has really no foundation. There is no such definition. There is a definition of mines." [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to give the hon. and learned Member a hearing. It is true we have had a late sitting, but that is not a reason why we should not carry on our proceedings with the same order as we have done all day.
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I ask is what happened yesterday in order upon this Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment proposed to the Committee is to leave out those two lines in Clause 5. I think it is in order to refer to what occurred in the proceedings yesterday as one of the reasons for moving the Amendment. Of course there is a ruling, and in Committee we cannot reopen matters of Order which have been already dealt with in the House.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: There is no definition such as the Prime Minister stated did exist. There is no Clause, no definition in either Act, the Act of 1887 or the Act of 1911, as stated by the Prime Minister. The definition is that mines include coal mines, stratified ironstone mines, shale mines, and fire-clay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman at least appreciates the difference? Is it possible that he does not appreciate the effect of that statement? The statement was that these words were words of limitation, and not of extension, because if they had not been introduced the expression "coal mines" would have included shale, fireclay, and other mines. The statement was distinctly made, and we have had no withdrawal of that statement. I think the matter is one of extreme importance. When the Speaker calls for assistance from the Treasury Bench, statements should not be made unless some pains have been taken to ascertain the facts. I will only say in conclusion, that now that the Government have found out their mistake they will, if they desire to retain this Clause in the Bill, find it necessary to amend the title of the Bill.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I hope the Attorney-General will not agree to the ironstone miners of Scotland being excluded from the Bill. These men are engaged in similar work to those who work in the coal mines; they are paid by the same method; and they are also engaged in this effort to secure a minimum wage, the same as the miners employed in the coal mines.
  Question, "That the words the expression "coal mine" includes a mine of stratified ironstone' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to move, after the word "person" ["The expression 'workman' means any person
  2412
  employed"] to insert the words "ordinarily or regularly."
  I desire to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend (Col. Hickman), and I hope the Government will consider whether they cannot see their way to accept it. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the Bill shall apply only to persons regularly engaged underground in coal mines. I think the Attorney-General will see my point which is certainly of some importance. There are individuals employed usually on the surface, but on certain specific occasions they are employed underground, such as a mechanic who goes underground to repair machinery, or an electrical engineer who goes below ground to see about the electrical apparatus in connection with the electric installation. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that as the Bill stands at the present moment such persons will come in under its provisions. I propose that these individuals who are only occasionally employed underground should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. If they are already exempted of course there is no need to press the Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: The Act is intended to apply to those who are employed underground in the ordinary course of their work—underground workers. I do not think the persons referred to by the Noble Lord would come under that definition. It would not include men who only go down the mine occasionally for a special purpose. I am advised that there is no necessity for such an Amendment, and perhaps this statement will relieve the fears of the Noble Lord. I quite agree with him that, if it were necessary, words should be introduced exempting these particular men.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: In the circumstances, and after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out the words "an official" ["or an official"] and to insert instead thereof the words "a manager or under-manager."
  Mr. BUXTON: The speech of my hon. Friend was so remarkably short that I am unable to understand fully the particular reasons which have induced him

