Commons Sitting of 26 March 1912

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

PEIVATE BUSINESS.
London Electric Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill,
AS amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Glasgow Boundaries Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Glasgow Water (Charges) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
National Electric Construction Company Bill (by Order),
Second reading deferred till Thursday.
Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Keighley Corporation Bill,
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General on the Bill [presented pursuant to Standing Order 175 a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
Birmingham Corporation Bill,
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General on the Bill [presented pursuant to Standing Order 175 a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
Sidmouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Tendring Hundred Water and Gas Bill, [Lords],
Penwortham Bridge Bill [Lords],
Leatherhead Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Leave given to the Committee appointed by this House to join with a Committee of the Lords to make a Special Report in respect of the Shops Bill [Lords].
Special Report brought up, and read;
Shops Bill [Lords] reported, with Amendments.
Report, with Minutes of Evidence, and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 77.]

EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Emigration Statistics of Ireland for the year 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PERSIA (No. 2, 1912).
Copy presented of Notes exchanged between the Persian Government and the British and Russian Ministers at Tehran, 18th February—20th March, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
WEST AFRICA.
Copy presented of Returns for 1911 of vital statistics of non-native officials [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF BERKS).
Copy presented of Order made by the council of the county of Berks, altering certain Polling Districts in the Southern or Newbury Parliamentary Division of the county [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 3rd August, 1911; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 76.]

PRICES OF EXPORTED COAL
Return ordered, "giving the quantities of Coal exported from each of the ports

187
of the United Kingdom, by quarterly periods, in 1911 at prices not exceeding 5s., above 5s. but not exceeding 6s., above 6s. but not exceeding 7s., and so on, with comparative totals for 1906–10 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 175, of Session 1911)."—[Mr. Timothy Davies.]

FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC SERVICES (CONDITIONS OF ENTRY.)
Address for "Return showing conditions of Entry into the German, Italian, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian Diplomatic Services and Foreign Offices."—[Mr. Noel Buxton.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911." [Shops Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer upon the Sidmouth Urban District Council powers in relation to the supply of gas and electricity, and to enable the council to acquire the undertaking of the Sidmouth Gas and Electricity Company." [Sidmouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits of the Tendring Hundred Waterworks Company; for and to confer further powers on the company with reference to the supply of water and gas; to authorise the company to construct additional waterworks; and for other purposes." [Tendring Hundred Water and Gas Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the construction of a new bridge over the River Ribble from Preston to Penwortham, in the county palatine of Lancaster; and for other purposes." [Penwortham Bridge Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Leatherhead Gas and Lighting Company to acquire the undertaking of the Cobham Gas Company and to confirm the agreement entered into with the latter Company; to authorise the raising of additional capital by and the conferring of further powers upon the Leatherhead Gas and Lighting Company; and for other purposes." [Leatherhead Gas Bill [Lords.]

SHOPS BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Anglo-Russian Convention, 1907.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the assent of the Ameer of Afghanistan to-the provisions of the Anglo-Russian Convention, 1907, relating to Afghanistan, has yet been notified to the Russian Government; and, if not, is it to be understood that, in accordance with Article V., these provisions are inoperative?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have to express to the House, on his behalf, the regret of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that owing to the part which I am sure the House will appreciate he is taking in the negotiations now proceeding in connection with the coal dispute, he is unable to be present. I have also to express my regret that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is indisposed, and he has asked me to reply on his behalf. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am glad to state, however, that the Russian Government have willingly enabled the two Powers, so far as their own actions are concerned, generally to carry out in practice the provisions of the Agreement.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether any Note has passed between the Governments embodying that arrangement?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I will convey that supplementary question to my right hon. Friend.

  China.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it was under his directions that the British Minister at Pekin issued a notice to the effect that any British trader would be subject to prosecution, imprisonment, and heavy fines who attempted to-supply the so-called revolutionary party with arms, grain, or other munitions of war; and whether he is aware that, in spite of the cessation of hostilities in China, such notice has not been with-

  189
  drawn, with the result that German, Japanese, and other foreign traders have been increasing their trade with China at the expense of British traders?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The law for British subjects in China upon these matters is contained in Article 71 of the China Order in Council, 1904, which will be found on page 193 of the Statutory Rules and Orders, 1904. The only notices by British officials in China of the kind suggested, of which I am aware were issued by the Consuls-General at Shanghai and Tientsin, reminding British subjects of this provision. There was no need formally to withdraw any such reminder, nor would its withdrawal affect the operation of the Article. I have no reason to believe that the provision is any hindrance to legitimate British trade in China, or that it has enabled the traders of other nations to secure undue advantages.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Could the Consul-General at Shanghai be directed to inform British traders there are now no restrictions upon their trade?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The instructions were not due to any notification to the Consul-General. All he was instructed to do was to remind traders of the existence of this Article 71. If the hon. Member will look at the Article he will see it deals with other subjects besides those he mentioned, and there is no necessity for any action at all.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that British traders are under the impression there are restrictions upon their trade, whereas there is none upon the trade of foreign countries?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The restrictions upon British trade depend not upon the action of the Consul-General, but upon this Article1, which there is no intention of abrogating.

  Italy and Turkey (Compensation to British Subjects).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the the result of the applications made to the Italian Government for compensation to British subjects whose property was destroyed during the attack of Italian warships upon the towns of Benghazi, Sollum, and Tripoli, on the Barbary coast, in October, 1911?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Such claims of British subjects as have been received in this connection from Tripoli and Benghazi are being examined, and some of them have been referred back to the claimants to be put into proper form and for further necessary evidence. When the list is complete each claim will be considered on its merits with a view to deciding what action may be taken at a convenient time on bet all of the various claimants. It would, however, obviously be impossible to decide, at the present juncture, what course will eventually be adopted, and no statement can-therefore be made on the subject. No application has yet been made to the Italian Government in connection with claims arising out of the bombardment of Tripoli or Benghazi. In regard to Sollum, which is Egyptian territory, there is no town there, and I am not aware that any attack has been made on the spot.

  Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked what is the total number of Russian troops now in Persia; and when the proposed withdrawal of these troops, or any part of them, is expected to be carried out?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As regards the first part of the question, I have no later information than that contained in the reply returned to a question of the hon. Member for Leicester on the 20th ultimo, except that the force at Tabriz has recently been reduced by five hundred men. As regards the second part of the question, considerable reductions may, I understand, be expected shortly.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is my hon. Fiend aware that, according to trustworthy information, there are at present over 20,000 Russian troops in Persia?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The last information which the Foreign Office has is that given to the hon. Member for Leicester on 20th ultimo.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether Salar-el-Dowleh is still in Persia, and, if so, with what forces; and what steps are being-taken to secure his withdrawal?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As regards points 1 and 3, I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the question of the hon. Member for Oldham on the 11th instant. As regards point 2, I have no information respecting the numbers of Salar-el-Dowleh's forces. The telegraph communication with Kermanshah is interrupted.
  Mr. MORRELLasked when the terms of the Anglo-Russian Note to Persia and of the reply of the Persian Government would be published; whether the arrangements for the organisation of a new regular force are yet completed; and how it is proposed that the officers of this force should be appointed?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The correspondence in question will, I hope, be laid on the Table on the 27th instant. As regards the second and third points, I am unaware of any arrangements having been come to as yet, but would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton on the 21st instant.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will bring to the notice of the Persian Government the advisability of appointing some British officers to regulate their forces in the important southern provinces of Persia?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I can do no more than convey the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an atrocity recently committed by one Salar-el-Dowleh, a Persian notable, who is reported to have seized the town of Kermanshah and burnt the Governor alive, after previously cutting off his legs; whether he is able to report any improvement in the state of affairs that have for some time past existed in that portion of Persia, which is within the British sphere of influence; what is the force of British and Indian troops at present stationed on Persian territory; and whether his Majesty's Government contemplate immediate steps with a view to restoring order and tranquillity and the capture and punishment of the notable above referred to?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative: as is also, I regret to say, that to the second part. There are now some 1,300 British and Indian troops engaged in protecting His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular officers in Persia. With regard to the fourth part, I would refer the hon. Member to answers which were returned to two questions asked by the hon. Member for Oldham on the 11th instant. We cannot take further steps than that.
  Mr. NEWMANIs it not a fact that this Salar-el-Dowleh proclaimed himself Sultan of Western Persia?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member refers to certain allegations in the first part of his question, and I have told him we have no information.

  Finnish Pilot Service.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether the subordination of the Finnish pilot service to the Russian Ministry of Marine has resulted in the resignation of 75 per cent, of the pilot staff; and whether, in the interests of British shipping, any representations have been made to the Russian Government on the subject?
  Mr. MONTAGU: According to the latest information in the possession of His Majesty's Government 433 Finnish pilots have resigned. I am unable to state what percentage this figure represents. The matter is one of Russian domestic policy, and there are no grounds which would justify any representations to the Russian Government.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Arising out of that answer, may I ask if the places of these pilots who have resigned have been taken by Russian pilots?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have no information, on that. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.

  United States Ambassador.
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an interview with the United States Ambassador to Great Britain, in the course of which he is reported to have expressed the opinion that the general political conditions in this country at present are the same as those that prevailed in France before the Revolution; and whether he will ascertain from the United States Ambassador whether this interview is accurately described?
  Mr. LEE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the original report of the interview referred to no such opinion as that attributed by the hon. Member to the American Ambassador as a matter of fact appears?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think the answer I have to read will be found to be a reply to that question also. The attention of the

  193
  Secretary of State had not been called to the report referred to until my hon. Friend sent him a copy. He is sure it is not true.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Did the United States Ambassador express the view that the Ministers at present in power were equal in capacity to the French Ministers of that day?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is assured that the statement is not true.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: In view of its importance, I shall call attention to this matter on the first available opportunity.

  Khan of Hoti-Mardan.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for India if he can give the House any information as to the circumstances under which the Khan of Hoti-Mardan was recently committed to the criminal sessions of the Bombay High Court on a charge, subsequently withdrawn by the Advocate-General, of abducting two English women?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have no official information, but the newspaper reports of the trial which I have seen bear out the statement that the charge against the Khan and two other persons was withdrawn by the Advocate-General, and show that the accused were formally acquitted, the judge observing that they left the court without a stain on their character.
  EARL Of RONALDSHAY: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that the judge is reported to have said that the accused appeared to have been subjected to many indignities, and that the procedure followed seemed to have been incomprehensible, and, if so, will he consider the possibility of making some reparation to this gentleman?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As I understand it, this gentleman, on hearing of the charge, came down to Bombay and surrendered. His character has been cleared. If the Noble Lord suggests there was any irregularity that ought to be inquired into, I shall be happy to ask my Noble Friend if he can make inquiry of the local government on the subject.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Is it not possible to make inquiry as to the circumstances under which the arrest was made?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I will certainly consider that.

  Indian Government Sanitary Commissioner.
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether there is any intention to appoint a separate Sanitary Commissioner to the Government of India, or whether it is intended to continue the temporary arrangement whereby the Director-General of the medical service is at present doing the work in addition to his own?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. Certain questions regarding the functions and position of the Sanitary Commissioner are under consideration. As soon as they are decided the appointment will be made.

  Railway Contracts (India).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Under-Secretary for India whether a contract for the construction of twelve bridges for the Indian State Railways has been given to a foreign firm; and, if so, will he say why this has been done?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A contract for one bridge for the Oudh and Rohilkund Railway, consisting of twelve spans, has been placed with an American firm. This course was adopted, after full consideration, in view of the discrepancy, 26½ per cent., between the foreign and the lowest British tender. Tenders were invited by advertisement.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Does it make a penny difference to English labour whether the contract is American or English?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think I can accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to an economic discussion on this point!
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the foreign firm which obtained the contract was subsidised by its Government or by one of the American trusts?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know. As I have said the tender was invited by advertisement and the lowest tender which our expert advisers thought fufilled the conditions of the contract, was accepted.
  Captain CRAIG: How it is that a protected country like America can outbid Free Trade England?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have nothing to say except that the Government do not intend to practice the doctrine of Protection at the expense of the Indian Government?
  Mr. HUNT: Do not the Government take any notice at all of the point whether foreign firms are subsidised by a Government or trust?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The policy of the Indian Government with regard to Indian contracts is to get for India the cheapest goods suitable for their purpose in the cheapest market.
  Mr. REMNANT: Will the wages paid by the successful firm be at the same rate as those paid by the lowest tenderer in this country?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot answer that off-hand.

  Dominion Defence.
  Mr. FIENNESasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he can state what field guns are used by the Canadian, Australian, and South African Volunteer Artillery Corps, and how these guns compare with the field guns used by the Artillery of the Territorial Force?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I assume that my hon. Friend refers in his question to all the local defence forces in the Dominions. On that understanding the reply is as follows:—

  South Africa—(Militia).
  Field Batteries 15-pounder breech-loading guns.

  Volunteers.
  It would be impossible to make a satisfactory comparison between the arma-
  196
  ments of these Dominions and those of the Territorial Force within the limits of a Parliamentary question.
  Mr. FIENNESasked the number of days' training in camp that is undergone annually by the Volunteer Forces of the Colonies of Canada, Australia, and South Africa?
  Mr. LYNCH: On a point of Order, I wish to point out that the "Colonies" of Canada, Australia, and South Africa do not exist. The point is not merely a verbal one, as it really involves the status of these countries, and, whereas a private Member by inadvertence or ignorance or want of courtesy might make the mistake, yet if a Minister of the Crown were to give it his imprimatur it would be considered extremely objectionable in Australia, derogatory to its dignity, and conveying a false impression.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to me to be a case of what is termed "terminological inexactitude."
  Colonel SEELY: I think the answer I propose to give will meet the hon. Member's point. I presume my hon. Friend refers to the local defence forces of these Dominions.
  (a) Canada.
  The number of days' training in camp undergone annually by units of the Active Militia is as follows:—

  Cavalry

  16 days.

  Artillery

  Army Service Corps

  Engineers, Rural Infantry Corps and Departments

  12 days.

  City Infantry Corps

  6 days.

  (b) Australia.
  The Militia, with voluntary enlistment, underwent from four to eight days' continuous training in camp. The Militia is now being expanded into the new Citizen Force, with compulsory enlistment. Recruits of the Citizen Force will undergo eight days' continuous training in camp, whilst trained men will do six days.
  (c) South Africa.
  The Natal Militia do ten days, whilst the Cape of Good Hope and Transvaal Volunteers undergo from three to six days' annual training in camp. When the South African Defence Bill of 1912 is passed, members of the proposed Active Citizen Force will do eight to fifteen days' compulsory training in camp, varying with the arm to which they belong.

  Territorial Force (Strength).
  Mr. FIENNESasked the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men in the Territorial Infantry, Yeomanry, and Artillery on 1st March, 1911, and 1st March, 1912?
  Colonel SEELY: The latest figures available for 1912 are those for the 23rd February. The required information is as follows:—

  1st Mar.,

  23rd Feb.,

  1911.

  1912.

  Yeomanry, Officers

  …

  1,188

  …

  1,170

  N.C.O.'s and Men

  …

  23,870

  …

  23,995

  Artillery, Officers

  …

  1,408

  …

  1,367

  N.C.O.'s and Men

  …

  38,449

  …

  39,437

  Infantry, Officers

  …

  4,985

  …

  4,808

  N.C.O.'s and Men

  …

  168,191

  …

  167,007

  Earl WINTERTON: In view of the importance of this answer, will the right hon. Gentleman circulate it with the Votes?
  Colonel SEELY: Certainly.
  Mr. LEE: To what cause does the right hon. Gentleman attribute this great falling off of officers in all branches of the Service?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think there is a falling off in all the branches.

  Yeomanry Drill Book.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Undersecretary for War whether he can make any statement as to the issue of the Yeomanry Drill Book?
  Colonel SEELY: The Training Manual for the Yeomanry will be issued shortly.

  Royal Plying Corps.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the official title of the new aviation corps; and what arrangements will be made for giving adequate representation at the War Office to the aviation service?
  Colonel SEELY: The King has been graciously pleased to approve of the newly constituted aeronautical branch of His Majesty's Forces being styled the Royal Flying Corps, and of the wearing by all members of the corps of a distinguishing badge with the Royal Crown superimposed. Similarly, the Army Aircraft Factory, which will now be available
  198
  for the whole aeronautical service, will in future be designated the Royal Aircraft Factory. His Majesty has granted this privilege in consideration of the specially difficult and arduous nature of the flying service. In reply to the second part of the question, the Army Council have approved of the formation of a standing committee to co-ordinate action in dealing with questions that arise in connection with, the corps. The committee will sit under the Chairmanship of Brigadier-General D. Henderson, whose services have been lent temporarily by the Inspector-General of the Home Forties.

  Army Recruiting Returns (Edinburgh).
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether in the Army Recruiting Returns the figures for Edinburgh are on the same basis as the figures given for other towns, or whether those for Edinburgh include rejections, when, as a matter of fact, many applications were never entertained?
  Colonel SEELY: The figures for the Edinburgh recruiting area are on the same basis as those for other areas. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain to what particular figures he is alluding, to enable me to understand the particular information he requires.

  Royal Military College, Sandhurst.
  Captain O'NEILLasked why such an unusually large number of candidates were admitted to the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, after the last competitive examination, additional to those who appeared on the first successful list; and in which branch of the Service most of these unforeseen vacancies occurred?
  Colonel SEELY: The number of candidates admitted additional to those who appeared on the first successful list wan not due to the occurrence of unforeseen vacancies in any particular branch of the Service, but was due, firstly, to the number of candidates entering as King's Cadets, King's India Cadets, and on the nominations of the Army Council being smaller than had been expected; and, secondly, to there being fewer failures than usual among the class passing out in December last.
  Captain O'NEILL: Was the list reopened to the same extent proportionately to Woolwich and the universities?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot answer that without notice. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question down.

  Majors (Retiring Age).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the sense of hardship felt by majors in the Regular Army, and especially by those who have joined the Service from the university at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three, in consequence of the Army Order of 1909, as modified by the Army Orders of 1910 and 1911, altering the age of retirement on a pension of £300 from forty-eight to fifty, he will alter the present Regulations so as at any rate to give such officers the alternative choice of retiring either under the old scale or under the new, whichever suits them best?
  Colonel SEELY: I undertook in Debate on Army Estimates to consider cases of real hardship arising out of this Order. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principal cases of hardship will arise in about eight or ten years' time, when the right hon. Gentleman may not possibly be at the War Office?
  Colonel SEELY: I have no doubt that in redressing hardship any Government, from whatever party it may be drawn, will follow out such redress to the best of its ability.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: As there are evident cases of hardship now, is there any reason why there should not be cases of hardship in the future; and cannot the right hon. Gentleman settle the matter now?
  Colonel SEELY: I have said that we are considering the question.
  Colonel YATE: Is the question of giving the officers an alternative choice under consideration at the present time?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think I can go into details of the matter now. We are considering the whole question in accordance with the pledge I gave in the discussion on Army Estimates.

  Royal Hibernian Military School, Dublin (Colour-Sergeant Moore).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether
  200
  he is aware that the Irish Command Orders of 27th April, 1910, contained a notice to regimental commanding officers requesting them to forward the names of sergeants and sergeant-instructors who had served their time with the colours and who would be willing to compete for he position of sergeant-instructor at the Royal Hibernian Military School in Dublin; that Colour-Sergeant H. Moore applied for and was appointed to this post, being at the time a Roman Catholic; that there was no condition in the agreement which Colour-Sergeant Moore signed on 25th May, 1910, on entering upon his-duties, as to his religion; and that, on 1st November, 1911, Sergeant Moore, having in the meantime become a Protestant, received a notice terminating his appointment on the grounds that his position must be held by a Roman Catholic; and, seeing that Moore was refused a copy of the agreement signed by him on his appointment, will he state under what statute or regulation it is provided that a sergeant-instructor at the school in question must be a Roman Catholic, and, if such a rule exists, why was Sergeant Moore not informed of it, and why was it not mentioned' in his agreement; will he supply Sergeant Moore with a copy of the said agreement; and what compensation does he propose-to give Sergeant Moore for wrongful dismissal from his office?
  Colonel SEELY: There are six company-commanders and instructors at this school, three of whom have invariably been Roman Catholics and three Protestants, the number of Catholic and Protestant boys being approximately equal, and the-instructors being chosen in like proportion. Colour-Sergeant Moore, who was a Roman Catholic, was selected to command a company hitherto commanded by a-Roman Catholic. He subsequently became a Protestant, and as the accustomed proportion of Roman Catholic instructors for the boys was thereby affected it became necessary to replace him by a Roman Catholic instructor. He had a right to only one month's notice, but under the circumstances he was granted six months' notice. He, however, obtained a new appointment before this period was completed. There was no wrongful dismissal, and no question of compensation arises. No conditions with regard to the religion of the applicant were contained in the agreement signed by Colour-Sergeant Moore; but it is obviously both expedient and just that the arrangement to which

  201
  I have referred, which has lasted uninterruptedly since the year 1865, under which an equal number of instructors of both persuasions should be appointed to a school containing an equal number of Protestants and Roman Catholics, should be adhered to as far as possible.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether Colour-Sergeant Moore has got an equally good appointment under the Government?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know what the appointment is, but I am glad to say he got an appointment before the six months was up.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is it under the Government?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know. I will inquire.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether, in a special case of this sort, where religious instruction does not enter into the question, does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair to discharge a man who otherwise is in every way fitted for the post.
  Colonel SEELY: I have said the arrangement has lasted since 1865, and I really think that in Ireland, or in any other country, an arrangement that has worked well for forty-seven years had better not be disturbed.
  Captain CRAIG: In such a special and extraordinary case as this, where the man has done no wrong, will not the Government take some steps to see that, at all events, he does not suffer from his conscientious belief?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir, certainly. Steps were at once taken by extending the period of notice from one month to six months, and it was the fact that this colour-sergeant obtained another appointment before the six months were up. I will inquire what that appointment is. I understand it is a good appointment, but I will find out. I repeat it is undesirable to alter a system which has worked well for forty-seven years.
  Mr. C. CRAIGasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that Colour-Sergeant Moore, late sergeant-instructor at the Royal Hibernian Military School, in Dublin, and an Army pensioner, was taken to and detained in the Royal Military Infirmary, in Dublin, for a week
  202
  without a special order having been obtained from a Secretary of State; will he say who was responsible for this action; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: I am informed that Colour-Sergeant Moore was suffering from neurasthenia and insomnia, and in order that he might be properly nursed he was admitted to the Royal Infirmary. He was entitled as a civilian subordinate to such admission and no special order from a Secretary of State was necessary.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he was compulsorily sent there for the purpose of testing whether there was anything wrong with his mind?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir, that is not my information. I will make further inquiries.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, when a question, has been upon the Paper for some days, he has not got the information asked for?
  Colonel SEELY: I have already given the hon. and gallant Gentleman a very definite reply, which is the result of inquiries I have made personally of those who supplied it to me. If he does not care to accept my answer, the hon. Member can put down another question.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the insomnia was due to the threat of the North of Ireland Members?

  Development Commission.
  Mr. MORTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Development Commissioners have yet agreed to make a Grant for the improvement of the Port-na-con pier, Loch Eribol, Sutherland?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I am informed that the Development Commissioners have not yet received any application for a Grant for the improvement of the pier mentioned.
  Mr. MORTON: Has not the Treasury received an application, and have they not forgotten to send it on to the Development Commissioners?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I should not think that is in the least degree possible.

  COAL STRIKE.

    INCOME TAX (PAYMENT).
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the grave financial difficulties in which many traders have been placed by the stoppage of trade in consequence of the coal strike, he will give instructions that persons so situated shall be allowed reasonable time for the payment of their Income Tax this year if in other years they have been regular payers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Income Tax on profits assessable under Schedule D of the Income Tax Acts for the year 1911–12 was due on or before 1st January, 1912—that is, two months before the commencement of the coal strike—and has already been paid by the vast majority of traders. In any case where payment has not yet been made, and the circumstances are shown to be those indicated in the right hon. Gentleman's question, special consideration will be given. I may add that the announcement made on this subject in yesterday's newspapers is wholly unauthorised.

    COALFIELDS (IRELAND).
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can state what steps, if any, are being taken by the Department in the direction of developing the coalfields of Arigna, situate in the counties of Sligo, Leitrim, and Roscommon; and has any Report been received as to the quantity of coal and iron to be obtained in that region?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland, Mr. T. W. Russell): Part of the coalfields in this neighbourhood are being worked by private enterprise. The Department's mineral expert inspected these coalfields in 1904. He was of opinion that Slieve-an-Ierin district was worthy of being prospected for coal. The Arigna mines were inspected in 1903 by a mining expert employed by the Treasury in connection with a proposal to provide special transport facilities for that district. The expert estimated the amount of workable coal on the northern and southern sides of the Arigna River at 4,650,000 tons. Ironstone also occurs in the neighbourhood of Arigna and in other districts. The Department do not undertake the work of prospecting, that being a matter for private enterprise;
    204
    but they afford all available information to inquirers respecting the occurrence of mineral deposits in Ireland.
    Mr. O'DOWD: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy of the Report?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I shall be glad to do so.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any intention of extending the Minimum Wage Bill to Ireland?
    Mr. RUSSELL: You had better ask the Prime Minister that question.