  2413
  to move this Amendment. If he will be good enough to give me a reason or two for the proposal I shall be glad to consider it, but I must confess I should have thought the words of the Bill covered all he wanted.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The explanation is very simple. The point is that we do not understand what is meant by "an official," and we wish to have the matter clearly defined in the Bill. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the point is one of some importance, because there are now many classes of workmen in the mines to whom the term "official" may apply, and who at the same time are simply day-wage men. For that reason we want to limit the application of the words in the Bill strictly to persons who are really managers or under-managers. For example, the shot-firer might easily be included in the term "an official." So might the timber man, and certainly so would the fireman. Therefore we desire that the definition here laid down shall apply specifically to the manager and under-manager, to whom it is probably intended to apply, and leave the rest of the workmen to receive the benefits of the Bill, from which they may be excluded unless this change is effected.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I point out that in Grand Committee on the Coal Mines Bill last year we had a very long discussion on this point. It was pointed out in the evidence before the Royal Commission of Mines that in Scotland firemen were paid in some cases as little as 4s. 9d. a day, and yet there are officials, having important and responsible duties to discharge in the mine. Many officials in Scotland are paid lower rates of wages than are day men in England. It would be particularly unfair, therefore, to place outside the operation of the Bill these low paid wage-men, who are given the names of officials but are doing the drudgery of the mine at starvation wages.
  Mr. BUXTON: It is not intended, as the Committee will readily understand, to include in this term any one who in the ordinary course is a day-wage man, that is to say, an ordinary person who is under control. The expression is intended, of course, to refer to the officials in the real sense—those in authority in the mine. I understand that it is the usual term used in Mines Acts for such persons, and is understood in the way I have described. I am bound to say that what the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield has
  2414
  said seems to show that in some cases the conditions in Scotland are different from those which prevail in England. I can assure the Committee that this paragraph has been very carefully considered, and there is no intention of excluding from the operation of the Bill anyone who is a day labourer or a day workman. As far as my knowledge goes the term employed would not result in the exclusion of any of those workmen to whom reference has been made, but, of course, the matter is a somewhat technical one.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Shot-firers must be excluded.
  Mr. BUXTON: These matters, as I was saying, are somewhat technical, and I have not the knowledge in regard to the terms which some of my hon. Friends possess, but I think the words are all right. I will promise, however, to look into them, and if I find that any of these men are excluded I will undertake to set the matter right. I hope the Committee will allow the words to remain as they are for the time being on that understanding.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not think this is quite satisfactory. The point is this: These men are officials working on day wages and their wages are much lower than the actual hewers of coal are receiving. Are these men to be within the scope of the Bill or not? May I point cut to my right hon. Friend that these men work longer hours than others. This is where the trouble arises. We have no Department of Mines. The conduct of mines rests with the Home Office, and here for the first time we get the Board of Trade coming in. This is liable to create great confusion, and the matter ought to be in the control of one department. There is not a single man in the Board of Trade who knows anything about mines or has ever been down a mine. Yet they are to have charge of this matter. This is a very important point. We discussed it for days upstairs in Committee last year. What I want to get at is whether these wage officials, particularly in Scotland, where they are paid four shillings and ninepence a day, as was given in evidence before the Royal Commission, are going to come within the scope of the Bill. Many of these officials in small mines do work as labourers, and they are fully entitled to get all the benefits this Bill may confer. I contend that everyone except managers and under-managers ought to come within the scope of the measure. I hope my hon.