    Swine Fever (Sprotborough).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there is any record in the police reports that the thirteen pigs at Mr. Dodson's farm at Sprotborough reported to have died or been destroyed or buried had been ailing; and whether any investigation was held which proved them to have suffered from swine fever; and, if not, will he say why the penalty of eight months' quarantine and consequent financial loss to the owner should have been based upon their death?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part of the question is that no such statement appears in the original Reports, which consist merely of the entry of numbers under various heads; in a schedule, but in reply to my subsequent inquiries of the police they gave as the reason for the slaughter of eight pigs by the owner that the pigs were ailing. As regards the ninth, they said the owner stated that it was suffering from broken ribs. With regard to the four slaughtered by veterinary surgeons, they gave no reasons. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The Board cannot undertake, with the staff at their disposal, to investigate every case of death in an infected place. The answer to the last part of the question is that the period of quarantine was not a penalty but a measure of precaution for the protection of other pig keepers. The isolation of the premises was required before the death of the thirteen pigs referred to.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that no evidence that these pigs were suffering from swine fever has been secured by the Board of Agriculture, and is it not the fact that veterinary opinion showed that some of them had died from tuberculosis?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no information to the effect that some of them had died from tuberculosis. I have already stated that the isolation of the premises was required before the death of the thirteen pigs referred to.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: The point is that there is no veterinary opinion to bear out the suggestion that these other pigs died of swine fever, but there is very strong veterinary opinion in the opposite direction.
    Mr RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member has that information perhaps he will be so good as to send it to the Board.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the pigs were burned or buried. It is important.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state by whom the viscera of the animal suspected of swine fever at Sprotborough were examined in the Board's laboratory in view of the statement made by his predecessor in office in reply to a question in this House on 2nd August last, that the opinion of the local veterinary inspector was accepted by the Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board's local veterinary inspector examined the pig, and pronounced the case to be one of swine fever. He sent the viscera to the Board's laboratory for examination. The viscera were there examined by a member of the Board's veterinary staff working under the direct supervision of the chief veterinary officer. I have referred to the answer given on 2nd August last, and, although it does not refer to the investigation made in the laboratory, it certainly does not warrant the assumption that no such investigation was made. If the hon. Member would care to see the reports I shall be happy to show them to him.

    Townships Amendment Acts (Transvaal).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that legal action has been taken by the Government of the Union of South Africa against Ahmed Moosa Bhyat, a British-Indian trader of the Transvaal, under the Townships Amendment Acts of 1908 and 1909 of that province, to deprive him of the virtual ownership of certain freehold property situate in the Township of Boksbury, purchased by him and registered in the name of Lewis Walter Ritch, in respect of which no compensation will be
    206
    granted; and, if so, what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to procure relief?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): A case is pending on this matter in the South African Courts, and I must await its result before I can answer questions in relation to it.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered the effect of this upon our fellow-subjects in South Africa?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not like to express an opinion on the law in relation to a case which is now being considered.

    Pensions Act, 1911 (Dominion Service).
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Union of the South African Colonies and the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria has led to a block in promotion in the Colonial service; and if he is prepared to advise the making use of Clause 1, Sub-section (a), of the Pensions Act, 1911 (1 and 2 Geo. V., c. 24).
    Mr. HARCOURT: Clause 1, Sub-section (a) of the Pensions Act, 1911, will be made use of whenever it is deemed advisable to do so in the interests of the public service.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    COTTAGES (UNECONOMIC RENT).
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in the official explanatory leaflet, No. 6, issued by the National Health Insurance Commissioners, no mention is made of the fact that a cottage let at a rent less than the economic rent will be included in the calculation of the remuneration on which the amount of the workman's contribution to the Insurance Act is based; and whether, in view of the fact that a cottage let at a rent less than the economic rent would often bring a workman's contribution from the lower rate to the ordinary rate, he will see that this leaflet is amended and attention drawn to this fact, in order to prevent misunderstanding and disappointment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the statement in the first paragraph of page 2 of the leaflet, where it is definitely stated that "remuneration means wages and the value of other things a workman may receive" I see no reason for the alteration of the leaflet referred to.

    DOCKYARD WORKERS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the established men of His Majesty's dockyards are anxious to know the official interpretation of the National Insurance Act as regards themselves, and the contributions which will be required of them under the Act; and if he will consider the advisability of issuing an explanatory circular or other means of satisfying these men?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An Inter-Departmental Committee has been appointed to consider the application of Part I. of the Insurance Act to public departments; and immediately their Report is received measures will be taken to bring to the notice of all persons affected the exact position they will occupy under the Act.

    Law Courts (Scrivenery Department).
    Mr. WATTasked what was the profit derived during the years 1910 and 1911, respectively, from the Scrivenery Department of the Law Courts; how many clerks are employed in that department; what is the length of the holiday allowed to these clerks; and what is the average wage per annum distributed to these clerks?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: After allowing for the wages of the writers in the Scrivenery Department and for management, there was a balance in 1910 of £1,427 4s. 9½d., and in 1911 of £1,465 6s. 0½d., but from these sums must be deducted expenses for housing, firing, lighting, stationery, etc., the exact amount of which cannot be ascertained for the Scrivenery Department separately from the rest of the High Courts of Justice. The number of writers is forty-two and they have three weeks' leave in the year. Their average earnings for the last ten years amounted to £160 10s. per annum.

    Meteorological Office.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked whether a small extra Grant can be given to the Meteorological Office in order that the number of centres in Scotland from which meteorological data are sent may be extended and more reliable weather forecasts drawn up?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Meteorological Committee have under consideration the question of establishing an additional telegraphic reporting station in Scotland.

    Pacific Cable.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Poet-master-General whether he will give the number of words and messages originating from the United Kingdom included in the total of 1,850,000 words which passed over the Pacific cable in the year 1911; and, if the exact number is not available, will he state what was the approximate number?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am informed that the number of words and messages during the year which ended on the 31st March, 1911, are respectively 484,182 and 33,026.

    Telephone Installations (Cab Ranks).
    Captain MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to minimising the nuisance arising from the inconsiderate use of whistles at all hours of the night for the purpose of calling cabs, he will consider the advisability of facilitating the extension of cab-rank telephone installations?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Post Office has already arranged for the installation of telephones for summoning cabs in 307 cab offices and shelters in the Metropolitan district, and I am always willing to consider the practicability of extending the arrangement to other points.

    Crown Colonies (Trade Commissioners).
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with reference to his statement on the 28th November last that the Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence were being consulted on the advisability of appointing Trade Commisisoners for the principal Crown Colonies or groups of Colonies, any decision has yet been arrived at?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence were of opinion that there was no sufficient reason for the appointment at present of a permanent Trade Commissioner in any one of the groups of Crown Colonies, but they made some suggestions for the fullest utilisation of the services of the Official Correspondents to the Commercial Inteligence Branch now resident in these Colonies, and this matter is now under consideration of the Board of Trade.

    Vinegar (Food and Drugs Act).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether there is in his Department any definition or standard of vinegar, based either upon the substances from which it is manufactured or upon the percentage of acetic acid which it contains; and whether, in the absence of a due percentage of the above acid, prosecutions of its vendors under the Food and Drugs Act are authorised by the Board?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): There is no statutory definition of vinegar for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, but, in view of the numerous representations made to them on the subject, the Board stated their views as to the proper significance of the terms "vinegar," "malt vinegar," and "artificial vinegar" in a letter addressed to the secretary of the London and County Vinegar Brewers' Association on 15th December last. The Board have no power to authorise prosecutions under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: What steps are being taken to ensure that the letter is being acted upon by all the traders concerned?
    Mr. BURNS: I will send the hon. Member a copy of the letter, and he may rest assured that it gave great satisfaction to those who are in favour of pure vinegar. I think there is a probability that the definition set forth in that letter may be adopted by the best manufacturers.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take notice that with regard to vinegar the important point is not the percentage of acetic acid, but the presence of by-products according as it is manufactured by distillation or by fermentation?

    Metropolitan Water Board.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the summary of a report to be shortly submitted by the Finance Committee of the Metropolitan Water Board on the financial position of the undertaking; whether he is aware that it is stated in such summary that the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, caused the Board a loss of £17,000 per annum alone on the rateable value of licensed premises, and that the recent quinquennial revaluation of the Metropolis disclosed a
    210
    rate of increase for 1911 of only 3 per cent., as compared with 18.89 per cent, in 1881 and 7.45 per cent, in 1891, representing a further heavy loss of revenue; and, seeing that the total deficiencies of the undertaking are placed at £200,000, as on 31st March, 1912, whether the Local Government Board contemplate any amending legislation with a view to prevent any extra burden being thrown on the ratepayer in the Metropolitan area?
    Mr. BURNS: My attention has been called to this matter, and I understand that the Metropolitan Water Board are considering the promotion of legislation.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Will the ratepayers of the Metropolitan District be exempt from any further taxation?
    Mr. BURNS: The views of the Water Board are to be submitted to the Local Government Board, I think, on Thursday morning, by a deputation.

    Education (Scotland).
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, seeing that there are no regulations of the Scottish Education Department forbidding primary school teachers to give their pupils such secondary instruction as would justify their presentation in single subjects at any examination, he will explain how it is that passes in single subjects do not count for the course that ends in the leaving certificate, and if, therefore, it is not the case that practically teachers in rural schools cannot train their pupils so as to pass into the university?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Neither the junior student's certificate nor the leaving certificate has any direct value in relation to university entrance, but passes in single subjects, for which it is open to teachers in rural schools to prepare their pupils, are accepted by the universities of Scotland as exempting pro tanto from their own preliminary examinations.
    Mr. PIRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an idea prevalent throughout all the rural schools of Scotland that single subjects do not count in the course that ends in the certificate?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No. The single subjects count as far as they themselves are concerned for entrance to the university.
    Mr. PIRIE: They do not.

    Motor Boats.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been directed to a Return given by the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (Ireland), showing the amount of money advanced by the Board for the purchase of motor boats and for furnishing motors to sailing boats; and if he will bring the said Return before the notice of the Departmental Committee now engaged on this subject and request them to publish with their Report the experience of the Irish Board?
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been directed to a Return given by the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (Ireland), showing the amount of money advanced by the Board for the purchase of motor boats and for furnishing motors to sailing boats; and if he will bring the said Return before the notice of the Departmental Committee now engaged on this subject and request them to publish with their Report the experience of the Irish Board?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the Return which my hon. Friends have in view is the Report on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1910 (Command Paper 5933, of last year), I may say that it has been brought to my notice, and also, I understand, to the notice of the Departmental Committee referred to. It is for that Committee to decide what they should publish in their Report.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When will the Report be forthcoming?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot tell exactly.
    Mr. MORTON: Can this Departmental Committee refuse to received evidence tendered to them?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think they are in the least likely to. This particular Report will be before them. The point is whether they should embody it in their Report. That is certainly a matter for themselves. It is not necessary for them to do so, because it is already printed.
    Mr. MORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they have refused evidence?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Not this evidence. I am not aware of it. If the hon.
    212
    Member will put down a question I will inquire into it. Of course, they would refuse evidence which they thought was irrelevant to their inquiry.

    Civil Service (Royal Commission).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the reference entrusted to the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, he will add an instruction that the Commissioners should be empowered to inquire into the operation of the regulations which preclude a Postal, Customs; Excise, or clerical employé who has been unjustly condemned and fined without a fair trial from obtaining an impartial investigation by the Privy-Council or of petitioning the Sovereign for an inquiry?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna, for the Prime Minister): I cannot accept the assumptions contained in the hon. Member's question. It rests with the Commission to decide the scope of the terms of reference, to which I am not prepared to add.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Am I to understand that it is within the power of the Commission to take into consideration the operation of these regulations in their inquiry?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. It is within the power of the Commission to interpret the scope of the reference, but they cannot go outside of its actual terms. The Prime Minister states that he is not prepared to act in the way suggested by the hon. Member.

    Exports to South Africa and British India.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked what was the value of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom consigned to the Union of South Africa and British India, respectively, during 1911, and the percentage of wholly or mainly manufactured goods in each case?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The total value of the exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom to the Union of South Africa in 1911 was £20,180,000, of which 88.1 per cent, consisted of goods wholly or mainly manufactured. The corresponding exports to British India were valued at £52,246,000, of which goods

    213
    wholly or mainly manufactured represented 94.5 per cent.
    Mr. CROFT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the enormous increase in the exports from this country to the Union of South Africa is in his opinion due to the preference which South Africa grants to this country?

    Royal Dockyards (Pensions).
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the pensions granted to established men in His Majesty's dockyards are calculated, not on the gross wage, but on such wage after deductions for pension; and if he can see his way to get the system altered?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Such pensions are awarded by the Treasury under the provisions of Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, and that Department has no power to base their calculations on other than actual and established rates of pay. The system is common to the whole Civil Service, and could not be altered for one department alone.
    Mr. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tax is not charged on income less Income Tax, but before Income Tax is deducted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware that under this Act the pension is on the salaries and emoluments of officers in an established capacity, and the Treasury has no alternative.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    GOOD CONDUCT BADGES.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that men under the rank of chief petty officer are allowed, at their own expense, to wear honorary badges for good conduct but do not receive pay for the same, though the same men do obtain increase of pension for such badges; and if he will consider the granting of pay for these badges?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question as to the grant of pay for good conduct badges to those ratings at present entitled to honorary badges has received the careful consideration of the Board of Admiralty, but it is not regarded as advisable to make the change proposed.

    Minor Legal Appointments (London).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State-for the Home Department who it is has the making of the minor legal appointments in connection with the London Courts under his jurisdiction; are these made by nomination or by competition; and, if by the former method, will he take-steps to see that some form of competition, will be introduced?
    Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend is referring to the clerical staff of the Metropolitan Police Courts, these are appointed, in the case of clerks, by a limited competition among second division clerks nominated from the different Departments of the public service; in the case of assistant clerks, by a limited competition among the ushers and assistant ushers of the Courts and others nominated for the purpose.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these appointments will be inquired into by the Royal Commission, and, if not, will he use his influence to get them included?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire into the question.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps, if any, the Congested Districts Board have taken to acquire by purchase the estate of Mr. J. G. Reynolds, of Ballymote, county Sligo, which is situate in the townland of Doonally, electoral divisions of Ballinakill and union of Sligo?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board are in communication with the owner with a view to the purchase of the estate referred to, but they are not at present in a position to make any farther statement in. the matter.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any correspondence has taken place between the Estates Commissioners and the Master of the Rolls re the purchase by the former of the Boyd estate, county Wexford, consisting of the townlands of Scotsland, Duncormack, and Weneytown, with a view to their subdivision amongst uneconomic holdings in the district; and, if not, whether lie will request the Commissioners to undertake? these negotiations forthwith?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Esates Commissioners are informed by the solicitors for the owner that the Master of the Rolls has recently made an Order giving permission for the institution of formal proceedings for the sale of this estate to the Commissioners.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the estate of Castleneyno, owned by Mr. Stack (agents, Messrs. J. D. Robinson, Sligo), and situate in the townland of Bally-sumaghan, electoral division of Ballinakill and union of Sligo, has yet been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to has been offered for sale through the Congested Districts Board, and they hope to consider the question of purchasing it at an early date.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the county Kerry Evicted Tenants' Association complaining of the action of the Estates Commssioners in their treatment of William O'Neill, evicted tenant, Clashedmond, Ballyseedy, Tralee; and will the Commissioners explain how it is that on their first inspection they declared him a suitable person under the Evicted Tenants Act, and when pressed to do something they decide to take no action in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have not received the resolution referred to. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on 5th December last.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is that this man, having been declared a suitable person on the first inspection, has not been reinstated?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think if the hon. Member will refer to the answer given on 5th December last he will discover some reason.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to a mistake in the address of Michael Gallagher, of Leckaun, Drumkeerin, county Leitrim, he was deprived of his old age pension, and whether, having regard to the fact that Gallagher produced convincing evidence
    216
    before the local sub-comittee, including himself in person and a certificate from the Census Office, on the strength of which he was again granted a pension, the Local Government Board will reconsider his claim and award him all arrears due?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. Michael Gallagher was not deprived of his pension owing to a mistake in his address. His pension was discontinued on a question raised by the pension officer that he had not reached the statutory age. The Local Government Board have no power to reopen the case.

    Reinstatement Applications (Ireland).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the applications of the following tenants for reinstatement, and what have been their decisions respectively: Matthew Feehily, Johnston estate, Drumkeerin, county Leitrim; Francis Flynn, son of Michael Flynn, Marsham estate, Drumkeerin, county Leitrim; Anne Travers, alias Trower, Marsham estate; Kate Fallon, Marsham estate; William Porteus, Marsham estate; Mrs. O'Donnell, Montgomery estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners, after inquiry and consideration, decided to take no action on the applications for reinstatement of Matthew Feehily, Francis Flynn, and Catherine O'Donnell. The applications from the children of Anne Travers, deceased, and from William Porteus were not received within the period limited by the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, and have not been considered by the Commissioners. The Commissoners cannot find that they have received any application from Kate Fallon.

    Arrest at Manorhamilton (Ireland).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state on whose authority twelve town tenants in Manorhamilton were arrested on the morning of 6th January last and tried by a Court consisting of one resident magistrate, who sat in the day-room of the police barracks and refused to admit the public; whether he is aware that the magistrate refused to hear evidence in defence of the prisoners, who were charged with intimidation by booing a bailiff, and sentenced them to a term of one month's imprisonment or, in default,

    217
    to give bail for their future good behaviour, and whether he will state under what Act of Parliament these prisoners were tried, and why was a Catholic holiday, when people were going to prayers, selected to disturb the town by the drafting in of a large force of police to arrest these men?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The persons referred to were arrested by the direction of the Attorney-General. The resident magistrate sat in the day-room of the police barracks, as stated, to hear the charges, but the Press and the public were admitted as far as the accommodation would allow. The magistrate allowed the solicitor for the defence to cross-examine the police witnesses, but refused, as he was legally entitled to do, to hear evidence for the accused. The prisoners were tried under the Act 34 Edward III., cap. 1, and the jurisdiction vested in magistrates by the Commission of the Peace. The arrests were effected and proceedings instituted on 6th January without any regard to that day being a Catholic holiday.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several of these prisoners were tried by the Star Chamber system and were innocent of the charge, and will he consider the advisability of revising this method with the view of substituting the old Tory system for Star Chamber trial?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not quite understand the reference to the Star Chamber system. I am not in a position to say, of my own knowledge, whether these persons were innocent or not.

    Unlawful Assembly, Ireland (Convictions).
    Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state how many persons were convicted of unlawful assembly at the Winter Assizes held in Ireland in 1911; and how many were sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for the offence?
    Mr. BIRRELL: At the Winter Assizes, 1911, twenty persons were convicted of unlawful assembly. Of these seventeen were bound over to keep the peace, and three were sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

    Secondary Education (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he hopes to bring about any improvement in the condition of secondary education in Ireland this year?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 29th February.

    National Teachers' Classification (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will now consider the justice of abolishing standard numbers in the grading or classification of Irish teachers; and whether in doing so he will refund to all teachers promoted but not paid during the past two years the arrears due on account of such promotion?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not prepared to recommend an indefinite increase of the numbers in the several grades of national teachers. With regard to the second paragraph, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the question of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on this subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make to the House in regard to business, and also whether he is going now to make a statement to the House as to the condition of the coal crisis and the reason for taking the Bill to-day, if he did not think it right to take it yesterday, or does he prefer to leave it to the statement to be made by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the discussion on the Coal Mines Bill?
Mr. McKENNA: We shall move the Motion giving the Government Business, precedence and suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule. After the Consolidated Fund Bill has gone through the Committee we shall take the Coal Mines Bill. I am afraid that the Scottish Temperance Bill must stand over until Monday. Tomorrow we shall take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, followed by the Shops. Consolidation Bill, which has come down from the Lords, the Public Offices Sites Bill, and, if time permits, some of the smaller uncontroversial measures on the Paper. With regard to the second question put by the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister is still now engaged in the conference, and he will not be able to be here at the opening of the discussion on the Bill. The Bill was not taken yesterday, as it was hoped that as a result of a conference some arrangement might be made which would possibly

219
affect Amendments to the Bill. As that arrangement has not been come to, we are proceeding with the Bill to-day in the ordinary way.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I be permitted to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not realise that it would be in the highest degree undesirable to proceed with this Bill when Amendments of the most vital character are on in the absence of the Prime Minister, who alone can deal adequately in a case of this kind with Amendments of that character?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I understand that the Prime Minister, when his presence is required, will attend the House, but I do not think he will be here at the opening of the discussion. As soon as the particular Amendments to which the right hon. Gentleman refers come on, then he will endeavour to leave the conference and attend here.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is it the intention of the Government to take the Third Reading of the Bill to-night if it gets through the Report stage, and if the Report stage is got through by a quarter-past eight or before eleven o'clock, is it the intention of the Government to take other Government Business, or is it intended not to allow the Motion that is down on the Paper to be moved? I would like to know whether the Government propose to move the Motion for the purpose of the Coal Mines Bill and for the purpose of that Bill only, or whether they intend after having moved the Motion to take other business besides the coal mines?
Mr. McKENNA: The Motion is only put on the Paper for the purpose of the Coal Mines Bill. Should by any chance the Coal Mines Bill be concluded before 8.15 then the Motion of the hon. Member would come up, but it is intended if possible to take all the remaining stages of the Coal Mines Bill at this sitting.
Mr. MALCOLM: I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether he proposes to take all the measures which he mentioned tomorrow before 8.15, or whether he means to take Government time for the whole of to-morrow?
Mr. McKENNA: It is not proposed to take Government time the whole of tomorrow. The Consolidated Fund Bill, it is assumed, will not take long, and all the Bills which I have named will take a very short time.
Mr. HOGGE: How much time will the Government give on Monday to the Scottish Temperance Bill?
Mr. McKENNA: It is the first Order of the Day, and as much time will be given to it as is found necessary.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Do the Government intend to make any statement to this House as to what measures they intend to adopt in addition to the Minimum Wage Bill before asking us to proceed with the further stages of that Bill, or whether they intend to rely on the Bill in its present form to bring the strike to a conclusion?
Mr. McKENNA: I think that my hon. Friend will see that that is a question which the Prime Minister alone can answer.

PROSECUTION OF MR. TOM MANN.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Attorney-General whether in the case of Mr. Tom Mann he will consider the advisability of directing the representative of the Crown at the renewed hearing of the charge to-morrow before the magistrate not to offer any objection to reasonable bail being accepted?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Certainly I will. No opposition was offered by the Crown to the application for bail on the last occasion. There is this reservation, that the Crown will offer no opposition to bail, but will ask this condition, that the defendant shall not when released, and pending the decision, repeat the statements outside on platforms.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  CONDITION OR COAL MINES.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to give notice that on 10th April, I will direct attention to the condition of Coal Mines in this country and move a Resolution.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to give notice that I will on 10th April, direct attention to the unsatisfactory condition of the Telephone System in this country, and move a, Resolution.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (CLOSURING DEBATE).
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: I beg to give notice that I will on 10th April, call attention to

  221
  the procedure of this House so far as it affects methods of Closuring Debate and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (STREET NOISES) BILL.
  "To amend the Law in respect of warning instruments on Motor Vehicles." Presented by Captain MURRAY; supported by Sir Charles Rose, Mr. Arthur Stanley, Sir Henry Norman, and Mr. Gibbs; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 11th April, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION BILL.
  "To amend the Ancient Monuments Protection Acts, 1882 to 1900, and further to protect ancient monuments." Presented by Mr. RUSSELL REA; supported by Sir Henry Norman, Mr. Leif Jones, and Mr. Walter Rea; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  "To extend the Parliamentary franchise to men and women and to amend the registration and electoral system." Presented by Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON; supported by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Parker, Mr. James Thomas, Mr. Stephen Walsh, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Keir Hardie; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
  COTTON FACTORIES BILL.
  "To make it illegal for any employer in a Cotton Factory to impose a fine on a workman for alleged spoiled work or for any other cause." Presented by Mr. ALBERT SMITH; supported by Mr. Gill. Mr. Clynes, Mr. Stephen Walsh, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Hodge, and Mr. Wardle; to be read a second time upon Monday, 22nd April, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL.
  "To amend the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, by making provision for reducing the number of hours in cotton factories to forty-eight per week." Presented by Mr. GILL; supported by Mr. Albert Smith, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Wardle, Mr. Sutton, and Mr. Barton; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
  GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
  Ordered, "That Government Business have precedence this day of all other Orders of the Day and of Notices of Motion; and that the proceedings, upon the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill be not interrupted under any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House."—[Mr. McKenna.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Issue of £241,117 out of tie Consolidated Fund for the Service of the Years ending 31st March, 1911 and 1912.)
  The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and apply towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and eleven and one thousand nine hundred and twelve, the sum of two hundred and forty-one thousand one hundred and seventeen pounds.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEhad given notice of the following Amendments:—
  To leave out the word "year," and to insert instead thereof the word "years."
  After the word "eleven" to insert the words "the sum of one hundred pounds."
  After the word "and" ["and one thousand nine hundred"], to insert the words "for the service of the year."
  To leave out the words "one hundred."
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendments which stand in the name of the hon. Member for the Central Division, of Sheffield are not in order.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: In ordinary circumstances I would have submitted reasons to show that these particular Amendments are in order, but in view of the great gravity of the business to follow I will not raise any points on this Bill, though had I done so, I think I should have afforded an interesting discussion to the Committee for some hours.
  Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow (Wednesday).

  COAL MINES (MINIMUM WAGE) BILL.
  As amended, considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Minimum Wage for Workmen Employed Underground in Coal Mines.)
  (1)It shall be an implied term of contract for the employment of a workman underground in a coal mine that 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 or efficiency of the work to be performed by workmen laid down by those rules; and any agreement for the payment of wages in so far as it is 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 rules shall provide, as respects the district to which they apply, for the exclusion from the right to wages at the minimum rate of aged workmen 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 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 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 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, 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. AMERY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "wages" ["to that workman wages"], to insert the words "in money or otherwise."
  The object of the Amendment which stands in my name is to deal with the point that was raised in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Laurence Hardy). He, on that occasion, moved to add certain words at the end of Sub-section (4) of the Clause, to authorise the District Boards to take into consideration cases in which free coal is given to the cottagers or other allowances are made. The President of the Board of Trade, while agreeing with the desirability of that point being taken into consideration, did not think it advisable to limit in that way the absolute freedom given to the District Boards under the existing elasticity Clause. While the elasticity Clause does give very great freedom to the District Boards to take into consideration any point which may affect the fixing of the minimum wage, it is not quite clear that they can decide any other question than the minimum wage, because there would be the difficulty of creating a separate class where there were men in receipt of free coal or other allowances. Therefore I suggest that the words I propose may make the intention of the right hon. Gentleman more clear and give greater freedom to the District Boards.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I will first make this statement in regard to the position, of the Bill. Conferences between the parties concerned and representatives of the Government are still continuing, with the object, if possible, of coming to an arrangement in regard to what are called the 5s. and 2s. questions. The discussions are confined to those points only. I am unable to say how far those conferences are likely to lead to any settlement; therefore the House must be left free to discuss any Amendment on the Paper on its merits. The Government think it very

  225
  important that the Bill should be placed on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: May I ask on what authority the right hon. Gentleman says conferences are being continued at the present moment with reference to this question?
  Mr. BUXTON: They were being conducted when I left a quarter of an hour ago.
  Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I think my right hon. Friend—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better proceed with the matter in hand.
  Mr. BUXTON: With regard to the Amendment before the House, we have looked carefully into this point. I understand the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to insert the words "in money or otherwise," in order to include certain men who are now receiving some allowance in coal or something of that sort. I think those allowances should be taken into account in fixing the minimum wage, and that is certainly the intention of the Government in charge of this Bill.
  Sir C. CORY: I rise to a point of Order. I beg to slate, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension, and I think it ought to be put correctly before the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. We are now discussing the Amendment moved by the hon. Member below the Gangway, and any other observations are irrelevant.
  Sir C. CORY: I would like to ask your ruling, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement, and I wish to know whether I may not ask a question with regard to it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Because one irrelevant statement is made that is no reason why others should be made.
  Mr. BUXTON: I understand the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to provide that the Districts Boards may take into account any allowances to the men. That has already been covered by the Bill, and it is clearly the duty of the District Boards to take those matters into account.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: As far as I follow it, the argument of the right hon.
  226
  Gentleman is that the Amendment of my hon. Friend below the Gangway is a good one, but at the same time he does not think its acceptance necessary, because the Bill already carries out the intention of the Amendment. I think I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. May I point out to him that under this Bill we are entering upon a complete new departure; we are violating the old principle of political economy, and in so doing we should not allow the case to go by default—that is to say, we should not be content to take the assurance of the Minister that the Bill means a certain thing, and we should put into the Bill words which will ensure that the meaning of the Government who are promoting the Bill is carried out. Supposing, for the sake of argument, this Bill becomes law, and that there is a dispute upon this question. How will that dispute be settled? It will be settled by law, and not by the opinion, biassed or otherwise, of the President of the Board of Trade. It will be no use for the counsel conducting the case to say, "Even in the debate which took place in the House of Commons on the Report stage, on such and such a day, it was stated by the President of the Board of Trade that the intention of the Government was to do so and so." Proceedings in this House of Commons do not govern proceedings in the Law Courts. I appeal to my learned Friend behind me and to other hon. and learned Gentlemen to enforce what I say, that proceedings in the Law Courts are not governed by proceedings in this House. The Attorney-General knows that as well as I do. I do not understand what is the object of refusing to accept this Amendment. Everyone of the Members below the Gangway and Members above the Gangway are equally clear in their desire that this Bill should be explicit and easily "understanded of the people," and, if we find that the matter is not clear without the Amendment of my hon. Friend, then we should insert those words. I, for one, see no reason whatever why they should not be inserted, and I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the point. I do not want to repeat the arguments, so far as they have been brought forward by my right hon. Friend, in favour of the Amendment, because they have not been disputed by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to take up the time of the House by reiterating and reaffirming something which has been practically accepted by the Government,

  227
  and unless the Government see fit to change their view I do hope my hon Friend will go to a Division on this Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 254.

  Division No. 55.]

  AYES.

  [4.0 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Anton, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Newman, John R. P.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J.

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Greene, W. R.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barnston, Harry

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bennet-Goldney, Francis

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bird, Alfred

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Royds, Edmund

  Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, West)

  Cator, John

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Swift, Rigby

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Larmer, Sir J.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Croft, Henry Page

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fell, Arthur

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Younger, sir George

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  Amery and Sir F. Banbury.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Brace, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Alden, Percy

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Armitage, Robert

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  De Forest, Baron

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

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

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Dillon, John

  Barton, William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cassel, Felix

  Doris, William

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Clough, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  McGhee, Richard

  Radford, George Heynes

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Gelder, sir William Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Reddy, Michael

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  M'Callum, John M.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Greig, Col. James William

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Martin, J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rowlands, James

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hackett, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Meehan, Patrick (Queen's Co.)

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Middlebrook, William

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Molloy, Michael

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

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Simon, Sir John Ailsebrook

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

  Hayward, Evan

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mooney, John J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Henderson, Artnur (Durham)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro, Robert

  Sutton, John E.

  Hinds, John

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

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hodge, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hogge, James Myles

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Neilson, Francis

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hudson, Walter

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Nutta ll, Harry

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare)

  Waring, Walter

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  ODonnell, Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Tones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Dowd, John

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Ogden, Fred

  Webb, H.

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Keating, Matthew

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradiston)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  King, Joseph

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lansbury, George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Leach, Charles

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

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  Winfrey, Richard

  Lundon, Thomas

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Lyell, C. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Mr. BRACE Mr. BRACE rose to move the following Amendment, of which notice had been given—after the word "rate" ["minimum rate settled under this Act"], to insert the "words "for coal hewers."
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  I do so formally in no spirit of controversy or of hostility to the Bill or to the Government, but as a pure matter of business. What is the position in which we find ourselves? We have just been informed a
  230
  few moments ago by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in a statement he read to the House, that the conference is now proceeding, or, at the time the statement was made, that the conference was presumed to be proceeding, and at that conference the question of 5s. and 2s. is being discussed in the hope of coming to an arrangement. Therefore the Conference, we gather, cannot be proceeding at the same time as we are discussing that question here with any possible advantage to the—
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: On a point of Order. May I state that the next Amendment does not raise the point but deals with the rates to be paid to coal hewers?
  Mr. WALTER LONG: If I may respectfully say so, that is not a point of Order, but even if it were, I do not think it is material what is the next Amendment we are going to discuss. The whole value of this Bill turns upon the form which it will ultimately take when it leaves this House. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite are vitally interested in its passage through this House. They have made it perfectly clear that the value of the Bill to them will be largely determined by the decision at which the House arrives in regard to the Amendment to which I have referred. We have now the advantage of the presence of the Prime Minister, and I make my Motion formally and, as I have said, in no spirit of hostility, but in order that the Prime Minister may tell the House before we proceed further what is the present position of things, and what prospect we have of discussing usefully here this Bill, having regard to what is proceeding in another place.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am very sorry I did not hear the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, because I have only just come from the conference, and therefore I do not quite know what are the grounds on which the Motion is made which you, Sir, have just submitted from the Chair. I hope the House will proceed with the Bill. There is no reason why they should not, whatever may be the result of the negotiations, and conferences that have taken place. In the opinion of the Government it is of the utmost urgency that the Bill should be passed into law without delay. I explained on Friday last the position of the Government quite plainly in regard to the Amendment which we are now approaching. I then said, and I now repeat, that the Government cannot consent to insert in this Bill any figures. Our position in regard to that is exactly the same as it was then. I will not labour the matter, because I then gave the reasons for the conclusion at which we had arrived, and I have not yet seen any attempt to answer them. While I still think, for the reasons which I then gave—that it would be inexpedient and impossible to insert specific figures in this Bill—I recognise as fully as any person, and
  232
  indeed possibly more fully, after many days of laborious and anxious consideration, the desirability of arriving, outside the Bill, at some arrangement between the parties concerned in regard to this particular and somewhat limited question as to the wages to be paid to the day-workers, both adults and boys, underground. I think I said on Friday—I am sure I did—that so far as I was able to form a judgment in the matter, I did not think, taking the country as a whole, that 5s. in the case of adults and 2s. in the case of boys was an unreasonable amount. I am still of that opinion, but I must add, in fairness to all concerned, that I think it would be far better from every point of view for that question to be left to be settled district by district—it cannot be settled nationally—by a perfectly impartial tribunal, such as that which we propose to set up under this Bill, than that it should be laid down as a cast-iron rule in the language of an Act of Parliament. I I think that is in the interests of the men as well as in the interests of the trade. I am betraying no confidence, I think, when I say that I made the suggestion today to both parties that we should treat this question of the minimum wage for day workers and boys as a separate question from that of the wage to be paid to the hewers, by which I mean a question which might be settled for the country at large, with certain elasticity, with regard to particular classes of men and particular conditions of work, whereas the question of the hewers is essentially one which must be settled, having regard to the special circumstances of each particular district. I made that suggestion, but it has not found acceptance. That being so, unless an agreement—which I still hope may not be beyond the range of possibility—is arrived at between the parties outside the Bill, the Government will ask the House to take the Bill as it stands and give its assent to the provisions therein contained. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech. If the right hon. Gentleman had not made his Motion I should not have been able to have said as much as I have. I do not complain in the least of the right hon. Gentleman's action. The House is quite entitled to ask, and I am bound to tell them, why we delayed the consideration of this Bill from Friday last until to-day in a great national emergency. We did so because we hoped—although those hopes have been disappointed—the controversy having been so much narrowed when

  233
  the question of the scheduled rates of wages for hewers had been practically put out of the case—that as regards this relatively small matter of 5s. and 2s. some agreement might be come to between the parties mutually satisfactory. We have laboured for that strenuously, persistently, and I am afraid at a great trial to the patience of people who are not concerned in the negotiations. It is with the most profound disappointment that I have at this moment to confess to the House that so far those efforts have been unavailing.
  With the strongest sense of responsibility that any man could ever feel in the position which I hold, I still say to both parties that if in this fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour they cannot come to a reasonable arrangement on a matter relatively small in its dimensions, but which is capable, if it is left unsettled, of producing infinite mischief and havoc to the community, they will have a very serious account to render to history. The Government have done what they could. We postponed legislation until the latest possible moment. We spent three weeks of daily, and I was going to say nightly, labour in attempts to bring the parties to an accommodation. That labour was not altogether fruitlessly expended, and that time was not altogether fruitlessly employed, because, as I have pointed out, the area of controversy has been substantially contracted and curtailed. But now we have reached a stage at which, unless agreement can be come to voluntarily between the parties concerned, the only course open to us is to ask the House to proceed with this Bill in the form in which we have laid it before them, with a perfect willingness to accept reasonable Amendments in points of detail, and to allow the Bill to pass at the earliest moment into law. Then, when it will be part of the law of the land that in the opinion of Parliament underground miners should be guaranteed a reasonable minimum wage, when it will further be part of the law of the land that perfectly fair and impartial machinery has been set up to guarantee for them the ascertainment and determination of that wage—I say when the law has been placed in that condition, if the stoppage of work, with the infinitely mischievous and damaging results which in ever-increasing volume it has entailed to all classes of innocent people in the community continues, those responsible will have a responsibility which they will find it very difficult to discharge.
  234
  I do not wish now, on the other hard, to apportion responsibility or to bestow praise in one quarter and blame in another. I know perfectly well the difficulties with which the miners have had to contend. The Government have shown ever since they undertook the investigation of this problem the most earnest desire to accept the principle for which the miners have been contending—namely, the principle of the minimum wage. We have gone beyond precedent, some people say beyond principle—certainly we have gone far beyond precedent—in asking Parliament, even in a temporary measure, to recognise and accept it. We have further endeavoured, with the utmost care and impartiality, to provide machinery fey which in all the various districts of the country the amount of that wage shall be accurately and equitably ascertained. I am sorry that on this outstanding point of 5s. and 2s. an agreement has not been come to. But even if an agreement is not come to can any of those of my hon. Friends who sit below the Gangway who represent the miners' interests and the Labour party, doubt that, if the case is as strong as they think it is, and as I have said perfectly frankly I think it is, that as a rule, subject no doubt to exceptional conditions in particular cases, 5s. is not an excessive wage for an adult employed underground, and 2s. is not an excessive wage for a boy of fourteen employed underground—can they doubt that the Boards set up under this Bill will give effect to what is obviously just? Can they contend, in face of the changes in the law we are now making, that it is right to go on subjecting the community to this ever-increasing burden of suffering and loss? The Legislature by an unexampled act has striven to purge the law of all possibility of taint. I apologise to the House for taking up so much time. I speak under the stress of very strong feeling. I can say for myself and my colleagues we have exhausted all the powers of persuasion, argument, and negotiation at our disposal, and we press this Bill as affording the best possible solution in the great emergency with which we are confronted With a full sense of our own shortcomings, I claim that we have done our best in the public interests with perfect fairness and impartiality.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As the right hon. Gentleman would have seen if he had been present when this Motion was moved, the sole object of my right hon. Friend was to

  235
  give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making such a statement as he has now made to the House; and I am sure there is no one who listened to that statement who does not feel grateful to my right hon. Friend for having given the opportunity of having it made, and also that no one could possibly feel more strongly the real responsibility which weighs upon him, or could have done his best from the point of view which he thought right with more earnestness and with a more sincere desire for the good of the country as a whole than the Prime Minister. This is far above and beyond any ordinary question of party politics. It is far beyond also any question of making a good or bad settlement. The speech to which we have just listened is one which, not on account of its merits as a speech, but on account of the earnestness and sincerity with which it expressed the real feelings of the Prime Minister, will always be remembered by those who heard it. I share to the full the regret expressed by the Prime Minister that the terms of an agreement have not been settled outside, and that it is not possible for us now either to leave the Bill alone or to proceed with other business with the knowledge that this great calamity has come to an end. I am sure also that no one who listened to the Prime Minister from the point of view which he put in regard to this minimum wage—which, as I have said before, so far as desiring to see miners obtain such a wage, is the feeling of every Member of this House to whatever party he belongs—no one who listened to the speech can doubt that under the proposals of this Bill that minimum wage will be given if the conditions of the trade, make it possible to give it—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is it."]—and why anyone should think it should be given under other conditions I for one am at a loss to understand. I say this is far beyond party politics. We have thought that the Government had not taken in their Bill the best possible method of dealing with the matter. We did think so, but it is the method which they have adopted. The House of Commons has shown decisively that it desires that the method of the Government should be tried, and I can say for all of us here that no obstacle whatever will be put by us in the way of the Bill passing as rapidly as possible.
  There is only one thing more that I feel it my duty to say, although I am afraid it
  236
  will not command such universal agreement. I know that the Prime Minister had it in his mind; I know that both he and other Members of the Government in the last few days have clearly stated it; but I think it is necessary now that it should be plainly before the country. The position is this. The Government have gone to unprecedented lengths in their efforts to meet the grievances of the miners. They are going to put those efforts into a Bill which will have the authority of Parliament behind it. When they have done that, I do not say that it will end this crisis. I trust that it will. I trust that the men will go back under the conditions which the Government have laid down in their Bill. But if they do not, what then? What is the position? The Government surely have a right then to say: "We have tried to meet those grievances, we have shown the way in which they ought to be met in the Bill which is now the law of the land: the members of the Miners' Federation are not merely members of that federation, they are citizens of this country, they are under its Government, and whatever may be their view we rely upon their obeying the law as the law is now established. We say this further: that unless society is to fall to pieces the whole resources of this country will be used to protect from molestation any man, in any part of the country, who desires to obey the law."
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition very accurately gauged the feeling of the House when he made the observation before launching into the latter part of his speech, that he did not think it would receive the same approval as the previous part of his speech had done. The miners of this country are a law-abiding people. They will consider with that in mind any legislation in the shape of advice or mandate which this House may give them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in respect to another Bill which has been promised will give precisely the same advice to his own followers. There is another section of the country that has prided itself, at any rate so far as its words are concerned, a little more frequently, and a little more flamboyantly, regarding its loyalty than have the members of the Miners' Federation. I hope when the time comes, they will take the good example set, and that the right hon. Gentleman will repeat to them that part of his speech when and if the occasion

  237
  arises. I regret that it was necessary for me to make these observations, but under the circumstances I am perfectly certain that the House expected nothing less from me.
  I heard, I am sure in common with every Member of this House with regret, the statement made by the Prime Minister. When I made the somewhat desperate attempt on Friday to keep the door open by suggesting, as I did, that the Schedule relating to the hewers might be laid on one side and the 5s. and the 2s. taken up separately, I did hope, that even at the last hour, some arrangement might be come to outside this House between the owners and the men. I have not had the same intimate relationship with both sides as the Prime Minister has had, but I can assure him that every Member sitting here shares with him his feelings of regret and disappointment that he has had to make the statement that he has now made. With reference to the 5s. and the 2s., that has to be the subject of an Amendment about to be moved, and I do not propose therefore to say anything on that. I would like, however, to say this: in this House we can look at things perhaps with a detachment of mind and with an impartiality of passion which is impossible as regards the great masses of men who have been engaged in a very desperate struggle.
  I only wish hon. Members of this House could put themselves in the position of the men who are at the present moment on strike. It is very difficult to do so; it is very easy for us—we believe it when we state it—to say to these men that these courts of arbitration are going to be absolutely impartial. It is very easy for us to profess to ourselves, and to persuade ourselves, that when the courts meet justice, even-handed justice, is to be done. But hon. Members must remember that these men have got experience. Hon. Members must remember that this contest was not entered upon in a light-hearted way. For long, weary weeks and months these men, through their representatives, have done their very best to settle this Question without a strike, and, when a strike was declared, to settle it without a Bill. We have got to do something more than merely express the opinion, which we ourselves believe, in order to convince these men that their cause is safe in the hands of the courts. Moreover, are we quite sure that the owners ought not to have the same sort of reflection cast upon them as has been cast upon
  238
  the men? After all, the owners have got a responsibility in this matter—a very grave responsibility.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not seek to apportion the blame or the responsibility.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It is, perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman in turning to us did, I think, make a special appeal to us. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, I understood so. I should be very pleased if I am mistaken—
  The PRIME MINISTER: After the Act is passed.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: After the Act is passed; but that depends upon the terms of the Act itself. I want to say nothing, and I want to do nothing, which will make peace either difficult or impossible; but this House must remember that it has to deal with men who are out on strike for a specific purpose. Unless we can give them some sort of guarantee which they understand that that purpose is to a reasonable extent to be achieved, this House cannot expect that legislation like this is going to do what hon. Members would like it to do. That is a reasonable position. Whether this House understands it or not, I am afraid that that is the experience that this legislation is going to meet. In making these remarks I should like to say that the feeling which we have got here, the feeling of peace, of a profound desire to bring both sides together to come to a settlement without legislation, has been, so far as we are concerned, thwarted at every turn by the attitude of the owners themselves. They have not budged one inch from the position taken before legislation was introduced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] They cannot possibly resist the appeal which we make to them here and now before the last hour has struck, if they are going to go clean-handed before the public after this Bill has been passed! They cannot possibly resist our appeal to them to-day, even before the Third Reading of this Bill is given, to meet the men and to agree to something which is substantial, and which will enable the leaders of the men to accept the legislation, and go and tell their followers that the Bill should be, accepted loyally and whole-heartedly, and put immediately into operation. That is the duty, that is the function, that is the responsibility of the owners now, and if they fail to meet it, then they must

  239
  certainly not only share, but share most largely, the responsibility for any deadlock that may come in consequence.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I should certainly not have risen had it not been for the last words of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester. Before alluding to them, as I am addressing the House, I should like to confirm entirely what has fallen from my right hon. Friend below me as to the manner in which the Prime Minister has conducted these negotiations. Owners certainly who have had the advantage of being present at these deliberations realise fully how hard he has struggled, and appreciate entirely the pathetic appeal that has been just now made to us. But I would not have it go out from this House that the owners have not equally endeavoured to find some settlement of this dispute, not on account of themselves, not for their own sake, but on account of the suffering which the country is undergoing in consequence of this dispute. We at all events, in my opinion, if I may speak for the coal owners, have a perfectly clear conscience in connection with what has been going on for the last few weeks. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester just now tried to throw back the burden of responsibility upon ourselves. How can he say what he did when in the initial stages, before the strike had commenced, the owners—by far the largest majority of them, at all events—agreed to the proposals put forward for consideration by His Majesty's Government? They agreed to them both in principle and in detail.
  When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester says we have not budged it is because we have not budged from the opinion of the Government themselves as to the way that this matter should be settled. Can those whom he was speaking for say the same thing? I do not want to recriminate—this is not the moment for so doing—I do not desire to raise in any sense—as I could do—any issue at this moment as to whether one side may have been wiser than the other. All I do desire to say, now that the matter has been raised so roughly by the hon. Member, is that, at all events, we feel that we have done our best to promote a settlement; we did it by accepting that which we intensely disliked for the sake and advantage of the country, and we thought we did wisest by following the advice of those who as the Executive
  240
  of this country had a right, at all events, to put forward a scheme, whether we agreed with it or not. We thought it was our duty as far as posible to fall in with that scheme. If we have not budged it is because we have stood beside the Government. It is unfair to say that the responsibility should be put upon us, and to say that we have done nothing in connection with peace.
  Mr. LONG: After the speech of the Prime Minister, for which I desire to thank him, I would ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BRACE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "rate" ["the minimum rate settled under this Act"], to insert the words "for coal hewers."
  I do not propose to make any lengthy remarks upon this Amendment which I have put down on the Paper. We desire in this Amendment to make the law read as it ought to read if it is to give that protection to the hewer that the Government say they desire to do.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: As I understand the Amendment of my hon. Friend, it would really be consequential upon another Amendment of his lower down on the Paper with reference to the question of 5s. a day for adults and 2s. a. day for boys. It would certainly come in better after that Amendment. If, therefore, the hon. Member accepts that suggestion, it could be discussed later on if the occasion arose. At present I must refuse to accept the words.
  Mr. BRACE: May I then, Mr. Speaker, accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and move my second Amendment, which is in—
  Sub-section (1), after the word "workman" ["the minimum rate settled under this Act and applicable to that workman "], to insert the words "and the 5s. per day for adults and 2s. per day for boys, for those engaged at fixed wages."
  The decision which the House comes to upon this Amendment will certainly have a determining influence upon the first Amendments. May I be allowed to say that I heard the Prime Minister's speech with a great deal of sympathy and a great deal of regret. The miners' representatives