  2415
  Friend will not withdraw the Amendment unless he gets a more satisfactory reply from the Government.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman not to accept too readily the statements made about Scotland by the hon. Baronet opposite. The hon Baronet has an obession on this question as those of us know who sat on the Coal Mines Bill Committee last year. Nothing is bad enough to be said by him about Scotland so far as the owners and miners are concerned. I am only putting in a word of warning to the right hon. Gentleman to be sure of his facts before he takes without a grain of salt what the hon. Baronet says on this subject.
  Mr. BUXTON: I say that I have no technical knowledge in regard to this matter. I agree with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Mansfield, that in these matters the Home Office is the expert department rather than the Board of Trade. But as I have said I will look into it, and will endeavour to ascertain between now and the Report stage as to whether an official is not an official.
  Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS: Upon the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "it is thought fit by any persons when appointing," and to insert instead thereof the words, "prior to the appointment of."
  This Amendment and the two others in my name which follow it hang together. The Sub-section gives the appointment of Chairman to the Board of Trade and provides that the Board may appoint either one or three persons to act in that capacity. My Amendment is to the effect that if the representatives of the employers or workmen so desire three persons shall be appointed. The subject is one of great importance, because of the responsibility that will rest on the Chairman, and in certain circumstances it would be very desirable that there should be a panel of three. I do not propose to adduce any arguments in support of my proposal, as I think it must be evident to everybody that no precautions are provided in the Bill in that connection, and it is most neces-
  2416
  sary and desirable that the Tight of demanding the appointment of three persons to serve in the capacity of Chairman should rest with either party.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. BUXTON: I rather gather from the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman that he desires to leave the question whether there should be three Chairmen or one Chairman to the Committees themselves; or does he desire that in every case it should be compulsory on the Board of Trade to appoint three Chairmen?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I had better read the Clause as it will run when amended:
  (2) If prior to the appointment of a Chairman for the purposes of this Act the representatives of the workmen or employers concerned so desire, the office of Chairman shall be committed to three persons, and in that case those three persons acting by a majority shall be deemed to be the Chairman for the purposes of this Act.
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think I can accept the Amendment. In many cases it may be necessary or advisable to have three chairmen, but I do not think the Committee should say that the Board of Trade ought to have no discretion. If one side desires three, chairmen and the other side only desires one, there must be some reason on which the difference of opinion is based, and I think in that case the Board of Trade ought to have a deciding voice in reference to the matter.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: There are really two points involved in this Amendment. As the Clause stands, at present the matter is left entirely to the initiative of the persons appointing the Chairman or the Board of Trade. The Amendment of my hon. Friend, in the first place, gives the initiative to the workmen or the employers. Then my hon. Friend desires, in the second place, to make that initiative compulsory on the Board of Trade. The two-points are altogether distinct. It seems to me that it would be desirable to give the initiative to the employers or the workmen. I understand that it is impossible to expect any departmental chief to assent to his department being actually overruled. That, I suppose, has never happened in the history of Parliament. But I do think he might leave the initiative