  241
  have felt that the work done by the Prime Minister entitles him to the public testimony that they are under very great obligations to him and his colleagues for what he and they have done. But we feel more than ordinary regret at the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the proposal of 5s. for adults and 2s. for boys. That is one of the questions that the House, in our opinion, ought really to accept. It ought to accept it from the standpoint of expediency. I note that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were rather disposed to question the language of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) when he was speaking of the leaders being able to go to their men. If this House is under the impression that miners can always be persuaded to do what the leaders want them to do they show that they have little experience of the working of miners' organisations. What we feel is that the miners ought to have reasonable ground for the advice we give them, so that they may resume work without delay. What the men will do it is impossible for tiny Member of this House to say at this juncture. We have a conference later on to-day in which we shall have the whole position put before us, and then we shall have to decide our attitude. But I would like to say the miners are as anxious to go to work as the nation is they should go to work, but if they are to go to work they must be assured that the substantial grievance on account of which they stopped work shall be rectified, or that the settlement carries with it an assurance that it shall be rectified, and that is why we believe that this 5s. for adults and 2s. for boys that we have continually pressed upon the Government ought to be accepted.
  It is more than passing strange that if in these two figures we are now face to face with an economic problem, that a large number of the colliery owners pay this money now and not, be it noted, the owners of the wealthy collieries making substantal profits and dividends, but the owners of the inferior colliery property; it is those who pay the 5s. and the 2s., and therefore it cannot be an economic problem. I hope the House will act as arbiter between the colliery owners and the workmen upon this matter. I should have thought this would have been an un-controversial question, and that the colliery owners would be willing to accept this 5s. for adults and 2s. for boys After all, the men in this category are in an entirely
  242
  different position to the other classes of workmen included in the other Schedules. These men are entitled to 5s. not for economic reasons, but for humanitarian reasons. I have said it before, and I should like to say it again, because I believe it is a profound truth that the great wealth of the nation is not its gold and silver, But its men and women, and if they are most precious possessions of our national life, is not the nation under an obligaton to most jealously guard it in this instance by including in this Bill 5s. for adults? These men are engaged not in producing coal, but in hauling it and making it possible to have it hauled.
  Before the Eight Hours Act came into operation they got more wages that this, because they were allowed to work overtime. When the Eight Hours Act came into operation they were not allowed to work overtime, and I rejoice that the day had come when men were able to earn wages at reasonable shift work. If the proposition is made to me that because of the Eight Hours Act collieries are not able to pay the same wages to this class of labour as before, let me tell the House that since the Eight Hours Act came into force the output was increased last year by 7,500,000 tons of coal, and the output last year was 4,000,000 tons more than in any record year in mining experience in this country. If these men be part and parcel of the productive machinery in increasing that output of coal, surely it is not unreasonable that they should be given more wages to-day than they used to receive, and that they should be given wages today plus the overtime which they received formerly. That is our case. It is founded upon a great principle, because we believe these men ought not to be asked to work underground for less than 5s. per shift, and it is because of that we ask the Government not to send us to the arbitration tribunals upon this question. Let them make it clear that this 5s. shall be the bedrock of the wages these men receive. I am much obliged to the Prime Minister for his declaration, that in his judgment, upon the case presented to him, there is no answer to the case of 5s. for adults. I ask the Prime Minister and his Government to put into legal language the opinions expressed from the Front Bench. It is because we think the case is unanswerable, and because we think the Government and the House of Commons ought to give this right to the men, that I beg to move my Amendment.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has done so in a persuasive manner—
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Noble Lord is opposing the Amendment. Should it not have a Seconder?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment was proposed and seconded before. The hon. Member in making his second speech spoke by leave of the House.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has been so persuasive that I am afraid if I did not know the question and had not studied it I should have been almost inclined to agree with him. But just let us consider the position in which we are at the present moment. The whole difference between the owners and the men has been narrowed down to one point—as to whether or not the figures 5s. and 2s. should be inserted in the Bill. From the speech of the hon. Gentleman I think we may look at the matter in this respect, that he and his people have gained a victory. They established the principle they wished to see established—that is, a minimum wage in the coal trade. We withstood the establishment of a minimum wage principle for various reasons, but we have consented to it, and that being so, I should say the blame now rests upon the labour people for the deadlock which has occurred at the present moment. That is how the situation stands as I view it just now. The insertion in the Bill of the figures 5s. and 2s. would mean the establishment of a specific wage principle which has never been included in any Bill so far as I am aware. I cannot understand why the Labour party are so anxious to have these specific figures inserted in the Bill. Do they not trust the District Boards which are to be set up by the action of this Bill? Is it that they desire them to he placed in the Bill because they are certain that the District Boards will not act fairly to the men because in this Bill, which we reluctantly assent to, we are willing to let our case come before the District Boards and to abide by the decision of these Boards? I want to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what is the reason they desire to see the specific figures 5s. for men and 2s. for boys inserted in this Bill. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment in a very eloquent manner appealed to the House to say, Is it not reasonable that men who work underground should
  244
  receive the 5s. and boys 2s.? I entirely agree with him, but I cannot see, if these figures are inserted, what is to prevent those who earn larger sums at the present moment coming forward and asking for an increase in proportion.
  An HON. MEMBER: Why should not they have it?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I think the hon. Member will agree with me that the question of economics does come into this. We have been told that because the work of the mining industry is one accompanied by danger that the wages of the miners underground should be high. I entirely agree, and I should like, not only to see the wages of the miners increased, but I should like to see the wages in all parts of the country increased. But these things depend upon economic conditions. We live under certain social and economic systems. There are Gentlemen in this House who say it is a very bad system, and they desire to see the foundations upon which it stands removed and broken up, and one of the means by which they wish to achieve that object is by the establishment of a minimum wage. It places in their hands almost insuperable power, but under the condition under which we live at the present moment the wages paid to miners are wages that have relations to the profits made in the trade; and if you continue to increase these wages beyond an economic standard it means that mines at present in process of working will go out of working; and it means that those men who are at present employed in such mines will be thrown into the ranks of the unemployed.
  5.0 P.M.
  If that situation arises it must be obvious to everyone that the output of coal will be of a very diminishing character. All those engaged in the coal trade at the present moment will be able to demand a minimum wage of a far higher character than that which prevails at present, with corresponding detriment to the people of this country. This is a matter we should consider on its merits. I do not think there is a single individual in the House or in the country who does not wish to see the highest possible wage paid, in relation to the economic position, to the miners. There is no question here of denying the miners their rightful wages. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite think the coal owner is an individual who tries to extract all the profit he can, but even if the owner does try to make a profit, is it

  245
  denied that the business of the men is to obtain the highest wages they can.
  Mr. POINTER: Hon. Gentlemen opposite contend that irrespective of anything else they want to see the miner get good wages, but I do not believe it, because high profits stand in the way.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Hon. Gentlemen opposite attribute certain motives to us, but the whole of the circumstances point in the opposite direction. The point I desire to make is that if you establish a minimum wage, a great many of the mines of the country will go out of the process of working, the price of coal will be raised, and a great many of those employed in mining operations before this strike will be driven into the ranks of the unemployed. With regard to what has been said about legislative interference, it always is a matter of the greatest surprise to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite are always calling upon the State to come in and interfere with the organisation of very complicated machinery. I do not speak for the coal trade as a whole, and I can only speak for the North of England. I am sure my remarks will be endorsed by many hon. Members opposite when I say that the relations between the employers and the miners in the North of England are of the most satisfactory character. We have always conducted our negotiations through joint boards to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, and it is a mystery to me why hon. Members representing labour are continually asking the Government to interfere with such highly complicated machinery. I remember this in the case of the Eight Hours Act. We can trace a great deal of the disturbance up to the present moment to be interference which the Government thought fit to bring about under the Act to which I have alluded. It is quite possible for us under the machinery which exists in the north to manage our own affairs, and it is always a matter of the greatest regret that the Government should be called upon to come in and disturb the relations which have hitherto existed. It is for that reason that I shall oppose this Amendment. I maintain that in the concessions that have been made the hon. Member has gained the point he wished to make, for he has got his minimum wage for better or for worse. I sincerely hope that this Amendment by which the hon. Member desires to place specified figures in the Bill will be defeated by this House.
  Mr. BUXTON: I fully recognise the importance of this question, but after what has been said on this matter by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government hon. Members will not expect me to go into the full merits of the case. I can only express the view which has fallen from the Prime Minister, namely, that the Government, after giving this matter the fullest possible consideration, and sympathising with the object of the Amendment, came to the conclusion that it would not be right or expedient to put the actual figures of 5s. and 2s. in the Bill now before the House. The Noble Lord who has just sat down said that the coal trade could manage its own affairs much better than they could be managed by Government intervention. I would like to remind the Noble Lord that as regards this Bill both the owners and those representing the men in this House have expressed that same view, and have regretted that it has become necessary to introduce a Bill at all to deal with this matter. The only justification for this Bill is the emergency which has arisen and the extremity in which the country is placed.
  Speaking on behalf of the Board of Trade in regard to disputes between capital and labour, I say it that it is infinitely better from every point of view when they can be discussed and settled locally between the parties interested rather than by the intervention of the Government or the Board of Trade. This, however, is an exceptional case, and the House has endorsed the action of the Government in interfering in this matter. The questions in dispute have been narrowed down to this point of 5s. and 2s. for the day men and the boys. Having been through the whole of these conferences, I can only reiterate, what I am sure is felt equally deeply by all Members of this House, regret that these negotiations up to now, at all events, have failed to bring about an agreement in regard to this question of 5s. and 2s. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment wishes to put these figures in the Bill. I thing the House recognises that in his usual persuasive way the hon. Member has made good his argument and has made out a strong case for his statement that taking the country generally the day men and the boys do not receive a minimum wage of 5s. and 2s. The Prime Minister expressed general concurrence in that view, but he qualified it by saying that the minimum wage must be subject to some local adjustment. I should like to say that we have

  247
  had in discussing this and other matters the statement of the owners on the one hand as to the number of boys and the men who would be affected by this, and they have told us that it would mean a material addition to their wages bill, and would involve wading through a great number of details in various parts of the country. On the other hand, in regard to these figures, the miners' representatives have expressed opinions, tendered evidence, and made assertions contradicting the owners' statements in regard to all these matters.
  All this has brought it still more forcibly home to our minds that with regard to these particular figures the only lair and just way would be not to have them decided by this House, because hon. Members can have no real knowledge of the question, but to have them decided by these Joint Committees. I admit that they are in a somewhat different category to the Schedules. There are something like twenty-one districts in which probably different figures will be fixed, but all the same I do not think that it is possible at the present moment, with the knowledge before us, to treat this matter nationally without taking into account certain local conditions and circumstances. It is because we think that those circumstances and conditions can only be properly thrashed out by the representatives of both sides under an impartial chairman that we have declined to put these figures into an Act of Parliament. I fully endorse what the Prime Minister has said in regard to this matter. Taking the country as a whole, I do not believe that these two figures go beyond the merits of the case, but the stronger that is, and the stronger the case made out by my hon. Friend the more we ought to favour meeting this difficulty through the judgment of the joint committees. I deeply regret having to deal with this Amendment. No doubt there are obvious advantages from having these figures inserted in the Bill, but after what the Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion I am afraid I must ask the House to resist this Amendment.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I wish at the outset to thank the Prime Minister for the long and tedious services he has rendered during this dispute. I quite believe he has strained every nerve, used the best of his influence, has been animated with the highest motives in trying to bring about a
  248
  satisfactory settlement. I wish to deal with the question upon whom the blame is to be put, because there is blame, and that blame ought to be placed upon the right shoulders. I will take my own county of Derbyshire first, and then I will come to the federated area and deal with those whom I think are responsible for this unrest, for the strike, for all the suffering it has entailed, and for this calamity. Before the strike notices were handed in we had a meeting in my county with the coal owners at Chesterfield. I am ready to give chapter and verse for all my statements, because this is too serious a matter to play with. We had 6s. 6d. offered in my own. county as a minimum wage by the chairman of the Coal owners' Association for the county of Derbyshire. With regard to the boys, for nine years the scale of 2s. per day at fourteen years of age has been in operation and paid honourably by the coal owners of Derbyshire.
  Now I come to the federated area, where for ten long days a committee, consisting of five on each side—and I happened to be one representing the men—waded through all the technicalities and complexities of the minimum wage. It is well known to those who were there that the Government proposals as regards safeguards and other things are based upon the findings of the federated areas. We had an offer practically of a minimum wage. The federated area comprises Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, North Staffordshire, Cannock Chase, North Wales, and Lancashire. I say that if this question had been left to that area to settle you would never have been troubled with this matter on the floor of this House. Let us put the blame where it ought to rest. It rests upon South Wales and Scotland. The South Wales owners and the Scottish owners have been most unreasonable all the way through, and they must take the responsibility for this conflict and for all this unrest. The Noble Lord opposite spoke as if we invited State interference. I may say that we never asked for State interference at all. They caused the strike and not us. We have never appealed to the Government to come in. I have always said the time would come when the Government would have to intervene in the interests of the State, but the miners' leaders have never approached the Government to intervene in this strike. When we were invited to meet the Government, of course it was our duty to consent to meet them and to discuss this

  249
  great question which was working such havoc in the nation. According to the latest figures we have got there are in these generous times, when people are talking about miners getting exceptionally high wages, 100,000 men in this country who go down the pit and risk their lives to produce the commodity which the nation now knows it cannot do without, and get less than 5s. per day.
  Mr. NEWTON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the figures for the federated area as opposed to Scotland and South Wales?
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I can tell the hon. Member that 25 per cent, of these are in Durham. Let me carry this a little further. Do hon. Members know that the average working week of miners in the United Kingdom is only 4½ days, and in order to be able to work for 4½ days a man must not have a day's illness. If he has a day's illness, then he works less. If he is well all the year, he only makes 4½ days, and 4½ days at 5s. per day is 22s. 6d. per week. I venture to say that there are some hon. Members in this House who spend as much as that on a dinner, and, if there were a Commission to investigate that, it would be proved so. Yet the same men are sticking out and saying these men shall not have 5s. a day for themselves, their wives, and families, men who undertake all this risk to produce this commodity which is so essential. I was going to say something very strong, I am afraid, but I think a nation that cannot afford to do that and to provide men with the necessities of life and the requirements of their families, ought to starve sometimes to learn the value of the men who are doing this work. The time has come when you will have no rest in this country until this matter is settled. I am not going to utter any threats at all. Everybody who knows me knows I am a man of peace, and that I have been labouring for peace. There is not a coal owner who will not give me credit for trying to bring about a settlement, but there comes a time when peace cannot be had at any price, and bread and cheese for the men who work is more important to me than peace when that peace is to be paid for at too high a price. A more reasonable claim than we are making, 5s. for adult men and 2s. for boys, was never made in the history of this House. I am told, and told by the President of the Board of Trade, to hope for something. I am to
  250
  hope the Joint Boards will give this; in other words, I am to trust to the result of these Joint Boards.
  I have said in Trade Union Congresses and in International Congresses that there are things on which I could not afford to arbitrate, and I could not afford to arbitrate on the question whether a man shall live or not, or on the question whether he shall have sufficient to keep body and soul together or not. There ought to be no question about this 5s. and 2s.; it ought to be given without any resistance whatever to a class of workmen who are doing good work in the interests of the nation. I am afraid my appeal will be in vain, but I shall have made it not only as a man who has not disturbed the elements or tried to create division, and I make it knowing what may await me to-morrow and the next day when I meet thousands of these men, because I shall go and meet them—when I have to meet the great crowd outside and declare this House has refused to put in the Bill 5s. for a man and his wife and family and 2s. for a boy of fourteen years of age, I shall have to tell this story to the men who are doing this work. I do not know what the result will be. I cannot tell. It will be told them without any incitement on my part; it will be a plain fact I shall have to report to them in their multitudes. If you do not give us this, it will be for us to go and meet the miners again. I hope the time will never come when I cannot go and meet the men at any time and anywhere. I am prepared to go to these men and tell them the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and I will tell them who is responsible for this. I will tell them why we have been driven to the floor of this House for legislation. I had hoped we should never have to come here for legislation of this kind. It is nauseous to me. As an old trade union leader negotiating, as I have done, for thirty years, bringing about settlements, and having good relations with the owners in the county in which I reside, I say it is nauseous to me to have this legislation; but there are owners and owners, and there are managers and managers. There are men who have humanity in them, and there are others who are as cold as ice, and without whom the world would be no worse.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: The House has listened to a strong appeal from my hon. Friend, and, as an owner of collieries in the districts in which he exercises his influence, I can only say no man has made

  251
  more for peace in Derbyshire or in the federated area as a whole than my hon. Friend. The hon. Member stated there were coal owners and coal owners. I hope the House will allow me to dissociate myself altogether from the industry in the remarks I am going to make. It would, I think, be true to say that the overwhelming majority of the coal owners in this country have treated their men fairly and well. I do not think any trade union leader can contradict the statement that as a body the coal owners have treated their men fairly well, but there are a minority of owners who are the cause of the present strike. In many districts men have been unable to earn a minimum wage, and they have had no consideration. I know, not of one, but of scores and hundreds of cases where men have done a whole week's work and have gone home with less than 5s. in their pockets. It is true that under this Bill these men are now secured some minimum, but even this 2s. and 5s. is really illusory, because, as the Bill is based, it differentiates, and it may be the minimum price fixed for hewers would not be 2s. 6d. per day. There is nothing in the Bill, so far as I can see, which would prevent a minimum wage being fixed in a mine which economically ought not to be worked at 2s. 6d. a day. If there were an exceptional mine which ought not to be worked, it is quite clear that under the Bill the minimum would not even be 5s. It would not be 3s., because, even if the Government accept the Amendment I suggested on the Committee stage to provide that the minimum shall not be lower than the average rate prevailing in the district, it would not secure the man the minimum wage of 5s. The Government, having gone three-fourths of the way, destroying all economic principles, at the last stage seem to be blown, and do not seem to have the courage to take the last fence.
  The late Mr. Toynbee in that remarkable book, "History of the Industrial Revolution of the Eighteenth Century" clearly showed that all economic theories that had been advanced both in Parliament and outside against men having a minimum wage had been founded on false premises, and that invariably the men had been right and all the schools of economic theories had been wrong. The Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) said that in Durham and in other counties certain mines would, if a minimum wage was granted, have to close, or be rendered
  252
  unprofitable. What are the laws which govern prices? I believe if the coal owners understood the laws which govern prices we should not have this strike to-day. It is the cost of production which primarily determines prices in conjunction with supply and demand. Secondly, if the cost of production is increased, whether the demand increases or decreases, so inevitably will the price rise. For example, if you decrease the cost of the manufacture of hats ten times the price of hats will fall ten times, sooner or later, because it is the cost of production which ultimately, in conjunction with supply and demand, determines all prices. What would be the cost entailed by this 5s. and 2s.? In many cases it would increase the cost of coal nothing. I grant that in the North of England and in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the operation of the 5s. might in some very few mines be a hardship, and it would, so far as Durham and Northumberland are concerned, undoubtedly cause some small increase of cost, but the coal trade is a highly protected trade. It is an industry in which so far as the home market goes, there is no competition except that which the owners themselves create, and, so far as the export trade-goes, when the coal tax was put on by the party opposite. I was the only Member to get up and say that tax would be paid by the foreigner and would not be paid by the producer in this country. I said in this House in 1903 and 1904 that, so far as-the companies with which I am associated are at all events concerned, in the main the tax had been paid by the foreign consumer and not by the home producer. It did not reduce the exports. They were at a very high figure at that time. The total then was 44,000,000 tons. To-day it is 62,000,000. During that period there has been an increase of nearly 20,000,000. The House must remember that since then something like 40,000 men have come into the industry. You have a million of men engaged in it, and what proportion of them are given less than 5s. a day? I was surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derby said 100,000 men were getting less than 5s. per day. I think that must have applied to Durham, Northumberland, and Scotland. I can say this— that only about 5 per cent, of the men in a colliery with which I am associated in South Wales are receiving less than 5s. a day. I understand it is said that if Mr. D. A. Thomas, whom the House must not regard as an extreme man, had not joined the Coal Owners' Association, we should

  253
  have had no strike in South Wales at all. The fact is it is the South Wales coal owners who have forced this on, because they wanted a fight and were not satisfied until they could get one. All this has arisen out of the Cambrian strike. Mr. Thomas wanted at that time to refer the whole question to arbitration, but the coal owners would not allow him to do so. In fact, South Wales owners have built up a stone-wall attitude on this question; they have declared they intend to fight it out, and that is the spirit in which the negotiations have been carried on.
  Many coal owners, especially in the federated area, have done everything they could to bring about a settlement. But there are certain men in certain districts who have set out deliberately to fight, because they think they are going to smash the trade unions. The Government, I fancy, are somewhat touched by the same fever. They have got an idea, or, at any rate, some of their supporters have the idea, that if this strike continues the men are going to be beaten, and will go back to work. The men are not defeated; they are not going back to work, and when hon. Members think that they are going to get a finish of this dispute by men breaking away from their fellows, they are very wrong. Furthermore, I can assure them that if such a victory ever were gained, it would be at the expense of the Liberal party, which would cease to exist. The country is now plunged into terrible happenings. There are starving women and children in the different districts, while the parties to the dispute are showing themselves irreconcilable. There are owners, on the one hand, who desire to fight the question to its ultimate issue, who say, "The fight must come, and the sooner the better." There are those also who think that the smash of the trade unions will bring about industrial peace for another ten years. But the men who think that by ruining trade unions they are going to get industrial peace are entirely mistaken, for upon the foundation of such a ruin you will have even stronger trade unions erected. This is a great question of principle. We have here an industry of a peculiar character, which is enabled to inflict great hardship on the community. Parliament has brought us here to discuss this question. The men have not asked the House to legislate, but the Government have produced this Bill in order to give the men bread and water, because, after all, that is all they will get out of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to
  254
  prevent the minimum wage being fixed at 3s., and, therefore, there is a necessity for fixing a bottom price.
  Speaking with all responsibility, I say that this Bill is an impossible one to settle this dispute. Men and starving women and children are to-day looking forward to this House to bring about a settlement. I wish to say no words that may prolong the dispute, but, so far as I can afford it. I shall support these men, no matter how long the strike lasts. At the same time the responsibility on the Government is-very grave in not accepting the Schedule. I told them time after time, before they introduced this legislation, that the coal owners were united to resist all demands, and that, whatever the result, Parliament would have to legislate. Members of the-Government laughed at me. They said, "We will settle it at a round-table conference." I replied, "You do not know these men; I do know them. These irreconcilables are out to fight, and have no intention, even if the conference goes on for days—they have not the slightest intention of granting 5s. or 3s., or anything at all; they mean to fight it out to the bitter end." I shall vote against this Bill, because I am sure it is not going to bring about industrial peace. I shall vote against it also with the certain knowledge that it can be no settlement in this great industry of the relations between capital and labour. When I heard the Prime Minister hesitating to take the last step I thought to myself the last step is not yet taken. There is one further step open to him. He and his Government have only to say that this 5s. and 2s. is a reasonable thing to put into the Bill, and if they do that they will not depart one iota from the principle they have already accepted. It has been accepted in regard to other industries. Of course, this is not a sweated industry, but it is an exceptional industry, in which men have to risk their lives. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] The hon. Member says "No." Would he go down into a mine and labour in those dangerous surroundings for 5s. a day, or even £5 a day?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Nobody said "No."
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I thought the hon. Member did.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I certainly will withdraw. I understood the hon. Member

  255
  to dissent. I have not the slightest wish to misinterpret his attitude. I repeat that although this is not a sweated industry, it is still an industry of so arduous a character that the people engaged in it ought to have special remuneration. Objection may be taken to interference with the wages of adult workers. For many years past this House has not interfered with the wages of adult workers, on the ground that they are able to take care of themselves. But now it has been forced, owing to the circumstances of the times, to take up a different attitude, and the Prime Minister has consequently departed entirely from economic law in taking the course he has done. But this Bill will not produce a settlement. On the contrary, the terrible suffering of the majority of our countrymen and women will continue, and for the result of all this appalling misery the responsibility lies on the Government, because they should have told the coal owners that, if they refuse to accept the reasonable Schedule of 5s. and 2s., the mines would be nationalised without any humbug about it.
  Sir C. CORY: The hon. Member who has just spoken expressed a good deal of admiration for the Member for North-East Derbyshire, but it must be within the recollection of hon. Members that during the Debates on the Coal Mines Regulation Bill those two hon. Gentlemen were daily attacking one another and were doing so in a most bitter fashion. The hon. Member also said that the Government and the coal owners had gone three-fourths of the way to meet the miners.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I did not say so.
  Sir C. CORY: I think I am in the recollection of hon. Members.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I said the Government, but not the owners.
  Sir C. CORY: The hon. Member said the Government had gone three-quarters of the way to meet the demands of the miners. In that case it does not seem very unreasonable to expect the miners to go one-quarter of the way to meet the Government. There was another very interesting remark by the hon. Member for Mansfield. He said that the export coal tax was borne by the foreigner. All I can reply is that a deputation waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer representative of every district in the country,
  256
  composed of men of all political parties, and of employers as well as of miners, and that deputation unanimously declared that the burden fell on the producer. Furthermore, there is no doubt it gave an opportunity to the foreigner to get into our markets, and many markets were lost to us owing to that coal duty. This occurred during the period when the trade of the world was increasing enormously, and the effect was not so severely felt as it would have been in bad times. Again, the hon. Member said that this fight would not have occurred had it not been for the action of Mr. D. A. Thomas, who was a Member of this House for many years, and who we very much regret is not here now in order to defend himself against the unfair statement of the hon. Member. It is quite unfair to suggest that the action of the South Wales owners is due to the attitude of Mr. D. A. Thomas. He has said, I believe, that the 5s. and the 2s. would affect his collieries less than any others, but, as a matter of fact, we know that in the South Wales Coal Owners' Association there are many members who solemnly affirm that if the 5s. and 2s. were passed it would mean absolute ruin to them. They feel it is going to hit them hardly, and you cannot therefore expect them to say that they will agree to it. They might be expected to say, "We do not care about our poorer brethren; we must look after ourselves."
  Sir A. MARKHAM: What I said was that a dispute took place at a certain pit, and that Mr. D. A. Thomas wanted to refer the whole question to arbitration, but the owners on the Conciliation Board would not allow him to do so.
  Sir C. CORY: I think the hon. Member said that it was entirely owing to the action of Mr. D. A. Thomas that the coal owners took the action they did. I have only this morning received a letter from a gentleman imploring me to try to get him into the Bristol, Somerset, or Forest of Dean districts, because if he were taken into the South Wales district it would mean absolute ruin to him. He seems to have small quarries in the West of Glamorganshire, and he says:—
  "Not one of these concerns has paid a dividend fur many years, while about £50,000 has been lost during the last ten years in carrying them on."
  Can you be surprised that that man should strongly oppose any proposal for 5s. and 2s., which he knows would cause him a much graver loss? Coal owners very often carry on their mines for years

  257
  notwithstanding the fact that they may be incurring a loss, in the hope that things may improve later, and that they will be able to turn what was a lose into a profit. Here is a man asking to be put into a district where lower wages are to be paid so as to get a lesser minimum than in the richer districts. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Arthur Markham) said it was the desire of the Government, and the desire of the House, and, indeed, of all Members on these benches, to break the trade unions. Speaking for myself, and I believe for all those he mentioned, I say that he is entirely incorrect. Who is it that has forced this question upon the country? It is not the good old trade union representatives; it is the extreme section of the trade unions, the Socialists, and really the Government are fighting their battle, as against trade unions, in trying to force this question upon the country. The hon. Baronet (Sir Arthur Markham) told us that many collieries paid very low wages. He led the House to think that in the coal trade generally low wages were paid. A little later he told us that the coal trade was not a sweated industry. He spoke with two voices on that question. The hon. Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. Brace) said it was the unprofitable collieries and the collieries that are now losing money that pay high wages.
  Mr. BRACE: I said the inferior collieries.
  Sir C. CORY: The hon. Member said that the collieries which make the big profits are paying lower wages. Does not that rather prove that the trade cannot stand the 5s. and 2s.? He said it was the poor collieries who are paying it, and I suppose they cannot make any profits as a result.
  Mr. BRACE: May I correct my hon. Friend? What I did attempt to say, and what I think I must have said, was that these inferior collieries, producing an inferior quality of coal, were paying 5s., and not the richest collieries. The hon. Baronet will not allow us to know what his profits are, so we cannot say anything about them.
  Sir C. CORY: According to the hon. Member it is the wealthy collieries that are paying the lower wages, and those paying little or no profits are paying the higher wages. I submit that that proves that the trade cannot afford it. The hon.
  258
  Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. W. E. Harvey) said there are 100,000 men in the country that were paid less than 5s. I know that in every district I have information from that there is a large number of men now receiving under 5s., and a large number of boys, and that in many cases if the 5s. were given it would mean an increase in cost of from 10d. to 1s. a ton. That would mean a loss on these collieries. It is not only the men who are receiving less than 5s. per day who would get the increase, but there would have to be a relative increase in all classes. You may have a man getting 3s. 6d. plus a percentage. If you raise him to 5s., another man, who is now getting 4s., would also expect to receive the 5s. I know that if you raise one class all the classes above that class expect to be raised proportionately. It would be impossible to resist the claims of those other classes to be raised proportionately to the labourers who receive the increase up to 5s. Then you have the surface-men, the men who are at the top of the pit, doing identically the same work as the men at the bottom of the pit, and getting the same wages. Directly you raise the wages of the men at the bottom of the pit the men on the surface will say they must have their wages raised. These men would rather be underground, at the bottom, where the temperature is equable and where they keep away from the frost and rain, and where they consider it to be much more comfortable. If you raise the wages of the men underneath you will certainly have to raise the wages of the men on the surface doing the same work.
  It is not so small a question as hon. Members are disposed to think. It moans an enormous increase in cost. No doubt everybody would desire to give these classes the minimum of 5s. and 2s. if the trade could stand it, but it is the belief of the trade, after serious consideration, that it could not stand it. You have to consider also the iron and steel trade, which will be greatly affected by this increase. It will increase the cost of coal by 1s., the cost of iron by 2s., and the cost of steel by 4s. You will put the iron manufacturers at a disadvantage in competition with foreign manufacturers. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire said that the whole of this trouble has been brought about by the Scotch and South Wales owners. I think that is a very unfair statement to make. It is only fair and just that I should try to put the case of the South Wales owners, as there is nobody

  259
  else in the House to do so. There are many hon. Members here who can put the men's point of view ably and eloquently, and therefore it is only fair that I should try to put the case of the owners in reply. The miners have said they will not accept the Bill after it is passed if the 5s, and 2s. are not in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said so just now, and the Prime Minister seemed to infer it. If they are going to accept it I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Government will be very glad to hear it. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have not said that either."] The Scotch and Welsh owners have never said that. What they said is that they are absolutely opposed to the principle of the minimum wage, and that it is unsound to give a man a minimum wage without a guarantee as to what work he will do. They do not consider that any satisfactory guarantees can be given. In the first place, they absolutely decline to accept the principle, as they consider it would be ruinous to their trade; and, secondly, they say they have agreements in force which were entered into after long negotiations with the men, after a very long process of investigation and consideration, and after the men had balloted upon them and their own representatives had signed them, upon the recommendation of the Miners' Federation, and even the Board of Trade sent down their representatives—after all this had been gone into, the men tore the agreements up.
  The South Wales owners consider that this is hitting at the sanctity of agreements, and if agreements are torn up in this way they could never rely upon any agreements being carried out. Therefore they say that on principle they cannot accept the proposal of the Government, unless it is imposed upon them by legislation. They say they will not voluntarily accept the Bill. That is very different from the position of the miners, who said that they would not accept it unless the 5s. and the 2s. were put in when it became law. The, Scotch and Welsh owners have never said that. The position of the Scotch owners is stronger than the Welsh case, because their agreement was signed by the President of the Board of Trade and Sir George Askwith, and had a Clause in it providing that if the Joint Board could not agree the chairman was to have the absolute power to decide the question. They have got a District Board with an independent chairman, who, instead of
  260
  having a casting vote, has an absolute power of decision. The Scotch and Welsh owners take the attitude that they will not accept, the Bill unless it is imposed upon them by Parliament.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is covering a great deal of ground which has been crossed and recrossed over and over again, and which does not seem to be relevant to this Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member will confine himself to this Amendment.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir C. CORY: I at once bow to your ruling, Sir. The only reason I referred to the matter was that several hon. Members have referred to this very point upon this Amendment, and have accused the Scotch and Welsh owners of being the cause of the Bill being brought in at all. I thought the House would feel it was only fair to the Scotch and South Wales owners to reply to that. The Prime Minister said the Government are convinced that the 5s. and the 2s. are just, but they absolutely decline to put it in their Bill. It seems to me a very great pity that the Prime Minister should have prejudged the case. What is the good of sending it to a District Board with what really amounts to a direction to the independent chairman of the Board? If he is going to leave it to the Board it is a pity that he made any such statement as that. The hon. Member (Mr. Brace) said the reason why this question of the minimum was forced on the country was that the Eight Hours Act had prevented the men from earning so much money as they did previously. Those of us who opposed the Act said that would be the case, and that it would increase the expenses of the owner and increase the cost to the consumer, which it has done.
  Mr. T. RICHARDS: The South Wales representatives in this House are very much concerned as to who really are right among the South Wales coal owners. They speak with so many voices. The House has listened to the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory) against the 5s. and 2s. Will they bear with me while I read what was said to a representative of the "Times" yesterday by Mr. D. A. Thomas? He could not understand why the Government, having swallowed the principle of the State regulation of wages, should now boggle at the details of the price. Who among the colliery owners is telling the truth, and who really is representing the general body of the owners? On the question as to how far

  261
  this affects the economic conditions of the collieries in South Wales, Mr. Thomas said that in eight important collieries in which he was associated with the management the number of men paid less than 5s. did not exceed 5 per cent, of the number employed underground. I am astonished. I regret to have to say, after meeting the South Wales coal owners for very many years, that they should have their general reputation so badly besmirched in this dispute. The whole responsibility has been put upon them by some speakers. I do not know whether I should go as far as that, but that a large measure of responsibility ought to be and is rightly placed upon the shoulders of the rich colliery owners in South Wales I think is correct. The hon. Baronet says he has had a letter from some unnamed person. The difficulty is that the owners refuse to put their cards upon the table, as they always do in industrial matters. Now that the question of the living of the workmen of this country is being raised in this form and being dealt with by the Government, I would suggest that it is about time—and I regret it is not included in the Bill—that we should have some means of securing what the legal fraternity call "disclosure," and that we should not have these hypothetical, fictitious things put before us all the time. I do not know how far the Bill will help us in that way. Let us get the actual state of things which obtains at the collieries. If there is no power of disclosure to be given us the independent chairmen in all the districts will attach very little importance to evidence that only disclosures can really give regarding the true state of affairs.
  Sir C. CORY: The letter the hon. Member referred to was written privately, but I can give the name. It was Mr. Jones, of Mount Llanelly.
  Mr. T. RICHARDS: I know exactly the condition of things which prevails at all the South Wales collieries without exception. This is the actual state of affairs in the particular districts that the hon. Baronet referred to. There are eighty collieries in the Western districts of our Federation, and in 84 per cent, of these collieries the 5s. a day and above is at present in force. More than that, this 84 per cent, they pay for night work six turns for working five, so they actually pay at the rate of 6s. and not 5s. What are these collieries? We are not saying whether they are rich or poor in the sense that the hon. Baronet meant, but they
  262
  produce an inferior class of coal as compared with the coal in the collieries owned by the hon. Baronet and all the hon. Gentlemen who sit behind him from South Wales, and they get anything from 1s. to 5s. and higher, less price in the market than does the best Welsh steam coal The collieries working the poorer seams of coal pay this 5s. rate and above, but none of the collieries owned by the wealthy trusts and combines, which make their 5, 10, 15, and 20 per cent, dividends every year, pay at this rate of 5s. There are twenty-eight firms who do not pay this 5s. rate who, for a period of about sixteen years, have paid an average dividend of 10 per cent., and a great many of them have had the whole of their capital returned. Their present assets are valued at about £8,000,000 more than their original capital, and these are the people who are net paying the 5s. I am generally considered, even by the coal owners, as being a reasonable man, but I think their case is so utterly absurd that they ought to be ashamed to defend it in the House for a moment. I am not contending that economic questions do not come into it in some other districts with which I am not so well acquainted, but, as far as South Wales is concerned, I reiterate that if the men who can best afford to pay do not pay they ought to be made to pay by the Government.
  We really have not sought this state of things. Most of us have tried for a great many years to prevent it. We have seen it coming for the last two or three years, and we have contended against it with all the strength of our nature. The hon. Baronet talks about the sanctity of agreements. We endeavoured to fix up an agreement with these wealthy coal owners, we did our best to wrest from them by peaceable means all that we could, and after months of negotiation and contending we got all that we felt could be got. Then I and several other leaders had to sit down and consider what we were to do. The men had to accept this agreement or the alternative, and the alternative meant a strike. We advised our workmen, rather than come out on strike and contend against the owners in this coalfield by ourselves, to accept the agreement, but we have reason to hope and believe that we have made out such a case during these negotiations that, agreement or no agreement, the House will deal with the case of a very low-paid class of men who, through no

  263
  fault of their own, are unable to get decent wages. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) told us that the workmen were following the newer rather than the older leaders. He is an authority upon old and new leaders and the various influences which operate as between them, which I am not.
  The new leaders did contend with the older ones that the workmen should not accept this agreement. We did our best, and for the moment the older leaders prevailed and the agreement was accepted, but with this reservation—and let there be no mistake about it when you are talking about the sanctity of that agreement—that my hon. Friend, speaking on our behalf, said, "We will advise the workmen to accept this agreement, but this question of the lower paid men and abnormal cases must be settled, agreement or no agreement." We told them that more than once, twice or a dozen times before we finally agreed to accept the agreement. After the agreement was signed the hon. Member, on our behalf, presented our case to the coal owners and asked them whether they would consider these two phases of the miners' life, which really were a great hardship. They snapped their fingers at us, and said, "We have our agreement and you must carry it out." After treatment like that we did not think we were justified in contending against the workmen taking what action they chose to get these two great grievances remedied. It is only after years and years of contending and struggling with our own owners in South Wales that we have taken part in this great general movement. We say at once it has grieved us to know that we have been compelled to take action which is causing such misery and inconvenience to the country, but I hope whether there is a Bill or no Bill the efforts outside and inside the House will bring it to a speedy termination. Depend upon it, anything I can do will assist in bringing that about.
  Mr. MILDMAY: We on this side of the House were deeply impressed with the earnestness of the speech of the Mover of the Amendment and also the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. W. E. Harvey), but it seems to me that every speaker hitherto has lost sight of what is really the issue on this Amendment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in a very praiseworthy attempt to put an end to the strike and all the misery that it means, have obscured the nature and the magnitude of the issue. They tell
  264
  us that if we want to end the strike we must put the 5s. in the Bill. An hon. Member who spoke on Friday last found great fault with an hon. Member for using the word "blackmail." "Blackmail" is an ugly word, and we do not want to use hard words. We all know what he meant. He meant nothing offensive. If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the word "threat" let us use the word "inducement." What is the inducement offered to us to accept the Amendment? They say, "Unless you agree to the insertion of the 5s. in the Bill the miners will prolong the distress, suffering, and pecuniary loss now resulting from the strike." What I wish to point out is that we have got no business to allow such an inducement to dictate our action in the matter. Do not let us lose sight of the real issue. The real question is not "By what concession can we end the strike?" The real question at issue is, "Are we, Members of Parliament, speaking generally, competent to fix the, figure of the minimum wage?" That is the point on which we are going to vote. There is no doubt whatever that there are certain bodies of men who are competent to deal with that question. Hon. Members, representing the miners, many of them, have spent their lives under circumstances which enable them to speak with authority on the subject. There are also coal owners who can speak with authority. I myself am wholly incompetent to do so. I know nothing of these matters, and nine-tenths of the Members of the House of Commons are in the same position. For all we know, 5s. may be much too low. For all we know the owners may be perfectly right in saying that the fixing of 5s. as a minimum wage will mean unemployment and misery in many colliery districts.
  Let me say incidentally that to an outsider like myself, ignorant of these matters, it seems that the miners' representatives in this House have somewhat given away their case when they admit, as they have admitted, in supporting the Amendment that there are collieries near Bristol, in Somerset, and in the Forest of Dean, where the owners cannot be called upon to pay this minimum of 5s., and when they admit that, there must be "variations." Another hon. Member said that there-must be "elasticity." Well, it looks to me very much as if the 5s. was to be put into the Bill for window-dressing purposes. If it is not really to be a minimum wage, what is the use of calling it a mini-

  265
  mum wage? Really, it would seem to me in this connection that the representatives of the miners in this House are not quite sure of their position with the miners. I think the Mover of the Amendment gave that impression, for he expressed some doubt as to whether he could influence the miners' decision. It would seem that they recoil from speaking plainly to the miners and putting before them the realities of the position. I do not wish to press that point. I have no wish to discuss the possibility or the impossibility of paying 5s. Hon. Members would have a right to say, "What do you know about the matter?" [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] That is my very point. Neither I nor nine-tenths of the Members of the House of Commons have the knowledge to enable us to fix a minimum wage. An hon. Member on Friday last stated that a representative of the miners sitting within the precincts reading the tape as each Member got up to address the House said, as the names were announced, "Who is this? What right has he to speak of fixing a minimum wage?" I think it was the hon. Member for West Monmouthshire (Mr. T. Richards) who said that we know nothing of these matters. Quite true. I am sure we should be false to a right sense of duty did we consent to be judges in this matter, and did we consent to put a fixed minimum wage in the Bill. Will the miners' representatives deny that the great majority of the Members of the House know absolutely nothing of mining affairs? If they admit it, as admit it they must, I ask them frankly whether they, as practical men, would expect a body so ignorant, and, if you like, so irresponsible, without examination of evidence as to whether the proposal is right, to give a decision which is likely to have such a deep effect on the industrial future of this country?
  What is the argument which is continually used by hon. Gentlemen opposite? They say, "If you refuse to put the 5s. in the Bill you will be misrepresented. It will be said that you think 5s. too much." Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that is not so. They know very well that we do not object to the sum named, but that we object to name the sum. That makes all the difference in the world. There is a big difference between the two. I am perfectly certain that the miners' representatives will not lend themeselves to misrepresentation in this matter, but I do say that theirs will be a very heavy responsibility if they allow
  266
  this false impression to be fostered by others for political purposes. They know the truth, and as the leaders of the men they can make that known to the men, who look up to them for leadership. The fear of misrepresentation has been responsible for many a wrong and rotten vote in this House. The fear of misrepresentation ought not to prevent us from recording the vote we believe to be right. Hon. Gentlemen have blinded themselves to the true issue of this Amendment, and, what is more, they have sought to underrate its magnitude to the House. I have never seen an issue of greater magnitude presented to the House in Committee. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said on Friday last that in refusing to put the 5s. in the Bill we were "splitting hairs." Another hon. Member said that we were "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."
  Are these hon. Members really deluding themselves to this extent? Do they think it is such a comparatively insignificant point that is at issue? Rightly or wrongly, the lot of Members who represent the dockyards is looked on as least enviable of any, for they are constantly undsr the harassing pressure of their constituents as to the Government scale of wages. Once you put this sum of 5s. in a Bill, we shall all in future be in the position of hon. Members who sit for dockyard constituencies. Remember it will be only the beginning. We will be asked to fix a minimum in every industry. If you once begin, where is it to stop? And what a dog's life we will have then! Hon. Gentlemen know that it is hard enough already to keep political discussion at the time of an election at a high level. If the amount of the minimum were inserted in this Bill there would be, as the Prime Minister said, bidding and counter-bidding by candidates, and votes would only be given for the promise of a statutory increase in wages. It appears to me that higher interests will be wholly forgotten, and that it will be merely a question of pocket. What a prospect that will be! It may be said that the mind recoils from the possibilities of the future if the Amendment be passed. I shall never give in this House a vote with greater confidence that I am voting rightly than when I record my vote against this Amendment.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The hon. Member opposite has evaded the real issue before the House. One of his objections to

  267
  inserting figures in the Bill is that he and others in the same position have not the requisite knowledge to say whether the economic conditions of the mines will enable them to carry a minimum wage of 5s. for men and 2s. for boys. But that is not the point which the hon. Member and other Members are called upon to decide. It is not whether a mine can carry a 5s. wage, but whether a collier should be called upon to work for less. That is the real point. What the House is discussing is whether there is an obligation laid upon Parliament to determine a minimum standard of living. We can discuss that in the abstract, as I said once before when another Amendment was being considered. The miners' standpoint is this. If their services are worth employing at all, they are worth 5s. a day. In 1893, when the great strike took place in the Midland coalfields, that was the question at issue. The point then was this: Must wages follow prices or, up to a certain minimum, shall we make wages determine prices? and the men won in their contention that wages should not be dragged down by competition in the market below a certain point. That principle was established. Now they are carrying that one stage further, and they say that the principle must be applied to all men. The argument mainly used against the insertion of figures in the Bill is that the House will thereby be establishing a precedent. That argument has been used on both sides. Why should not the House establish a precedent? What does the House exist for? Not, surely, to wander blindfolded like a mill horse. When the Irish land question became acute, what did the Prime Minister of the day do? He banished the then political economy to Saturn.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It was not successful.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I am coming to that. He banished the then political economy to Saturn and saved the farmers from being exterminated by rack-renting. The fixing of a maximum rent for the Irish farmer was the identical principle we are now discussing in connection with the fixing of a minimum wage for the collier. The Noble Lord says the experiment was not successful. This is not going to end the matter. Make no mistake about that. The temporary expedient we are called upon to adopt will not bring the matter to an end. The end will only come in the same way as the end came in
  268
  Ireland. That was secured by the abolition of landlordism, and in order to restore peace among the working classes we have to abolish capitalism. But for the moment what we are asking the House to determine is that 5s. a day for men and 2s. a day for boys should be the fixed minimum for all persons who are called upon to go underground. It is said that this sets a precedent. Is it a bad precedent? Efforts have been made this afternoon to cast the responsibility for this dispute upon the owners and upon the workers. In my judgment, the real blame rests with the Government in having gone so far without going the one step further necessary to ensure an end of this dispute. We have fixed a minimum working day for the mines. Why not fix a minimum wage for the mines? The maximum working day was fixed by this House. By the same process of reasoning the House can do the same now with regard to the minimum wage. The Prime Minister gave us the reasons on Friday why the figures were not in the Bill, and the cheers of the railway directors and shareholders and manufacturers on both sides of the House explained why these figures did not go into the Bill. It is not because any danger is apprehended in the coal trade—the Prime Minister said that the miners had made out their case. The figures do not go in lest they spread to other trades and industries. We cannot get a 5s. minimum established in one trade without other trades coming in and claiming. The real obstacle in the way of this Amendment is not that the coal trade cannot bear it. What they say is that it establishes a dangerous precedent by setting a standard of wages by which the workers of the country would know whether or not they were being paid an adequate minimum for their labour. The second reason why we are pressing this Amendment on the House is to get the dispute settled. The real object of introducing this Bill was to settle this dispute. I am not in a position to speak with authority at this moment of what miners may do if these two figures do not go in, but I think that the chances are a hundred to one that the Bill without the figures will leave the situation exactly where it is, and that work will not be resumed until the figures have been fixed. The House sees what that means.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that if the figures were fixed work would be resumed?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: My opinion is that if the two figures were inserted in the Bill the leaders would then say to the men, "The principle of the minimum wage being established, and the basis rate of the minimum wage fixed, you may safely resume work, leaving it to the District Board to fix all the other rates above the minimum." And from what I know of the men, especially in Wales, I have not a shadow of doubt but that they will accept that advice. Therefore what we are discussing now is whether or not this dispute is to be immediately terminated or is to be allowed to drag on until the men—this is the point—by their own strength do what Parliament has refused to do. Talk about Syndicalism. What is the House doing by refusing to put these figures in but playing into the hands of the Syndicalists? What the Syndicalist says to the workman is—"Parliament is no good to you; it never does anything for you until you force it, and you might as well do for yourselves without wasting time over Parliament," and the refusal to put the figures in the Bill will be a confirmation of that. It has been said that the leaders are divided. They are not divided. There was a division of opinion at the beginning, in the very early days, as to the wisdom of this movement being pursued at the present moment, but from the time the decision was come to that there should be this national stoppage there has been no division of opinion whatever among any section of the miners. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Lanark?"] I am speaking of the leaders. The most extreme Syndicalists and the most sedate of the older men are standing shoulder to shoulder, and will stand shoulder to shoulder, until work is resumed. In answer to the remark that has been made, a few hundreds of men have resumed work, but ever since I have known it, some forty-two years ago, the district which is referred to has always been a blackleg district. There are probably some few collieries in outlying districts where work might be resumed, but the great centres which really count are fixed and immovable in their determination to get their wages fixed before they go back to work.
  But my point is that the agents of the men are united Syndicalists and old-time trade unionists, standing together to have these figures in the Bill. Let the Government leave the matter to the free decision of the House. Why should they make this
  270
  a Government question? Let us have what the House of Commons thinks about it. The Government at the beginning erected a barrier in the way of settlement, and now come here and complain because they cannot find their way around the barrier which they themselves put up. Let them say to the House quite frankly, "If in your opinion the two figures should go into the Bill, much as we are against it, we will accept it, and thereby terminate the dispute." But to make this a party question and rely upon the support of the Front Bench to enable them to carry their opposition, is to do a thing which Liberalism will one day regret. Disguise the fact as we may, and use what arguments you may, those who are on strike will say that this House of Commons has refused to put the 5s. into the Bill, that because of that refusal the strike will go on, and that all the suffering and misery which it causes are to continue to be endured. I beg hon. Gentlemen, therefore, to consider this as the most serious matter which the House has now got to decide in connection with the Bill. By putting the figures in I am almost certain you will bring about an immediate settlement of the strike. By refusing to put the figures in you are prolonging the strike, and the real responsibility for that will be on neither the men nor owners, but upon the Government, which, having the power to settle the matter, has not used that power effectively.
  Mr. H. D. McLAREN: I rise to support those hon. Members who are asking the Government to reconsider their decision. It is with great reluctance that I find myself compelled to take up this attitude, especially so as I yield to no one in my admiration of the way in which the Government have endeavoured to settle this very serious question. I have listened very carefully indeed to all the arguments against this Amendment, both in the Committee stage and to-day, and they have left me quite unconvinced. The Government's attitude in this matter amounts to a statement that it would be undesirable on general grounds to have figures relating to wages put in a Bill of this character. When once this House accepts the principles of a Minimum Wage Bill it appears to me that it cannot escape from the consequences of fixing wages by this Bill. Whether we will leave the details of the wages to be settled by joint consequences, over which an independent chairman