  2417
  in these matters at any rate to the employers and workmen, and not require the initiative as well as the control to be left entirely in the hands of the department.
  Sir C. CORY: Would the hon. Member be willing to make it three instead of one, which is very much better?
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Short Title and Duration.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912.
  (2) This Act shall continue in force for three years from the date of the passing thereof and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "three years" ["continue in force for three years"] and to insert instead thereof "one year."
  I would submit to the Committee, having regard to the fact that this Bill does constitute a tremendous innovation, and having regard to the fact that it has necessarily to be considered very hastily, and further that it is regarded on all sides of the House, in the words of the Prime Minister, as a temporary expedient, that we ought really not to bind ourselves for three years. If the Bill works satisfactorily at the expiration of twelve months then it would be the unanimous desire of this House to renew it. If, on the other hand, it works unsatisfactorily then I am sure it would be equally desired by the House to discuss it. In any case no harm would be done, and it would afford the House an opportunity of full debate and full inquiry into the working of the Act after twelve months' experience.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am inclined to think that, so far as the opposite side of the House is concerned, it is rather unnecessary for me to argue the point, because I see that the next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. O. Locker-Lampson) proposes to increase the number of years from three to six.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: This is not a party Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: As the hon. Member who moves this Amendment proposes to
  2418
  reduce the period from three years to one year, I think I may take it that the two Amendments cancel one another. At all events, the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we are making—and professedly making—this Bill a temporary measure, but under the provisions of the Bill the District Boards will provide for agreements lasting a year, and I think it would be a very serious thing if the Act only continued in force for that time. If it were found by experience that it had been successful, then it would be within the power of the House of Commons to continue its operation for a further period. I think it is necessary to give a fair opportunity to see if it is successful, and I am quite sure that one year would be too short a period. We have put the lowest possible period in the Bill.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to enter my protest very strongly against the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. So far as I am concerned, and I think all the hon. Members on this side are concerned, we have endeavoured to discuss this Bill with absolute fairness, and have not made a single party point from beginning to end. I think the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, might well have spared us any sneer.
  Mr. BUXTON: Really, I was not endeavouring in any sense of the term to make a party point. I can asure the noble Lord and the Committee that I am extremely grateful for the way in which they have dealt with this Bill throughout this long sitting. No party question arises. I think there is a most earnest desire on both sides to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. I am sorry my attempt at a little mathematical humour should have given any offence. I endeavoured to deal with the Amendment on its merits, and on merits I really think three years are better than one.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "unless Parliament shall otherwise determine."
  If the Act is good at the end of three years the House will be able to renew it; if bad, it will not renew it. Any attempt to prejudice this House in its decision with regard to the Act would be a great mistake. The words in question are of no value, and I hope the Government will let us send the Act out in an impartial frame of mind.
  Mr. BUXTON: The object of putting in these words is that if it is thought desirable by Parliament to continue the Act for a further period, it can be put, as many other Acts are, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and then the House of Commons has full control from year to year, and can continue the Act without any trouble.
  Mr. CASSEL: It would be interesting to the Committee to have the opinion of the Attorney-General as to the effect of these words if inserted. According to the President of the Board of Trade if these words were left out, everything could be done just as if they were left in.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I did not understand from the speech of the Prime Minister on the Second Reading that the purpose of these words was to enable the Bill to be renewed at the end of three years. I read the words of the Prime Minister as meaning that this Act shall continue in force for three years and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines. That suggests to Parliament that when the matter is dealt with finally and satisfactorily—in a way very different from the way suggested in this Bill that this Bill would then come to an end—that it was to enforce the temporary character of the Act, and not to enforce its renewal, that these words were put in. That is what I understood from the speech of the Prime Minister. Having this in view, I handed in words which would make the intention still more clear. I will not deal with them now, but that was the reason for the words I shall move in a moment, namely, to make it clear that this is meant as merely a temporary settlement, and not as a permanent settlement.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does it make the smallest difference whether the words are in or not?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The insertion of the words makes no difference. The object of keeping them in is to follow other Acts.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The CHAIRMAN: The Ayes have it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Owing to the noise, Mr. Chairman, I did not gather your decision; may we have it again.
  The CHAIRMAN: I put the Question, and not hearing any opposition I gave my decision that the Ayes have it.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think this is a matter of very great importance. It is not possible to conduct the proceedings if the Chair does not listen—[interruption.] We all heard hon. Members opposite challenge a division, and I think we are entitled to a division.
  The CHAIRMAN: I repeatedly put the Question in order to ensure that if hon. Members wanted a division they should have it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I could not do more than I did. Every time you put the Question I shouted "No," and my hon. Friends above me did the same thing.
  The CHAIRMAN: If that is so, it was a pure mistake on my part. I am quite willing to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly understood the intention of the Committee to be in the opposite direction. I shall therefore put the Question again.
  Question again put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 72.

  Division No. 53.]

  AYES.

  [12.58 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

  Cator, John

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Cecil, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Clough, William

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Armitage, Robert

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Brunner, John F. L

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Barnston, H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Cullinan, John

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Barton, William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Keating, Matthew

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Kelly, Edward

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  King, Joseph

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dillon, John

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Doris, William

  Leach, Charles

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duffy, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rowlands, James

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Macmaster, Donald

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Field, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  McGhee, Richard

  Shortt, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines, Spalding)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Smyth, Thomas F.

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, S. Augustine's)

  Stanier, Beville

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

  Goldman, Charles Sidney

  Middlebrook, William

  Sutherland, John E.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morrell, Philip

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hackett, John

  Muldoon, John

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Munro, Robert

  Touche, George Alexander

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Waring, Walter

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Webb, H.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Doherty, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Malley, William

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worces., N.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Pollock, E. M.

  Baird, J. L.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Richards, Thomas

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Roch, Walter F.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Darby)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Brace, William

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hudson, Walter

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sutton, John E.