  271
  presides, or whether we leave the wages to be settled by the regulation of some Government Department, or whether the House itself puts the figures themselves into the Schedule of this Bill, does not appear to me to matter as far as the principle of the thing is concerned. But it is argued that the House is not a body competent to judge upon such a figure. I fully admit that that argument was right in reference to the very complicated Schedule of hewers' rates, which was advanced in the first instance by the Miners' Federation, but which now I see they have definitely withdrawn, because those hewers' rates were not only minimum rates of relatively large amount compared with 5s. and 2s., but they were indissolubly bound up with guarantees against slackness and diminution in production. But we have here the rates of 5s. and 2s., not for piece-workers, not a rate which it is urged may be taken advantage of by the men if they are so inclined—and I do not believe they would be—but we have a rate for day-workers, the amount of work borne by whom does not and did not in any way influence the amount at which you fix the minimum. You have not either in this connection to consider whether 5s. and 2s. is a reasonable rate, regarding all the circumstances of the work. Yon have rather to consider whether 5s. and 2s. is a living rate, when you realise how high rents are in mining districts, and how many men only work a certain number of days in a week. Therefore I am strongly of opinion that in the case of the 5s. and the 2s., though not in the case of the Schedule, this House is competent to judge whether those amounts should be given to the miners and the boys. I say it is not only competent to judge, but that it should judge, and I urge upon those Members who have doubt upon the subject to sink that doubt because of the great importance of putting the Amendment in the Bill, if we want to settle the strike. We have gone a very long way in agreeing to the principle of this Bill. We have gone a very long way without attaining our goal, and I believe we have only to take one step further—the Prime Minister in his statement himself said that this Amendment was a relatively small matter—to settle the strike. I would urge upon the Government, as suggested by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) to leave this House uncontrolled in its discretions.
  Mr. LOUGH: So many appeals have been addressed to us who sit on this side of the House by my hon. Friends who sit below the Gangway to accept without hesitation this Amendment, that I think a few words might be listened to, coming from those who are in no way connected with the coal mining industry. We have heard the miners' representatives, and those representing mine owners, and for a moment the question might be left to the House of Commons in order to consider the difficulties of the delicate question which is raised by this Amendment. I venture to intrude in the Debate because the position which certainly I take with regard to it, and many of us perhaps here—though I am not entitled to speak for anyone—has not been at all fairly represented by my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Ives Division of Cornwall (Sir C. Cory). He put the case upon this standpoint. He said, "The industry will not stand it; the coal owners cannot pay such prices," and he quoted certain figures. That does not appeal to me at all; I remain as cold to arguments of that kind as to the arguments put forward by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The point I wish to press upon the House is that it should look at the matter as it was dealt with a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Devon on the other side of the House, who asked us to consider closely what the question is. My hon. Friends below the Gangway constantly, though I must say unintentionally, put before the House a wrong issue. They say, "Do men who risk their lives in these mines not deserve a minimum wage?" We say that they have got it; the Government has given them that minimum wage; it is a great thing to put into a Bill. It is one of the most extraordinary experiments ever submitted to this House. One of the most far-reaching revolutions has been carried by the Prime Minister after a struggle in which he has won the admiration, not only of his own supporters, but the admiration of Gentlemen who sit in all parts of this House. The men have got their minimum wage; it is embodied in the Bill; but, then, they say to us, "Are not 5s. and 2s. reasonable bases?" We cannot tell; they are low, and they may be much too low. Not one of us here desires to urge a single word against either 5s. or 2s., and, when we see some difficulty in putting those figures into the Bill, it is not because we are afraid of what will be settled, but it is simply because we

  273
  recognise the immense difficulty of this House proceeding to the further step of settling the same issue.
  What stimulated me to rise was that I wished to mention the very precedent to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He alluded to the precedent, but he did not work it out. Will the House forgive me for one moment if I recall that immense, that far-reaching, precedent? I appeal to my hon. Friends here, who are interested in another question of the same kind but not nearly so vast, to accept the decision which the House gave in that day, having regard to the great and splendid results that arosefrom it. The precedent to which the hon. Member for Morthyr alluded was the great experiment of 1881 in establishing the Irish Land Courts. The hon. Member from Merthyr said that Mr. Gladstone, on that occasion, at once flung away every economic principle. All I can say is, in spite of what the Noble Lord interjected, that if Mr. Gladstone flung away economic principles, he was abundantly justified by the results that have arisen in Ireland. What was done? Land Courts were established to settle most difficult questions, exactly as is now proposed in regard to questions affecting my hon. Friends below the Gangway to-day. The Irish Members fought the Bill on every line in order to get something definite put into it on behalf of the tenants. They asked for 10 per cent, or 20 per cent, to betaken off the rents, but Mr. Gladstone and the Government absolutely refused, and they said that it would do great injury to the tenants whom they were hoping to benefit, and it would spoil the whole Bill if Parliament went a step beyond creating the courts. Mr. Parnell and I believe many of the Irish Members were imprisoned a few months afterwards, but eventually Mr. Parnell announced his decision to put some trial cases before the courts in order to see what results would arise, and whether they would justify the experiment.—
  Mr. DILLON: We did not get half the court to represent us.
  Mr. LOUGH: What were those courts? The tenants were not represented at all; they were courts that it was thought would be hostile to every interest of the tenant. But those courts were bound to listen to the evidence; they were bound to hear the cases. I will go one step further—in his whole argument in favour of
  274
  the Bill, Mr. Gladstone never used the words that the courts would reduce the rents. Irish Members were fighting for a reduction, but Mr. Gladstone never used the word "reduction," and what he said was that the courts would fix a fair rent, and he left that duty to the courts. What happened? How has that experiment been justified by the results? It is one of the most splendid in our history. The moment the courts began to settle the rents they saw that they had to deal with a tragedy; they saw that the tenants had a magnificent case; they saw that the tenants were living in misery and under intolerable conditions—worse than my in which the miners have to live. What did the courts do? They rose to the occasion. They cut down rents first by 20 per cent., again by 20 per cent., and a third time by 20 per cent., until they cut the rents down by half. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am right in what I say. My hon. Friends, think that I have made an Irish bull, but it is not so. There is a great deal of sense generally in what are described as Irish bulls. What I said was that on three separate occasions the rents had been cut down by something like 20 per cent, on the first occasion, 20 per cent, on the second, and 20 per cent, on the third, thus reducing the rent by one-half. I am informed that the reduction was exactly 51 per cent. Does not that case appeal strongly to my hon. Friends here? I urge upon them to trust the courts. One of my hon. Friends spoke to me on this subject, and I stated that I acted in no unfriendliness, and that since I have been in this House I had always been on the side of the strikers.
  I have been waiting to hear one word said by any hon. Member against the courts. I have not heard a word, and they would not accept the courts if they thought they would not do what was fair. I say that hon. Members below the Gangway should have some sense of responsibility, for a heavy burden of responsibility rests upon them if they persist in their refusal. They have got everything that they came out to obtain, and they have got it in a shape that will be far better for them than if they put stiff and iron figures into the Bill. What would be the effect of putting figures into the Bill? The effect would be a tendency to lower wages. It would not help the miners at all; it would rather injure them. The hon. Member for Merthyr put this question: "Are the colliers, to be asked to go down the mines for

  275
  less than 5s.?" No; but I would put it in a different way. I would say, supposing colliers desire to do it, in some cases for a short time, under particular circumstances, for 4s. 6d. a day—are they to be prevented from doing that? I say that the matter would be settled jar more equitably, and with far more regard to local conditions, if the courts are allowed to do the work.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: If this would be against the miners, why are the coal owners opposing it?
  Mr. LOUGH: The answer to that question is simple. Coal owners, or anybody else, must observe economic laws; but they are always accused of doing it in their own interests. We ought not to act in this way. The hon. Gentleman who interrupted me is animated, as are those associated with him, by what they know of the sufferings among the miners and their dependents, and he asks us to believe him; and I put to him that the best way is to believe that every coal owner approaches this question in the spirit of public duty, and that he is not animated by selfishness. Even if he is, I submit that it would be better to believe that he is not, because it would take the discussion on to a higher plane and add to the dignity of our Debates. We do not need these constant charges against one class or the other. It should be believed that the coal owner is not actuated by selfish motives in what he is doing any more than the miners in what they are doing. We should fling all this suspicion aside, and look at the principle of the question.
  With great respect I submit that if we agree to that principle it will be seen that the Government have done everything they can to settle this very grave question. They have gone further than could have been expected. Hon. Members below the Gangway have succeeded in gaining the minimum wage in the midst of economic difficulties. I appeal to my hon. Friends below the Gangway not to prolong this bitter strike. They may think they have a right to do so in their own interests, but some cases arise where the injury is grievous to others, and this is one of those cases. I understand that every week we are accustomed to send out of this country 1,250,000 tons of coal in 1,200 ships of 10,000 tons each. The people of other nations are accustomed to expect this supply from us. It is a cruel and
  276
  bitter thing to suddenly cut off that supply. I hear that thousands of men in Spain are starving because of this coal strike. I would appeal to my hon. Friends, having gone three-fourths or seven-eighths of the way, to go the other eighth, and accept the Bill in the spirit in which it is offered.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is with some trepidation that any Member who is neither a miner nor a coal owner ventures to trespass in this Debate, but at the same time it is also true that the present crisis is a matter which concerns, not only coal owners and coal miners, but the public at large. I quite agree with the hon. Member for the Totnes Division of Devon (Mr. Mildmay) that we ought to rid our minds, so far as that is possible, of those fears of the continuation of the strike which might lead us to adopt uneconomic remedies in this matter. I think he was perfectly justified in reminding us that we ought not to be ready to sacrifice any principle merely because our fears would lead us to desire to get the men back to work at the earliest possible moment. While I agree with him so far, and while he put, from his point of view, a very excellent and feasible case, may I point out that he did not put all the considerations which I think the House ought to take into consideration in this question. Surely the starting point in this connection should be this: We are dealing not with an industry which need descend to low wages, but rather we are dealing with a great and prosperous industry. We are not only dealing with one of the greatest and most prosperous, industries in this country, but we are dealing with an industry which produces the cheapest coal in Europe. Although the miners' wages in this country, it must be admitted, are higher than in Germany, yet our coal is so superior to the coal in Germany that it is being produced at a cheaper rate at the pits' mouth than in Germany. Those are very important considerations, because they do remind us that we are not dealing with a struggling industry, but with one which is great and prosperous, and which, if there is any industry in the country which is able to afford it, can afford to remunerate those who work in it properly.
  The Prime Minister delivered a speech on Friday which very much impressed the House, as his speeches always do, and which I think carried conviction to the minds of the majority of those who

  277
  listened to him. Referring to that speech to-day the Prime Minister said that the points that he then made with reference to the inclusion of the 5s. and the 2s. in this Bill had not been met. I ask leave, very briefly indeed, to deal with those points. The first of them, which was repeated by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and to whose speech we listened with so much interest, was that when you fix a minimum wage you really do not always raise wages, because there is the danger that your minimum may become the maximum. We gave very great attention to this point when the Trade Boards Act was passed a few years ago. I, as a member of the Select Committee which made the Report which led to the passing of that Act, devoted very great attention to the matter. I found that when we looked at the experience of Victoria, where the wages boards were in operation, that it was not true that the minimum wage became the maximum wage, and we found that the trades which had wages boards made not only a larger advance of wages than those which had not wages boards, but also that there was no evidence whatever that the minimum in those trades became the maximum. I think, therefore, that with some confidence. we can come to the same conclusion in this connection, and that we need not apprehend such a result. But if it is true that the minimum tends to become the maximum, then my hon. Friends below the Gangway are quite responsible in this matter and are quite willing to take the responsibility of that particular danger.
  In that speech the Prime Minister also said, and this really goes to the root of the matter, that the considerations involved were so complex and so various in the different districts that we in this House are not competent to decide what should be the minimum wage. But, as a matter of fact, what is it we claim to be decided in this matter? Those of us who press this consideration on the House, or many of us at least, believe that it is just and competent in this matter for the House not to decide what is the proper wage in this connection, but to decide that at least the wage fixed upon by these Boards shall not fall below a, certain standard, which we believe to be very near the minimum standard of subsistence. It is in that that we attempt to justify our arguments. On an average these men do not work more than five days, and some put it at four and a-half days. An hon. Member says there are horsekeepers, but
  278
  when we are dealing with the general case it is not logical or wise to indulge in particular references to exceptional cases. I am dealing with the general case, and I say that the day labourers do not work on the average above five days per week. I put it at that in order not to exaggerate, and thus arrive at an average earning of 25s. per week As was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends, that is a figure which is very near to the minimum standard of subsistence which was worked out by Mr. Rowntree with so much care in another connection. I submit that we are competent to decide that.
  I should be the first to agree that we are not competent, upon the evidence before us, to decide the justice of the miners' Schedule, but I do not admit that we are not competent to receive evidence in this House. I, for one, believe that a better course than that which is being adopted, in view of the urgency of the case aid of its extraordinary value to the country, would have been to set up Select Committees, which would have quite as easily received and judged the evidence with regard to the miners' Schedules as the Boards it is proposed to set up. If that had been done we might have arrived at a conclusion long before this date. As to the day rate, I claim that we are competent to decide that question, and quite as competent as any local board can be. I say, further, if this House gave its consent to the naming of that minimum rate then other rates would adjust themselves in relation to it and other parts of the industry, and we should thereby decide, at least in relation to one of the greatest industries of the country, what in the year 1912 we considered to be a fair standard of remuneration. I pass to another point which has been raised by several of the objectors in this matter. They have pointed out that there are some mines which, if the minimum wage is enforced, will be shut down, and that a certain number of men will be flung out of employment. In that connection I think I can demonstrate to the House that in the mining industry at least that argument does not hold good. In the last five years in this country the number of men and boys employed in the mining industry has increased by 189,000, which is an average of nearly 40,000 per year. Can it be said of an industry which is adding 40,000 per year to its employés that there is any danger when a small number of men—and they would be small at the largest estimate—would be thrown out of employ-

  279
  ment, and can it be said that some exceptional means could not be devised with the aid of the machinery which the Government could provide, or have indeed already provided, by which those men could be inducted into those parts which are calling for a larger number of men. I think we may claim that that point, at least, in opposition to this particular proposal falls to the ground.
  The next point is the question of Parliamentary pressure. Here I am aware I am addressing myself to a point which has very great weight with many of my hon. Friends. They fear if we once put a rate of wages into an Act of Parliament that Parliamentary elections will turn on wages, and that such pressure would be brought to bear on Members that, as one hon. Member epigrammatically put it, each Member will become a dockyard Member. I am well aware that that argument has great force with hon. Members. In the first place that evil, however great it is, is certainly not as great an evil as that with which we are confronted at the present time; secondly, I do suggest very gravely to the House that we have reached a period, not merely in the development of this country but in the development of the world, where if we do not address ourselves directly to these questions of wages and attempt to deal with them in Parliament, that we shall drive the working classes to believe that Parliament is useless to them, and they will adopt other methods to gain their ends. That is the doctrine of Syndicalism and nothing else. The doctrine of Syndicalism is this, that your Parliaments are useless and your Labour Members are useless. I am claiming for Parliament functions which maybe useful, and it is the absence of those functions which makes Parliament useless or comparatively so at the present time. The doctrines of Syndicalism preach thatParliament is useless to working men—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is anticipating to-morrow evening's Debate.
  Mr. MONEY: I at once bow to your ruling, but this argument has been used in this connection in this Debate; but, in view of your ruling, I content myself with saying generally if we reject the idea of fixing wages by Parliament then we do help on those theorists who hold that Parliament is useless on that account. I submit I am entitled, at any rate, to use, that argument. With regard to the
  280
  economic facts as to the minimum wage, I desire to place a few considerations before the House. The first observation I make is this, that it cannot justly be held that wages has any economic peculiarity to distinguish it from Parliamentary interference in the shape of Labour laws, factory legislation, workmen's compensation, or the Insurance Act which we have just passed into law and which other nations have also passed into law. All those legislative Acts, including the regulation of boys', girls, and women's wages, throw extra cost upon the employers, and if anybody cares, as I have done to-day, to refresh their memories with regard to what has been said in this House in the past in reference to Parliamentary interferences, they will find that at each step it has been said either that the industry would be ruined or that a certain number of workers would be thrown out of employment. Here is "Hansard" for 1842, when the late Lord Shaftesbury, then Lord Ashley, was getting through this House the Mines and Collieries Bill, which took the women from down below and prevented children under nine years of age from working in the mines. This is what was said by a colliery proprietor:—
  "If the Bill passed in that shape, hundreds of children would be thrown out of employment and hundreds of families would be driven into the workhouse."
  So it has been at each successive step in the interference which this House has—properly, as I think—made with the conditions of industry.
  What is the real effect of those interferences? What has happened when interfering in the management, either to compel efficiency or to regulate the hours of women and children or even of men, or to interfere with wages? Experience has shown that those interferences, instead of leading to a diminished output and higher prices, have led to increased output, increased efficiency, and lower prices. That has been the experience of all industries. Those who are acquainted with our coal mines, and I have sought to make myself acquainted with them on every possible occasion, must confess that too often we witness in connection with them a very large degree of inefficiency. Whether we go below or examine the surface workings we find an extraordinary amount of inadequate, out-of-date, and inefficient plant. I submit that the tendency to pay higher wages in the coal mining industry-will cure that, as it has cured it in the cotton industry and in other industries

  281
  that might be named. We shall get a higher degree of efficiency, not only on the part of the workmen, but also on the part of the employers and in the plant that they employ. Therefore I do not think we need be apprehensive that in its ultimate result the insertion in this Bill of the figures, which I admit would have a tendency to raise those grades of employment which are above the daily labourer, would either cause a smaller output of British coal or increase its price. At the beginning of my remarks I gave evidence to show that we have the cheapest coal in Europe. I do not want to make it dearer, but even if it were a question of making it a few pence per ton dearer, I think there is hardly a Member of this House who will not agree that the men engaged in this peculiarly dangerous and peculiarly honourable employment should have a fair return for their labour. It is for these reasons that some of us on this side, if my hon. Friends decide to go to a Division, will gladly vote with them, and I am very glad to have had this opportunity to explain the reasons why I at least shall do so.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: We have heard many interesting speeches this afternoon from those who are interested in the mining industry in the wealthy mining districts of the country. We have also heard many speeches from the producers' point of view, but very few indeed from the consumers' point of view. I live in the Forest of Dean; I represent a purely agricultural constituency, and I should like to put very shortly before the House the position of the poorer coalfields and the poor consumers. What is the question we are debating? It is the question whether these figures shall be fixed by this House, or whether they shall be fixed by a tribunal presided over by an independent arbitrator, which will take into account the conditions prevailing in every district where mining takes place. The Government admit, and the Prime Minister himself this afternoon admitted, that certain districts are so situated as to require totally different treatment from the bulk of the coalfields of the country. One of those coalfields is the Forest of Dean, another is the Bristol coalfield, and a third is the Somerset coalfield. We have heard nothing whatever this afternoon of the effect of these figures upon those three coalfields. I can assure the House that, as regards the Forest of Dean, if these figures are insisted upon, they will have the
  282
  effect of closing a very large number, if not the whole, of the collieries, in that coalfield. The Labour party have themselves admitted that, as regards the Schedule they should be treated upon a different basis. They have admitted that, as regards the schedule for hewers, Bristol shall rest content with a minimum wage of 4s. 11d. That is to say, for a skilled expert worker they are content as regards Bristol with a wage of 4s. 11d.; and yet in this Amendment they are going to say that an unskilled worker in that same coalfield shall have a fenny more. That is, the unskilled worker shall in fact have a minimum wage that is higher than the minimum wage which they desire for the skilled worker in that coalfield. Much the same applies to the Forest of Dean.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie), has asked whether a colliery shall be allowed to offer less wages or a collier shall work for loss. The answer I give is that it is all very well to say that a collier shall not work for less than this amount, but you have to admit at the same time that as a result a large proportion of the mining industry will cease to-exist. Do the Labour party desire to see that result? Do they desire to see collieries closed in the West of England? Do they desire to see the Forest of Dean as a coalfield come to an end? If they do, it will have two results. I think I may say that this Amendment, if carried, will have two results. In the first place, the wealthy colliery magnates whom we have heard speak on the other side of the House, some of whom have shown sympathy with this: Amendment, will become richer men than they are to-day. There is not the smallest doubt that the effect of this Bill, and of the machinery set up by it, will be to increase the cost of coal to the consumer. In other words, it will be to put a larger amount of money into the pockets of those who are fortunate enough to be interested as so-called capitalists in the coal of these-rich coalfields. But what is going to be the effect on those other districts to which I have referred? The effect will be that local industries will be put at a disadvantage as compared with the same industries in other parts of the country. Another effect will undoubtedly be that the consumers, whether as factories or as individuals, will have to pay more for what is a raw material of practically every industry. It

  283
  is all very well for the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Chiozza Money) to tell us, as an economist, as we all admit him to be, that this is an industry that can afford to take this uneconomic step. In other words, it is an industry which is not going to suffer. Why? Because there is no serious competition with this particular industry. But there is most serious and increasingly serious competition with practically every industry of which coal is a raw material, and which, I fear, will have to pay more for coal as the result of this Bill, and as the result of such an Amendment as this being incorporated in it.
  The whole question is one of competition. There is practically no competition to-day as regards English, Welsh, or Scotch coal; but there is very serious competition as regards these other industries. How are you going to deal with that matter? Indeed, the Labour party have said that this is only the beginning of a process which must be extended to other industries. I quite admit that in fairness we cannot stop here. The colliery industry does not possess those marked distinctions differentiating it from other industries which would justify the colliery industry alone receiving these benefits. Other workers will demand them, and other workers will deserve them. What is going to happen in those industries in which the workers will have to be paid more in the face of competition, and more will have to be paid for the coal upon which the industries depend? Surely, whatever we may say about the minimum wage principle, it is wholly impossible to have a statutory minimum wage in a Free Trade country. You cannot give it. The result must be that the bulk of the industries of the country will suffer in competition with foreign-made goods. What is the position of the lowest-paid labour in this country? What will be the position of the agricultural labourer under such an Amendment as this if carried? The agricultural labourers, at any rate in the South of England, are not receiving much more than half that which is being demanded as the bed-rock wage for the colliers in order to stave off a condition of destitution. But all the time they are consumers of coal, as a necessary of their existence. How can you fairly impose such an Amendment as this, how can you crystallise the minimum wage in an Act of Parliament, unless you are going to deal fairly with every other class
  284
  of the community, who may be very much worse paid than the colliers, but who are consumers of this article, which is bound to go up in price as the result of such statutory measures as are now proposed? We are told that there is a stronger case for leaving out of the Bill the hewers' Schedule than there is for leaving out the 5s. and the 2s. now suggested. As one who is interested in a coal mine, I believe that the exact opposite is the case. As regards the hewers, it is perfectly easy, if you choose—but I think it would be a mistake to do so—to lay down what his Schedule of wages shall be, to deal with him fairly according to the work he does, because you can see his product and his output, and he is paid according to his output. But in the case of these men to whom the 5s. applies, we do not know what is the work they are doing. They have no output to show upon which we can gauge the value of their work. Therefore we have not the safeguards, and there is nothing you can incorporate in the Bill that will provide safeguards, as regards the day-men, who are not paid in any sense upon the output for which they are responsible. For these reasons, and because I believe we are entering now upon a most dangerous, uneconomic trend, I shall certainly oppose this Amendment, and I believe that all concerned in the Forest of Dean, either as owners or as workmen, will support me in so doing.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. C. Bathurst) seems to think that this proposal will have an unduly adverse effect upon the industry. Let me put this to the hon. Member: Suppose that as the result of this Bill and of this Amendment—which I shall have pleasure in supporting—there is a rise in the price of coal, and that that rise adversely affects other industries which are dependent upon a cheap coal supply. Does it not strike the hon. Member that, when the landlords who own these mines and charge royalties and rents for them, find that there is a less demand for the coal, as the result of the adverse affect of the higher prices on other industries, it will be reasonable to appeal to those landlords and wealthy owners immediately to reduce their royalties and rents?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I remind the hon. Member that the collieries and the coalfield to which I referred belongs to the Crown, and that the lowest royalties in the country are being charged in that coalfield? It will be impossible, under this

  285
  proposed Schedule, to maintain the industry in that district.
  Mr. D. MASON: That may be so as regards that particular coalfield, but I thought the hon. Member was basing his argument on the general case, and I think I am right in saying that was the sense in which he was understood by hon. Members. It is evident that this great industry, which produces a gross profit of something like £15,000,000 per annum, and pays something like £6,000,000 to royalty owners, can afford this. Surely it is a fundamental principle, it is the premise on which all Members will agree, and it is a principle which this Amendment is designed to meet, that the labourer is worthy of his hire; that the miner should have a reasonable, living minimum wage. Let us get at what is the actual position. Certain speeches and references have been made to the number of men affected by this Amendment. If I am credibly informed, there is something like 1,000,000 engaged in the coal mining industry of this country. If we take 200,000 surface men, that leaves 800,000. I understand a fourth of these men, namely 200,000, would be affected by this Amendment. I think I am right in stating that only one in ten would come under this Amendment. That leaves the number of men really affected at something like 20,000 or 30,000. Are we, the Members of the House of Commons, to wreck this settlement for the sake of 20,000 or 30,000 men? I submit that we are capable of going into this question. If we were capable of going into the interests of the many people affected by the Insurance Act, if we were capable of fixing the remuneration of the doctors after a great deal of discussion, are we not capable of fixing a minimum wage for miners? I submit that we are capable, and that we ought to be capable.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, in his very eloquent speech, referred to some of the actions which were taken by that great man Mr. Gladstone. I yield-to no man in my admiration for that great statesman, and for the party with which he was connected in those times, but I think that my right hon. Friend will agree with me that we live in different times. Mr. Gladstone was a great individualist. He was closely associated with the Manchester School. We have advanced since those days. Whether we agree or not, we all at the present age have to recognise that the State does come into closer touch with the interests of the com-
  286
  munity. We have to take things as they are, and not as they were in the time of Mr. Gladstone.
  Mr. LOUGH: My point was that Mr. Gladstone succeeded in what he tried to do. I am afraid my hon. Friend will not succeed in this.
  Mr. D. MASON: I naturally assumed that anything Mr. Gladstone was associated with would be a success, but I do not think that because thirty, forty, or fifty years ago things could not be shaped in a particular legislative form, that that means we shall fail in our legislation at the present time. We have to recognise that things are as they are. The real crux of the question is: How are we as n responsible House of Commons to put an end to the unrest that exists throughout the whole of the United Kingdom? Surely the first action is to try to carry out a real settlement. That is a responsibility directly thrown upon this House, and first upon the Government. The Government, under the ægis and under the leadership of the Prime Minister, whose speech the whole House justly paid a high tribute to, argue—the right hon. Gentleman argues—that he and his colleagues had used all their efforts to embody this Amendment in the settlement between owners and the men. That is to admit the justice of the argument of hon. Members below the Gangway. That is to admit that the principle is a sound one, and that we are not asking for an economic fallacy.
  A great deal has been said this afternoon about political economy. I have been engaged in finance, I have been a political student for something like fifty-five years in the City of London, and I respectfully submit that there is no real fundamental principle violated in this Bill. After all, we can start with a premise that the miner is entitled to a living, reasonable wage. Other interests can adjust themselves to it. I have endeavoured to show that in the political economy even of coal mining there is an emple margin for the miners to get a living wage, and for a profit to be made by, I believe, not only the coal owners, but even the landlords. I would try to press upon the Government the advisability at this eleventh hour, of recognising that there is no pride in their giving way to what is really the wish of the whole of this House. I would like this question to be thrown upon the whole House. After all, it is not a Government question. It is not a party question. We are all

  287
  surely animated by the desire to do what we believe to be right in the interests of the general community. We have heard admirable speeches from coal owners and from the representatives of the miners. I for my part represent, as do many other Members, a section of the general community. The interests of the general community surely are that we should have peace and rest, that we should have contentment amongst this great section of the miners, and generally throughout the country. If we attain to that peace and quiet, it will help the money market, it will give stability to trade and industry, and generally it will do an enormous amount to stimulate and improve trade. Therefore I submit that in asking the Government to again reconsider their decision, and to once more look at the gravity of a refusal to accept this Amendment—it is not an extreme Amendment, for as has well been pointed out by many Members a wage of 25s. a week is a bare subsistence wage, and simply enough for mere existence—I think we do well. We therefore again appeal, for the House of Commons should be gauged by what it does for the great mass of people of this country.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, who has just sat down, said that we have travelled far from Mr. Gladstone's position. I do not know indeed what Mr. Gladstone would have said to a proposal such as this contained in the Amendment, or what he would have said even to the Bill. But I think I have a considerable idea of what Mr. Gladstone would have done if he had had a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made a point of introducing into the body politics the beneficent microbe of Socialism! I do not want to anticipate the Debate on the Third Reading in any way. But I want to say that what hon. Members have said with regard to this measure—and I have heard most of the Debate—divides itself into three sets of arguments. There is what one might call the economic argument, which says that the industry can well afford to pay this minimum wage. There is the political argument which says: "You have gone so far, why not go a little further?" There is the practical argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who says: "If you do not pay this, you will not settle the strike." With regard to the first argument, let me
  288
  say in reference to what was said earlier in the afternoon upon the position which the Scottish owners, amongst others, have occupied in this matter. They have been accused of not having budged at all. They have been accused of being unwilling to take a step towards a settlement of this dispute. I think the House should recognise that the Scottish owners have been treated in this matter, I think, unusually hard. The House should realise that the owners were in a position of having with their men an existing agreement, signed, not only by the representatives of the men in Scotland, but by the representatives of the Miners' Federation, and countersigned by the President of the Board of Trade and his advisers at the Board of Trade. The only allusion which I have heard in all these Debates to this matter is that possibly this question of the minimum wage was not included in that agreement. My answer to that is simply this: that the question was specifically anticipated by a Sub-section in that Agreement of 1909, providing for this very contingency. The words are in Clause 4, and read:—
  "Any difference regarding the interpretation of this Agreement, any difference regarding the terms of reference under Clause 2 thereto—"
  which is the main operative Clause—
  "shall be referred to the decision of a neutral chairman, mutually appointed by the parties, or, failing agreement, by the Speaker of the House of Commons."
  Therefore, I say, that the only suggestion which has been made against this agreement falls to the ground. I think the House therefore should realise that in the case of the Scottish owners, at all events, there were special circumstances. I think the House should realise that, so far as they have acted under Parliamentary pressure and as far as they are prepared to yield to Parliamentary pressure, the Scottish owners have, and are going to do, a very great deal. A word or two-about the economic argument. It is said that the industry can well afford to bear the extra charge. I do not think I would be overstating it if I say that over 25 per cent, of colliery undertakings in Scotland were run at a loss last year. But, after-all, that is not the real question. If you believe that it is really economically possible to give an all-round charge on these figures, well then, why not be prepared to leave your case to the decision of

  289
  the Boards under the Act? That is a point which we have never had an answer to. There is only one possible answer to it, and that is to say that you do not trust the Board. No one has said that. That is the only answer. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who spoke a few moments ago, who said that if you are going to take up that point of view you must impugn the boards and say they are untrustworthy; that they will be biassed, prejudiced, and you will not get fair dealing from them. You do not say that. That argument therefore falls to the ground.
  What about the political argument, which says you have gone so far, why not go a little further? I do not think it is a little way. But in any case we are not going to get finality, and that is the only ground on which a measure of this kind really could be advocated in this House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton referred to this point of view. He is a great exponent of Free Trade theories. He is one of those Gentlemen who are never tired of charging against the fiscal system, in which I believe, that it will lead to Lobbying. He says that one of its greatest evils will be that it will lead to Lobbying on behalf of certain interests in the House of Commons. The Lobbying under any conceivable system of Protection would be nothing to the Lobbying which will take place if you once put a minimum rate of wages into a Bill. Everybody knows that what I suggest is true. Everyone knows that in every election which took place in a mining district there would be this question. You would have pressure put upon the candidates to try and spring the figure. I do not believe there is a man in this House who is listening to me who could resist that pressure. There is the third argument, which is perhaps the most forcible argument, that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, that if you do not do this, you will not have a settlement. That is a very grave responsibility for any Member or set of Members in this House to assume, because, after all, what are hon. Gentlemen doing? Are they going to tell this House now that the object which they had in view when they set out upon this strike was an object which is not yet achieved?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: What I was pointing out was that if this Amendment was carried the leaders of the men would go to them and ask them unitedly to accept the Bill, and that there would be a good
  290
  chance then of the Bill being accepted as a settlement and of the miners resuming work.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, but I want to press the hon. Gentleman on this point. I want to know is he prepared to say that unless these figures are put into the Bill he will go to the men and tell them not to accept this Bill?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: It is not a matter of what we tell them then. They will not accept the Bill.
  Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman said that unless these figures were put into the Bill it will not be accepted. I ask him, at the initiation of this strike, was it the fact that the men set out to gain a wage of 5s. for adults and 2s. for boys?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I say no, and here is my reason. I have here one of the actual ballot papers issued to the miners—one of the papers upon which the strike took place. And here is what the ballot paper has to say. Has it anything to say about 5s. or 2s., or about any fixed rates? Not a word. It is headed:—
  "Miners Federation of Great Britain vote upon the minimum wage."
  And here is the question that is put: —
  "Are you in favour of giving notice to establish?"
  To establish what?—
  "To establish the principle of an individual minimum wage for every man and boy working underground in every district in Great Britain."
  I say this Bill gives you the principle of the individual minimum wage for every man and boy working underground in every district in Great Britain, and the responsibility which you assume, if you say you asked for more than that and that you are not willing to accept the Bill unless it does give you more than that, as you say by this Amendment, is a responsibility that history will make it very hard for you to bear.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I very seldom address the House, and I hesitate very much this afternoon to trespass upon its time. I have no miners in my Constituency and I have no detailed knowledge of the coal industry, but I have, at any rate, an interest in commerce, and I think that while probably what I am going to say may not meet with the approval of all commercial men in this House, yet at any rate we have a right to speak at this time. I want to

  291
  give the reasons which prompt me to vote to-night for the Amendment that has been moved from the Labour Benches. If this Bill to establish a minimum wage had been brought in under ordinary circumstances I should not have voted for this Amendment. I believe the view put forward by the Prime Minister that there is a danger, if you absolutely fix a minimum wage to-day of its becoming a maximum, is a perfectly sound economic argument, and in ordinary circumstances I should have said we ought to have time to consider that question. I believe his argument with regard to the pressure in certain constituencies was also a perfectly sound argument, and if this had been an ordinary Bill, brought forward at an ordinary time, I should have said we should want more time to consider that question. All I observe in regard to that now is that when we have to go to our Constituencies we shall have to very carefully consider the problem as it arises on this question.
  But this Bill is not brought forward at an ordinary time. It would not have been brought forward in its present form if it had not been for the one specific purpose of settling the strike. And the reason that I am going to vote for this Amendment, which I do not like, is because I believe that by the insertion of this Amendment into the Bill that you will settle the strike. I admit that we cannot speak with certainty. The other day Members of the Labour party were pressed to give a definite undertaking that if these words were inserted in the Bill they would advise the men at once to go back to work. They said they were not in a position to do so. I ventured to interrupt the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) when he was speaking upon this point this afternoon as to whether, if this Amendment was accepted, the strike would be declared off. This is what he said, and I ask the House to note the words, though I think he said he could not speak with absolute certainty or bind everybody. But he said:
  "Put these figures into the Bill and there is a certain settlement of the strike. Leave these figures out of the Bill and the strike continues."
  I am not going to say that that is a reasonable attitude for the miners to take up, but after all one has to admit that they have given way considerably in their demands, and although I do not think that this demand is altogether a reasonable demand, we have to remember that
  292
  this House is in the position of a negociator, and that what we are called upon to do to-night is to do our best to settle the strike. I think that this House takes great responsibility, if we can get a definite statement from the Labour party that if this Amendment is accepted the strike will be settled, in resisting this Amendment. If we accept the Amendment what do we do? We only ask the colliery owners to give to the day workers a subsistance wage, a wage which Members on both sides of the House have equally said is not too large. It seems to me that difficult as are the points raised against this Amendment, and difficult as the position would be, and I fully grant it, that we should find ourselves afterwards in, yet the argument in favour of accepting the Amendment if it would settle the strike is far greater. What happens if the strike goes on for a week or two weeks longer? We know that commerce will be crippled far more in the next fortnight than in the past fortnight. Some of us may speak with a certain degree of partiality, because there must be many Members on both sides of the House who are doing their best to keep their factories going at the present time, very likely under great difficulties, yet who know that unless this strike is settled quickly they will have to close down in a few days. We know also perfectly well that although the misery has been great in the past fortnight or three weeks, yet now, when the stocks of coal are actually depleted, that misery and starvation in the future is going to be on an increased scale. It is these reasons that influence me in saying that it is better to vote for this Amendment for a subsistence wage for day workers than to reject it and to have the strike continued and the danger which has been forecasted on both sides of the House of having practically to dragoon the men back to work.
  What do we do by accepting this Amendment? We only establish a standard which hon. Members on both sides of the House think a just standard, which hon. Members on both sides of the House think would be established, and which I think would be established, under the operations of the Joint Boards—a standard which is a standard of subsistence. If this Amendment were carried, I think we should have to ask the miners' representatives to agree to the suggestion that I think was made by the Leader of the Labour party on Friday, that this Amendment should come under the operation of

  293
  the elastic Clause, Sub-section (4) of Clause 2. I speak with some experience, having tried in the last few years, in connection with the factory in which I am interested, to establish a minimum wage. You cannot establish a minimum wage all at once without certain exceptions being necessary, and I believe if this Amendment were acceded to and came into operation under Sub-section (4) of Clause 2 you would be able to make these exceptions in the same way that the Joint Boards would make them if the Amendment was not carried. I believe, in order to save this country from three or four weeks of commercial paralysis whilst we are dragooning the men back to work, it is far better to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friends in the Labour party, and, remembering the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr, that if we did the strike would be settled, it is far better to do that and far safer for the country than to contemplate going on for many weeks more with this devastating and awful strike.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir ALBERT SPICER: The statement which has been made from the Labour Benches that if this Amendment is not carried the strike will not be put an end to imposes a very serious responsibility upon those of us who are as full of sympathy with the miners as they are, but who are anxious to do what will be to the best permanent interests of that industry, and other industries. I fully admit that at the present moment it is far easier upon this side of the House to get cheers by a declaration to vote for the Amendment than one to vote with the Government. I honestly confess that were I entirely influenced by the speeches we have heard from those representing the mine owners I should be far more inclined to vote for the Amendment. They have argued as if they were defending a minimum sailing price. All the way through those representing the owners seem to have had a sort of idea that when the cost of production is raised they are unable to get an increased price. All of us in this House, whether we are simply consumers or manufacturers, know that a very different state of things exists. I think the mine owners have made far too much of the uneconomic mines. We all know there are such mines, and we know that in certain districts it would be better to accept a rather lower wage than have to move from the district. After all these cases are the exception and not the
  294
  rule. We business men do not run uneconomic concerns continuously, and it is no use arguing as if a large number of the mines were being worked on uneconomic principles.
  Why do I support the Government in the action they have taken? We are not dealing with a new principle in this Bill. It has been assumed far too much in this Debate that we are dealing with a new principle. We dealt with a new principle in the Trade Boards Act. In that measure we dealt with four industries which were looked upon as sweated industries, and if ever a minimum wage would have been justified for this House to have filled in the Bill it would have been in connection with industries of that description. That Act has got to work. Daily I come into direct contact with one of those trades, and I am glad to find that the District Boards have got to work and the minimum wage has been raised very considerably, and from all I hear from the best class of employers, it is working well. Now if this House declined, as it rightly did, to put a minimum wage in that Bill, surely there is far less reason for putting it into this Bill. In that case you referred the matter to the District Boards, and it is that principle, and no new principle, which is adopted in the Bill we are now considering. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) threw out a sort of insinuation that those of us who are opposing this Amendment are doing it because we fear that this principle of a minimum wage will be applied to other industries. Personally I do not fear the application of the principle of a minimum wage subject to District Boards in any industry in the country. I have had some experience in connection with arbitrations associated with the London Labour Conciliation Boards which has been at work for twenty-two years and which has not an independent chairman, but that Board has had no dispute referred to it upon which we have not obtained a unanimous award, and I am thankful to say that not a single award has been broken by the various parties; therefore I say, that I am not afraid of this minimum wage principle subject to District Boards in any industry in which it is tried.
  I maintain that in voting against this Amendment I am serving the best interests of the Labour party. Let me say that I do not believe if we back up the Government and oppose this Amendment we shall be delaying the settlement of the strike if

  295
  hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will take their courage in their hands and tell the miners all through the country "This is what you asked for before you entered upon the strike, and if you will put your case before the various District Boards you will get justice done." I believe this is a case of hon. Members below the Gangway showing the moral courage of putting the real issue before the miners, and if they do that the miners will follow them. I give them credit for their influence with the miners, and if they do that then the miners will see the justice of the position taken up and they will see that it is fully in accordance with what they themselves asked for before the strike. If a large number of hon. Members sitting on this side of the House support this Amendment, what is the responsibility we are taking upon ourselves? We believe the Government have done their best in this matter, and by supporting the Amendment we weaken their hands and influence, we let it go to the country that we are not in earnest, and that we do not really trust the settlement that they have proposed. Therefore, with every confidence, not on the ground of sentiment, but on the ground of judgment, I believe I shall be doing right in the interests of the miners and labour by voting against this Amendment.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not find myself in a position this afternoon to support the attitude recommended by the Leader of the party to which I belong, and for that reason I think it necessary that I should not give a final vote without explaining the reasons that have led me to that conclusion. Although I have no miners in my Constituency, I have works there which have already been closed. I have other works on short time, and if this strike continues for another week it is certain that half the men in my Constituency will be unemployed. As this Bill was brought in with the object of ending the strike, I want the Government to take the only action which can make the Bill effective for that purpose. There has been no opposition to this proposal to put in the 5s. and the 2s. on the merits of that proposal. Every argument urged against it has not been directed to the merits of the proposal itself, but rather to the evil consequences which hon. Members anticipate might flow from it. I hope we shall not hesitate to do the right thing because we fear the evil consequences which might follow. We have to decide to-night, and
  296
  the country will so understand our decision, as to whether we think 5s. for men who go down into the mines is too large a wage. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I sympathise with those who feel indignant that such an interpretation should be placed upon their vote, but go down to-morrow to a million miners and tell them how this-vote was taken without any attempt to interpret motives, how can the men take any other view than that the House of Commons has deliberately refused to put into this Bill intended to settle the strike figures which will show that the minimum amount they should be paid ought to be 5s. a day?
  What is your objection? It has been said by speakers on both sides, "If you have so much faith in the righteousness of the proposal to pay 5s. a day, why not trust it to the Boards?" There is a certain, amount of plausibility in that argument. The miner has not had the training of the average Member of this House, and he is a man who can only measure a minimum wage by the practical effect that you give to it. The average miner is going to say, "The minimum wage means nothing to me, and I want to know exactly what it means," and to ask him to accept the elaborate machinery in this Bill without a definite guarantee of a figure is asking him to fill his belly with the East wind. I believe we are taking to-night one of the gravest decisions that has ever been taken in the interests of the party of progress. It will be a serious thing for this country, and for all the great causes which we hold dear upon this side, if it can be said tomorrow that the miners of this country have been defeated by a combination of Tories and official Liberals. Consider the gravity of the action that was taken by our Leaders when they led us into a position in which further negotiations became absolutely impossible. I cannot understand how hon. Members here to-day who, one after the other, stood up and said, "We think that 5s. is not too much," do not take a further step and put that 5s. into the Bill. Every argument which is valid against this Amendment is valid against the Bill itself, and the revolutionary step was taken when the Government had the courage to bring in a Bill conceding the principle of the-minimum wage.
  You say 5s. is not too much; then why not put it into the Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] There has been no answer to that, and there can only be one answer to that argument. We are told

  297
  that if this is done other industries will ask for a minimum wage. If you can show me another industry which kills 4,000 men in three years, and which wounds 450,000 men in three years, then I shall be prepared to do for that industry what I am prepared to take the responsibility, so far as I am concerned, of doing for the miners. It is a serious responsibility that we take, as Liberals, and as Members of the House of Commons, if we deny to this great body of men, whose love of order has been so magnificently demonstrated during the past few weeks, and who day after day take the risks that a miner takes, what is a fair subsistence wage. You say we have not sufficient knowledge to decide a point like this. What, then, is the value of the statement made by the speakers here that they think 5s. is not too much? If you had knowledge enough to form that opinion, why have you not sufficient knowledge to induce you to put it in the Bill? I hope the leaders of the party will not put on the party Whips to-night and make this a question of party loyalty, but whether they do so or not, I hope there are enough men on the Liberal side to make it impossible to be said in the future that the Liberal party as a whole voted against what I regard as the just claims of a magnificent body of men.
  Mr WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish to explain why I am voting for the Amendment. I am in favour of the Amendment for the reason that I was not convinced by the arguments of the Government to vote for the principle of the Bill, and I was not convinced sufficiently to vote against the Bill on Second Reading by the arguments of the Opposition, because the Opposition put forward no alternative of any kind or
  description to meet a grave public emergency. This Bill has passed the Second Reading, and the principle that there is to be a minimum wage having been affirmed, are we to leave the question at large as to what that minimum wage is to be? Are we be leave it for weeks of argument in every colliery district in the kingdom, or are we to adopt the suggestion of putting what really is a very minimum wage into this Bill, and be done with it? That would obviously prevent a tremendous loss of time and a great deal of feeling. After all, what are the figures suggested? Five shillings per day for able bodied men and 2s. a day for boys—for people who have to descend into the pits and do that particular kind of work. I have come to. the conclusion that, if we are to have a minimum wage at all, which I think a very regrettable proceeding, then the Bill of the Government and the attitude they are taking up is perfectly futile. The only way to make that Bill do any good at the present moment is to adopt the very simple suggestion that has been made and put in the 5s. and the 2s. I appeal to all those men who believe that at a juncture like this it would do no harm to fix wages which are obviously minimum amounts. If that is asked as a condition of a final settlement, then I say why not avoid the necessity of weeks' delay, with men possibly standing out in various districts of the kingdom waiting to see at what the minimum is to be fixed. All these difficulties have to be faced, and therefore. I am in favour of the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be these inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 326.

  Division No. 56.]

  AYES.

  [8.20 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Alden, Percy

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

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

  Martin, Joseph

  Barnes, George N.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Millar, James Duncan

  Brace, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hinds, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, James

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leeks)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Davies, Ellis William (Elffon)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  De Forest, Baron

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Richards, Thomas

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rowlands, James

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  King, J.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Snowden, Philip

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, John E.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wintrey, Richard

  Wadsworth, John

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  G. Roberts and Mr. J. Parker.

  Wardle, G. J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Higham, John Sharp

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hills, John Waller

  Amery, L. C. M. S

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Armitage, Robert

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Croft, H. P.

  Holt, Richard Darning

  Aster, Waldorf

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Do set, N.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Doughty, Sir George

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Barnston, Harry

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barton, William

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Fell, Arthur

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Ferens, Rt. hon. Thomas Robinson

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Beale, W. P.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Finlay, Rt. Hon Sir Robert

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

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th))

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Leach, Charles

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  France, G. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bird, A.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghtom

  Lewisham, viscount

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Boyton, James

  Goulding, E. A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Maclean, Donald

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gretton, John

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Callum, John M.