  Cassel, Felix

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lansbury, George

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Cave, George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wardle, George J.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  O'Grady, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. George Roberts and Mr Pointer.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  The CHAIRMAN: We now go on to the new Clauses, and there is one in the name of the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Hitchin which I have some doubt about, but I desire to do him justice and will therefore call upon him.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move the following new Clause.
  (1) Any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that by reason of any adjudication under this Act he has been prevented from fulfilling a contract entered into before the 19th day of March, 1912, without suffering pecuniary loss shall be entitled to compensation.
  (2) There shall be deducted from any payment made in respect of a royalty on coal, or in respect of any dividends, profits, salaries, or wages in connection with coal mining, in the manner prescribed by the Board of Trade, such percentage as shall be from time to time prescribed by the Board of Trade, and the sums so deducted shall be paid to the Board of Trade to form a fund out of which the compensation granted under this Section shall be paid.
  I know the difficulty which lies in the way of a private Member who desires to do justice. It is exceedingly hard, and I am quite aware that the second Subsection of the new Clause is one which exposes me to some criticism. The main object of my proposal, which I wish to to draw attention to, is contained in the first Sub-section. Owing to the discussion which took place earlier in the evening upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. W. McLaren), I need not really deal with the matter at any length, because a good many of the arguments which were used upon it apply to this proposal. The point is quite simple. This Bill is introduced with a great public object, in order to settle the coal strike. The result may be, and those who know best say that it will be, to increase in certain mines the cost of the production of coal. There is a very large number of districts to which this applies. I am told by those who know that as much as ninety per cent. of the coal produced in many of these collieries is sold under contract, six monthly, yearly, and, it may be, three yearly, and it is quite plain, therefore, that if the cost of producing the coal is greatly increased a very serious loss may be suffered by those who
  2424
  made the contracts. If the contract has been made under severe foreign competition, as may be the case in a foreign contract, and the profit has been cut very low, it may result in an actual loss to the contractor in having to fulfil the contract at the price. I do not pretend to judge these things. It may be true, or it may not, but I do say that if such a loss occurs it ought not to be suffered by the private individual, but it ought to be borne by some other party.
  The parties I am forced to suggest in this particular case are those who are generally interested in the coal trade. I do not myself think that that is an ideal solution. The ideal solution would be that it would fall upon the general taxpayer and the Treasury, because I think it is a national purpose which has been carried out for national reasons, and any loss that is suffered by private individuals ought to be compensated for by the State. That is the view I desire to submit to the Committee, and it seems to me to be a view which the Committee will do well to consider even at this late hour. Whilst we are trying to carry through what, I confess, seems to me to be an ill-advised attempt to settle a great national question, I think we ought to take care that we are not in so doing inflicting injustice upon private individuals. The proposal I make is that "any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that by reason of any adjudication under this Act he has been prevented from fulfilling a contract"—the wording is really not very important, but this is the substance of the Amendment, that if he suffers pecuniary loss he shall be entitled to compensation. I suggest to the Government that although they were unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe, which would in fact have thrown the burden of the loss upon the wage earner, they may consider this proposal. I propose, of course, to throw it upon the whole body of the coal trade, but I do not exactly mean to do that; I should prefer that it should be thrown upon the taxpayer at large, and if the Government can make this Amendment their own they can easily put it down in some way in which the compensation can be ultimately derived from that source. I do suggest very strongly that it ought not to fall upon a private individual but upon some public authority.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As the Noble Lord has said, we have discussed the general question raised by the first part of the Clause he is moving in an earlier part of the debate in Committee. Therefore, I do not propose to go into that matter again. The novel character of the new clause moved by the Noble Lord is the way in which it provides for compensation, and it is to that I am going to devote the few observations I shall make. I hope the Noble Lord will pardon me when I say that probably no one is more fully aware of the impossibility of dealing with the matter in the way he has suggested than himself. It would, no doubt, be an ideal state of things always to be able to give compensation to any person who has suffered loss, but here compensation is to be given whenever a person can prove he has not been able to fulfil a contract. Who, I should like to know, is to inquire into the matter, and where are you to find the money?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Board of Trade is to inquire.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It really would be a very difficult matter to determine. Apart from that, from whom is the compensation to be obtained? The Noble Lord has a proposal which is extremely interesting. It is that the compensation money should come out of the royalty on coal or from dividends resulting from the working of coal mines. The suggestion, in short, is that there should be a kind of compensation fund made up from various levies on the coal trade. There would be no objection to that, I suppose, on the part of persons who are not concerned in any way in the, coal trade. But I cannot see that it would he just to impose on persons who are royalty owners, or those who derive profits or dividends from mines, a burden of this kind. It is, I am sure, an impracticable proposal, and could not be carried out.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Attorney-General has not done justice to my proposal. I said that this was the best suggestion I could make as a private member. The Attorney General knows that I cannot propose, under the rules of the House, as I should desire, that the burden of this compensation should be thrown on the Imperial Exchequer. That is where I think it ought to lie. I have to take the next best course, and if I cannot throw the burden on the general body of tax payers, then I say it ought to be placed upon the coal trade. But if the Govern-
  2426
  ment approve of the principle of compensation it is perfectly easy for them to deal with it.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If the Noble Lord would delete the word "wages" from the second part of his Clause I would support him. I put down an Amendment, which was ruled out of Order, very nearly to the same effect as that of the Noble Lord. If he would leave out the word "wages" I think hon. Gentlemen sitting on these benches would probably support the new Clause.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: As soon as the Clause has been read a second time I shall be very glad to consider any Amendment.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the proposed new Clause ["Restriction on Strikes and Lock-Outs"] standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), I think it is hardly within the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. CAVE: I beg to submit this to you in favour of the Clause being in order. This is a Bill to fix a minimum wage, and the new Clause is founded on the view that if you are going to fix a minimum wage in order to prevent a strike, you ought at least to forbid a strike against the minimum wage itself. This is closely connected with the main object of the Bill and it comes within the title which is "to provide a minimum wage in the case of workmen employed underground in coal mines, and for purposes incidental thereto."
  The CHAIRMAN: I think I am bound to rule that this introduces quite new matter into the Bill.
  SCHEDULE.—Districts.

  Northumberland.

  Durham.

  Cumberland.

  Lancashire and Cheshire.

  South Yorkshire.

  West Yorkshire.

  Cleveland

  Derbyshire (exclusive of South Derbyshire).

  South Derbyshire.

  Nottinghamshire.

  Leicestershire

  Shropshire.

  North Staffordshire.

  South Stafford and East Worcestershire.

  2427

  Warwickshire.

  Forest of Dean.

  Bristol.

  Somerset.

  North Wales.

  South Wales, including Monmouth

  Scotland.

  Where a mine, though situate in one of these districts, has for industrial purposes been customarily dealt with in the same manner as a mine situate in an adjoining district, that mine shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as situate in the latter district, if the Joint District Boards of the two districts so agree.
  Mr. WADSWORTH: I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the word "South" ["South Yorkshire"], but after consulting with some of my friends, and knowing, or having some idea, that an arrangement may be made, it is not my intention at this juncture to move; but I reserve to myself the right to put down an Amendment on the Report stage if I am not satisfied.
  Mr. LLOYD: I beg to move after the word "Stafford" ["South Stafford"], to insert the words "(exclusive of Cannock Chase)". I hope I am right in assuming that the Government will accept this, because Cannock Chase has conditions quite peculiar to itself. It has an output far greater than one or two places which form separate districts.
  Mr. BUXTON: I find that the exclusion of Cannock Chase from Staffordshire would give satisfaction on both sides, and therefore I agree to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the words "(exclusive of Cannock Chase)" insert the words "Cannock Chase."—[Mr. Lloyd.]
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at Twenty minutes after One o'clock a m., Saturday, 23rd March, till Monday next, 25th March.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were Presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
WEDNESDAY.
Trade Unions Bill—Petition from London and other places, in favour.

THURSDAY.
Mahomed, Shakoor—Petition of Shakoor Mahomed, for redress of grievances.
Taxation of Land Values for Local Purposes—Petitions for legislation—from Ardrossan and Mountain Ash.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Dundee, in favour.

FRIDAY.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Whiteinch, in favour.