  Burn, Colonel, C. R.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

  Butcher, John George

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

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

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

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

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

  Cameron, Robert

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Campion, W. R.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Malcolm, Ian

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Manfield, Harry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Cassel, Felix

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cator, John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Cave, George

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Middlebrook, William

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cleugh, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Clyde, James Avon

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks.,Abingdon)

  Munro, Robert

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Man., South)

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

  300

  301

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Neilson, Francis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncastcr)

  Ronaldshay, Eafl of

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Ogden, Fred

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavel

  Waring, Walter

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Webb, H.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Traceston)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sandys, G. J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Schwann, Rt Hon. Sir C. E.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

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

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

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

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Starkey, John Ralph

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Swift, Rigby

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Yerburgh, Robert

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

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Tennant, Harold John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Radford, G. H.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Mr. WALSH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "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 or efficiency of the work to be performed by workmen laid down by those rules."
  I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill what is the meaning he attaches to the word "forfeited his right." The Clause commences with the words, "It shall be an implied term of every contract" that certain conditions shall come into operation except where they are excluded from those conditions under the rules. I know of no industry in which contracts change so quickly as the coal mining industry, and I should be glad to know for how long a man forfeits his right, and whether when he enters into another contract the forfeiture that has taken place under the existing contract is still to be continued. I do not know whether I have made my meaning clear. In some cases you have daily contracts. There are tens of thousands of miners working under daily contracts. Large numbers work under weekly contracts or fortnightly contracts, and, I believe, almost the whole of South Wales is governed by monthly contracts, so that it may be perceived that if a person has once been brought before the District Board
  302
  and has been proved not to have complied with the conditions of labour laid down it is very necessary to find out for what length of time he has forfeited his right, whether his right to a minimum rate is to exist only during the duration of the contract, or whether once having forfeited that right he can never regain it. That is the special reason why this Amendment has been put down on the Paper. We want to find out exactly where we stand.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment. One of the general objections to the principle of the individual minimum wage is based on the difficulty of supervision. We have had it pointed out again and again, by various Members of the House, that mining is not like many other industries, and that the difficulty of supervision is greater. But if the colliery official experiences great difficulty in supervising, and in ascertaining whether a workman has produced a fair day's work, the workman himself has just as much difficulty in proving to the Board that he has performed a fair day's work. The difficulty of the one is as great as the difficulty of the other. The difficulties of mining are such that a man may only produce half the output of coal on one day that he produces on another, notwithstanding the fact that he may have been working at higher pressure on the day he has produced the smaller output. I

  303
  have had much practical experience as a miner, and I must say I think that the safeguards the coal owner has over and above the safeguard provided by this Bill, are quite sufficient under the circumstances. In the first place, at least 60 per cent, of the men are paid by results, and the more they produce the more likely are they to earn a higher wage than the minimum fixed. In the second place, we ought not to forget that the employer has always the right to employ the workman. I have much pleasure, therefore, in seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The question which is raised by my hon Friend the Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh) has been put very clearly by him. He conveyed to me exactly what he meant, and it has been enforced by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson). The object of this Clause is first of all to make it a statutory term of every contract, without mentioning it in the contract, to say that whenever a contract for employment is made for work in a mine underground, it follows without anything further being said upon the one side or the other that there is a right to a minimum wage. That is the object of putting here, as we have done at the beginning of the Clause, the words:—
  "It shall be an implied term of every contract"—
  My hon. Friends will have noticed that it is not possible under this Clause to get rid of the implied term in the contract. There is this statement that the workman may have forfeited his right to wages at the minimum rate, or that he may be a person excluded. I must point out that that is all governed by the words:
  "unless it is certified in manner provided by the district rules."
  Therefore the position is this: Every man is entitled to a minimum wage unless the further condition is satisfied, that is, unless there is a certificate that he has failed to perform either the one or the other of the conditions. I will assume that a workman has failed to perform the conditions during one week, and that consequently there would be a certificate that he has forfeited his right to the minimum wage during that week. That certainly only applies to that week. As soon as he goes on again with his work in the next week—assuming there is, by the district rules, a weekly payment—what will happen will
  304
  be that the next week will be judged on its own merits, and if in the next week he has complied with the conditions he gets the minimum wage. If he has not complied with the conditions it will be certified that he has failed to comply with them, and that he has lost the minimum wage. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friends. The only effect will be that for the period for which the certificate is given he is excluded. It is not a bar so long as he is in that employment. It only means that for that particular period for which the certificate is given he is not to be entitled to the minimum wage. Of course the district rules will have to decide what the period is to be. I follow what was said by the hon. Member for West Fife as to what the difficulties might be in his own district. The answer to that always is that the District Board is familiar with those difficulties, and that they will settle the conditions and lay them down in the rules, so that no special difficulty can arise with a District Board, which is governed in that matter by its own rules. I think the hon. Members can be quite satisfied with the Clause as it now stands. All that will result from it is that a man will get his minimum wage, unless he has forfeited his right or is excluded. He can only lose it for the period for which the certificate is given.
  Mr. S. WALSH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the particular point to which we have referred cannot be made a little clearer in Sub-section (2), because the certificate is not to state for what particular period the forfeiture is to exist? If he could give us suitable words—I am quite sure he agrees with us that the matter ought to be settled beyond dispute, and at present it seems rather vague—say on lines ten or eleven of page 2, I think on that understanding we may take it for granted that we are all agreed.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think there is no difficulty whatever as to what the words are intended to mean. I have no doubt whatever as to what the effect is, but I will, if my hon. Friends wish it, consider whether we can insert words to meet the point. I doubt if you can make the meaning clearer. I think it is as plain in the Statute as it can possibly be.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I am a little afraid of it myself; but, as I understand the best will be done, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or efficiency" ["conditions with respect to the regularity or efficiency of the work "].
  I move this Amendment because I can assure the House that these words open out a very serious matter indeed. There are so many regulations governing the work of miners, that it is the easiest thing in the world to have words of a most deceptive influence. For instance, we have the words "the regularity of the work." Take the case of the systematic timbering regulations. Everybody knows that it is very difficult indeed for the best intentioned miner sometimes to comply with those regulations. Would it be possible, if he performed that work irregularly, for him to be brought by the District Board within this provision? I think it would if pressed to i.ts logical conclusion. Then you have the words "or the efficiency of the work." There is nothing more deceptive than the term "efficiency." We in Lancashire have agreed upon, a particular form of words which do not speak of the efficiency of the work, but speak of the deficiency of the man, and when it can be proved that a man is deficient, we have agreed that a deficient man should not be entitled to the minimum that is given to the capable workman. But this Clause says the "efficiency of the work." The efficiency of the work of any one person can be made a matter of comparison with the work of any other person, and if these conditions are pressed to their logical conclusion, I see no end to the number of people who can be taken out of the provisions of this Bill. The efficiency of every person's work is nearly always a matter of invidious comparison. John Thompson does not do his work so well as Bill Jackson, and neither of them do the work so well as Jack Jones. Wherever the word "efficiency" has been used, and I know it has been used in many agreements, it has opened up an immense area of discussion. That I want to avoid under this Bill. If we can lay down certain conditions with regard to matters of fact, then we keep on safe ground, but when we let in matters of opinion as to the efficiency of the work, we are opening out a set of conditions which I am quite sure will destroy very much the value of the Bill. That is why I propose the Amendment. You might insert the words "regularity of attendance at the work." If a man puts in proper regularity of attendance that is the best proof of the intention of the workman, and that he is not a shirker. The
  306
  regularity of attendance is the best fact that you can adduce to show that he is the kind of workman that the employers desire.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I beg to second the Amendment. The word "efficiency" is a word of many meanings, and it may be interpreted in so many ways that it is a most dangerous expression to use in a Bill of this description. One can quite understand regularity and the amount of attention that a man gives to his work, and on the number of days in the week on the average when there is a possibility of going to work, that he is there to do his work. These are qualities that one can easily understand and lay down definite rules about, but the efficiency of the man or the efficiency of his work is a very difficult thing indeed, and the interpretation of it may mean taking away many advantages which the proposers of the Bill themselves wish the workmen to secure. It takes away a great deal of certainty from an otherwise fairly well-drawn Clause, considering the object that we have in view, and it introduces many uncertainties which will be decided in different places, according to the different men who have the interpretation of this word. Regularity of attendance and attention to work can be decided almost as a matter of mathematical certainty at every time or place, as the circumstances may require, but this word is an unknown quantity. It is something which cannot be fastened upon, and be generally applied to all circumstances, so that a man may know when he is efficient or his work is efficient or when it cannot be considered as efficient, and for that reason I ask my right hon. Friend to consider, even if he does not wish this word to be left out, at least that there should be some understanding about it, and that it cannot be interpreted against the best interests of the workman and against the real intention of the framers of the Bill.
  Mr. BUXTON: Both my hon. Friends are under some misapprehension in regard to the matter. This is only an Instruction to the District Committees that they are to provide safeguards for the employers. It was admitted on both slides during the conference, and as freely on the part of the men as on the part of the owners, that the owners, in admitting the principle of the minimum wage, should be entitled to safeguards against malingering or slackness of work, and that while the men themselves were asking for a

  307
  minimum wage the owners on their side are entitled to an adequate output during the time a man is working. "Regularity and efficiency" appeared to cover that, and was accepted by those representing the miners, and it is not, as the hon. Member (Mr. Ward) seems to think, that we are defining in this Act what is efficiency. I think my hon. Friends will realise that under the proposals of the federated area, with practically one or two minor exceptions which can probably be arranged, and the strike having taken place, the owners and the men had practically come to an arrangement under which regularity and the efficiency of the workman would have been ensured. These words are only an Instruction to the Joint Committees, representing the men as well as the owners, and to the chairman that in drawing up their rules they shall have regard not merely to the regularity of a man's attendance but to whether that man is really putting his back into his work. The word "efficiency" is a well-known word in Acts of Parliament, and appeared to us to cover all these matters. Reference is made in the federated area, which we have taken very much as our example, to this particular question, and I do not think it will be sufficient protection for the owners merely to deal with regularity of work unless during that period the man also was doing his best to produce a proper output.
  Mr. WALSH: It was the 80 per cent, of attendance that we were practically agreed upon. I am suggesting the insertion of the word "attendance," so that that particular point could be met and agreed upon. The word "efficiency," however, refers not merely to output, because of course, there is a very large amount of work performed which does not consist of output at all.
  Mr. BUXTON: It is quite true that there was a Clause in reference to regularity and the 80 per cent., and there was also a Clause which was agreed to in substance, though I admit not entirely. Apart from regularity the output, that is the efficiency, could also be secured.
  Mr. WATT: It seems to me, judging from what has taken place that the regularity of the workman, combined with the power of the masters to dismiss a workman if his work is not efficient, is quite sufficient in the Bill. The efficiency of his work is so much a matter of opinion that trouble is almost certain to arise. Suppose, for ex-
  308
  ample, that the Members of this House who are efficient were to be classified. No doubt some would think that Front Bench men were efficient. Others would think that the men who filled most pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT were the efficient men. I think the most efficient are those, like myself, who vote steadiest for the Government. That is an illustration of the difference of opinion that arises as to the efficiency of work. I think these words are bound to make trouble if they are left in.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "provide" ["The district rules shall provide"] and to insert instead thereof the words "lay down conditions."
  These are Amendments to deal with a point raised in Committee, to which the Attorney-General said he would give attention, and I think they carry out the views expressed by hon. Members. I will read the Clause as it would stand with the Amendment inserted. They will make it freer to decide questions as to the aged workman and the infirm workman:—
  "The district rules shall lay down conditions, as respects the district to which they apply, with respect to the exclusion from the right to wages at the minimum rate of aged and infirm workmen (including workmen partially disabled by illness or accident), and shall lay down conditions for safeguarding employers with respect to the regularity and efficiency of the work."
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: I am grateful to the Government for arranging the matter. I think it is clear, now we have it put definitely, that the view of the Government is practically that the determination as to when a person is an aged workman or an infirm workman will be in the hands of the District Committee.
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
  Mr. E. JONES: That is agreed upon. It is not the managers who may go to a Court of Law to decide whether an individual workman is aged or not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "workman" ["aged and infirm workmen"] insert the words "(including workmen partially disabled by illness or accident)."
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move an Amendment, of which my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) gave notice, namely, in Sub-section (2), after the word "of" ["minimum rate of aged workmen and infirm workmen"], to insert the word "such."
  This Amendment must be read with another, of which my Noble Friend has given notice—after the word "workmen" ["infirm workmen"], to insert the words "as may have made application to be excluded." Of course, we all agree that workmen who are aged and infirm cannot expect to have the minimum wage which is to be paid to other workmen. At the same time it does seem very hard that a District Board should, without any application on the part of the workmen, lay down that they are aged or infirm. The result might be in the case of these unfortunate men that they could not get any work anywhere else. Therefore the object of the two Amendments is to limit that exclusion to the case of such aged or infirm workmen as may have made application to be excluded. It may be said that if this were put in the Bill, it would compel all owners to employ such people if they did not make application. That is not so. An owner may say, "I cannot go on employing you unless you make application," and therefore it leaves it open to the man to make application or, if he likes, to go and get other work, without having a stigma put upon him by the Board of being aged or infirm. It is very hard on a man to be labelled either aged or infirm. I think this is a hard case, and I hope the Government will do something to meet it.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: I cordially second the Amendment, because while I firmly believe that the application of a rigid minimum wage would prove disastrous to the interests of the older workmen, and perhaps partially disabled workmen, I think the Amendment would secure others against the withholding of the minimum wage, and the danger would be removed. I submit that while the exemption is very desirable in the interests of the older men, and in the interests perhaps of some who have never had the opportunity of becoming first-class workers, yet I think the requirement that they should apply for this exemption does screen them from any arbitrary use of the exemption itself.
  Mr. BUXTON: The real answer to this proposal is this, and I hope it will satisfy the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Clause
  310
  already reads as was originally intended that these rules applying to infirm persons and others will be drawn up by this District Boards with both sides fully represented. I think the most satisfactory way of dealing with this question is to leave it to those who have local knowledge, and who will be much more likely to draw up rules satisfactory to all parties concerned than the House of Commons would be. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment. The District Boards will give consideration to all the circumstances, and I think it would be very unfortunate if Parliament were to lay down specific conditions.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is difficult to see the bearing of the Amendment just carried on this, particular point. We shall trust to the local Boards to do justice to those men and not to leave a stigma on them. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: After the word "workmen" ["infirm workmen"], insert the words "(including workmen par ially disabled by illness, or accident)."—[Mr. Buxton.l
  Mr. BUXTON Mr. BUXTON I beg to move, after the word "conditions" ["shall lay down conditions"], to insert the words "for safeguarding employers."
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I do not know why these words are being inserted. The Clause, as drafted, gives the power of direction for certain purposes as to the regularity and efficiency of workmen. It seems to me that that is quite sufficient. Why should there be a definite direction, to safeguard the employers without mentioning the necessary safeguards for workmen at the same time? One can quite understand that there might be circumstances which would form an incentive for a workman to get the minmum wage without doing his proper share of work, but at the same time there is another view which can quite easily be taken, and that is that when once the minimum wage is enforced the employer might put a task on a man which would render the minimum wage not an. advantage to him, but a positive injury to him, his family, and everybody concerned. It is the workman who will require safeguards rather than the employer, and

  311
  therefore a direction should be given to the District Boards to safeguard the workmen in these matters. We have got so accustomed to be frightened by the bogey of the malingering workman, who does not exist as a matter of fact, that we are used to tightening up legislation and regulations of this description by putting in phrases which do no good to anyone. Why should the employer be able to use the minimum wage for the purpose of getting a maximum of labour beyond what human endurance is incapable of performing. My experience when I was a workman was that I had to work jolly hard for low wages, and it was I who wanted safeguarding and not the man who employed me. That is the experience practically of every sweated workman in the country. A phrase like this is most unsuitable for such a Bill. There are quite safeguards enough for the employer and too few safeguards for the workman, so far as it extends at present.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The words that were moved in Committee on this very subject were taken verbatim from what the Prime Minister laid down at the desire of the Government in their own proposals, which were laid before the two parties, and the Government objected to the full words that were used, "for safeguarding the employers from abuse," and said they would rather substitute the words "for safeguarding employers." It was generally understood that those words would be brought up on the Report stage, and the result is that the Government has put down this Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman's original words were "safeguarding the employer." The District Board should be left free to put down safeguards, which might apply to only one employer if necessary. Therefore, I think, that the original words "safeguarding the employer" instead of "safeguarding employers" are the best. In reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward), it must be remembered that where the minimum wage is established this Amendment is absolutely necessary as a counterweight on the other side, so that the minimum wage should be obtained in a legitimate way.
  Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend (Mr. J. Ward) is under a misapprehension with regard to this matter. It is a purely declaratory Amendment. Apparently this Sub-section deals solely with the questions
  312
  of safeguards for the owner. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated, that the Committee thought when they adopted the principle of the minimum wage that the safeguard should be provided in the Act against abuse. These safeguards are solely for the owner, and do not apply in any way to the question of safeguards for the men. The words are only declaratory in this Sub-section under conditions which both sides accepted. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this explanation.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to move:
  "That the words 'and workmen' be added to the proposed Amendment."
  There will only be one set of district rules and only one District Board, and we are dealing with the aged and infirm workmen and the partially disabled workmen. Surely it will be just as necessary to safegard the interests of those classes of men as to safeguard the interests of the employers. It may be perfectly true that the intention of the Clause as it stands now is simply for the protection of the employers, but we have brought in by a recent Amendment the partially disabled workmen as well, and surely it is very desirable they should be safeguarded. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman has brought in a class of people that the Clause itself did not provide for previously, and it is very necessary that they should be safeguarded. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke is a very vital one, inasmuch as these will be the only rules that can be applied to a new class of workers who are now introduced into this Clause, and there is no class of workmen about the mines so greatly in need of having their rights safeguarded as the partially disabled men who will nearly always be put on a lower rate of wages.
  Mr. BUXTON: I will accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. S. Walsh), as I confess he has put a somewhat different complexion on the words to which he referred, and, as I have already brought in the partially disabled and so on, it does show that these words are necessary.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If these words come in the Clause would then read, "To lay down conditions for safeguarding employers and workmen with respect to the regularity and efficiency of the work to be performed by the workmen." How

  313
  can you lay down conditions safeguarding the interests of the workmen with respect to the regularity and efficiency of the work to be performed by the workmen? I submit that that would be nonsense.
  Mr. KEATING: In reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for the City of London, as far as my knowledge of this matter goes, nearly the whole of this struggle has arisen through the petty tyranny of the management of the mines. I do not blame one side more than the other on this question, but unless these words are accepted the danger is that the spirit of tyranny which animates the management of some of the mines, quite outside the knowledge of the owners, is likely to penalise some of these workmen under the operation of this Clause.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I am rather surprised the Government have accepted the Amendment which has been suddenly brought forward. I was out of the House when the right hon. Gentleman accepted it, but after all it is an Amendment which introduces an entirely new question, and as I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman I do not know what reason he gave for including this which is an entirely new point. I do not know really what is meant by conditions safeguarding the workman, and if this Amendment to the Amendment is to be accepted I confess I see no object in putting in the words at all. The words proposed by the Amendment carrying out a distinct pledge given by the Government, and the intention of the Government had nothing whatever to do with the question of the workmen. It now becomes simply a pious declaration for safeguarding the interests of the employer and the workman. I do not think the proposal will really have much effect, but I must leave it to the Government to take whatever course they like.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Keating) can hardly have read the Clause. He spoke of there being a considerable amount of tyranny among the managers, but this has nothing whatever to do with the management. The Clause states that the District Boards shall provide rules with respect to the district to which they apply in regard to the regularity and efficiency of work, in order to safeguard the interests of the employers. A more boggled and absurd Clause, if this Amendment to the Amendment be accepted, I have never had the
  314
  pleasure of reading in an Act of Parliament, even an Act of Parliament passed by the present Government. What it has got to do with management I fail to see.
  Mr. KEATING: The managers decide-the efficiency of the workmen.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No; certainly not. The district rules are made by the District Boards, and they have nothing to do with, the managers. The hon. Member apparently does not know what is in the Bill. It is the District Boards under impartial chairmen who are to lay down the rules.
  Mr. WATT: The hon. Baronet was not in the House when certain Amendments were made, and the Clause is not the same as he read it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: One or two small Amendments have been put in, it is true, but that does not alter the point which I was making that the rules are to be made by the District Boards, and not by the managers, as the hon. Member below the Gangway seems to think. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has given no reason for accepting the Amendment to the Amendment, and he has accepted it apparently because it was moved by an hon. Member below the Gangway opposite. He has given no reason at all, and I do not think he can give a reason, because there is not a sensible reason which could be given for accepting the addition. As far as I am personally concerned, as the Bill is so bad and will do so little good, the more it is nonsense the better I shall be pleased; therefore, I shall not object to the words being put in. The words of the Amendment were proposed to safeguard the interests of the employers, and to carry out a pledge given by the Prime Minister when he introduced the Bill, and when he laid down that a measure providing that there shall be a minimum wage should be accompanied by safeguards in the interests of the employers; but to attempt to maintain that this is carrying out the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman is beyond even the powers of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I hope the President of the Board of Trade will adhere to his acceptance of the Amendment to the Amendment. I think it is absolutely necessary that the interests of the workmen should be safeguarded as well as the interests of the employers. We find in dealing with questions of wages that we have

  315
  frequent disputes with colliery officials as to the amount of working time that has been put in by the workman. That is one of the difficulties in dealing with the wages' question. We find that colliery officials set down a certain number of days as having been worked during the fortnight in dispute by the workman, while the workman himself gives a different number of days as having been worked. Then, again, difficulties take place between colliery officials and the workmen as to the quality of the work done. The ideas on that point of two men differ. Both may be practical men, but they have different ideas as to how the work may be performed. Consequently I think it is important in the workman's interest that he should be safeguarded as well as the employer. If we observe what is to follow in some of the other Clauses of the Bill, questions of payment and such like, I think it is very essential indeed that the workman's interests should be safeguarded as well as those of the employer.
  Mr. PARKES: I hope the Government will hesitate before they accept the Amendment from below the Gangway opposite. It appears to me that the two words in the Amendment as proposed to be amended are mutually destructive. I quite agree that the interests of the workman ought to be safeguarded, but this is not the place in which that can be effected, because the words would nullify each other altogether. It may be desirable to safeguard the interests of the workers in some other part of the Bill, but perhaps the best course would be to leave out both words "workman" and "employer," rather than put in words that contradict each other.
  Mr. BRACE: The Government, I think, would be well advised to withdraw the word "safeguard," and we would withdraw the word "workman."
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I could not gather from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the principle which underlies his acceptance of the Amendment to the Amendment. In the Committee stage on this Clause the question of aged workmen and infirm workmen was considered, and at that time the right hon. Gentleman saw no necessity for introducing anything except words which would fulfil the definite pledge of the Prime Minister to safeguard the employer with regard to regularity and efficiency of work. Now conies an hon. Member
  316
  below the Gangway opposite with an Amendment to the Amendment, not only in regard to aged and infirm workmen, but also partially infirm workmen, thus changing the whole question of principle. The definite pledge of the Prime Minister to safeguard the employer with regard to regularity and efficiency of work is made to relate to workmen, not only aged and infirm, but also partially infirm. I cannot understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. Does he give that as a reason for changing the words of the Amendment? If that is not the reason, what is the reason for the Amendment to the Amendment? I agree that it is entirely desirable to safeguard the interests of the workman. I entirely agree that if you want pious words to that effect, you may put them in somewhere, but why put them in here, when it is entirely and solely a question of the regularity and efficiency of the work to be performed by workmen? What safeguard does the workman want if he performs his work regularly and efficiently? In other words and perhaps in another place it would be quite right to protect workmen from abuse by safeguards. You are now introducing nonsense into the Section. If you want to pacify the people on whose good will you depend, bring in a new Clause, but do not derogate from the absolute pledge of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. BUXTON: What I said in Committee was that safeguards for the employer were contained in the text of the Bill, and, in a rash moment, perhaps, I promised to put these words in. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, and quite justly I think, if these words were put in it might be felt in regard to various matters affecting workmen that there were not like safeguards. Therefore I accepted the additional words, but under the circumstances I put it to the House that the best way is not to put in these words, which would really have no effect in making the safeguards for employers stronger than they are at present. I regard the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite as quite unnecessary.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "provide" ["and provide with respect"]. After the word "and" ["and that a workman"] insert

  317
  the words "shall provide." Leave out the words "those conditions" ["comply with those conditions "], and insert instead thereof the words "conditions as to regularity and efficiency of work."—[Mr. Buxton.]
  Mr. BRACE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "question" ["in which any question"], to insert the words "as to when boys are entitled to be paid the minimum wage to which men are entitled and."
  Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: This would really be met in the rules of the District Committees, and I think the words are superfluous.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "applicable" ["wages is applicable"], insert the words "or whether a workman has complied with the conditions laid down by the rules."— [Mr. Buxton.]
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "of" {"date of the passing"], to insert the words "the commencement of work within fourteen days after."
  This Bill professes to be a means of bringing this unfortunate strike, which is causing so much misery to all classes of the population, to an end The intention of this Amendment is to make the Bill operative to bring the strike to an end so far as is possible for any Act to do. It is quite possible, under the Clause as drafted now, that either the owners or the men, as the case may be, to either decline to go back in the case of the men or decline to open the mines in the case of the masters, until they know, so to speak, which way the cat is going to jump, or which way the Joint Board is going to decide in matters relating to the minimum wage. If there is really any sincerity on the part of both masters and men in this matter in regard to this Bill as a means of bringing this strike to an end, my words will simply have the effect of enabling them to demonstrate their sincerity by making it certain that they are prepared to accept this tribunal and its decisions on the footing that it does bring the present differences of opinion to a close, and will operate so far as is possible in causing the mines to open and the miners to return to work. On the face of it, what is intended by the Amendment is apparent.
  Mr. PARKES: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. J. WARD: I have not the slightest objection to the Amendment unless there is the possibility of it doing what I am afraid it might do, and in that event I should object to it most seriously. Is there any chance of interpreting this Amendment as being that the minimum wage is only to apply to those who start work in the mines within fourteen days after the passing of the Bill, and that all new men taken on after the fourteen days would not receive the minimum wage? If that is the intention we could not under any circumstances accept the Amendment.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: That is certainly not my intention, and if the words are so interpreted I shall not press them. The sole object of the Amendment is that as regards both owners and the men connected with the pit this agreement shall operate only if work is resumed within fourteen days after the passing of the Act.
  Mr. J. WARD: In those circumstances most decidedly it could not be accepted without some qualification. There may be mines that it would take fourteen days to get ready, and the men, even if they wanted to go to work, could not do so. Surely the hon. Member does not intend to exclude them, because all the employers would have to do would be to keep the mine in such a condition that it was impassible to work it for fourteen days, and we might just as well have never had a Bill at all. I quite agree with the principle if proper safeguards could be introduced, but, there must be definite safeguards before it can be accepted.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The use of these words will produce very great difficulty and will not secure what the hon. Member intends. It would be much better that these words should be omitted and that there should be inserted the words 'fourteen days after the passing of this Act." You would then have a definite time from when the minimum wage was to operate. It can only operate for men who are at work. But the insertion of these words would lead to all kinds of possibilities of interpretation, which I hardly like to contemplate, and which I am sure the House does not intend. The words I have suggested would meet everybody's view. They allow a certain time for preparation. I understand they are not objected to by the employers, and that they are agreed

  319
  to by those who represent the miners. If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment and move it in the form I suggested, it will be accepted.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I quite agree that the words I have moved are open to misconstruction and might lead to difficulty. I will therefore ask leave to withdraw them, in order to move those suggested by the Attorney-General.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Could not the Attorney-General accept the words which have been handed in by the hon. Member for Liverpool?
  The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The Amendment handed in by the hon. Member deals with the point we have just decided.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "from" ["from the date of the passing of this Act"], to insert the words "the expiration of a period of fourteen days after."
  Mr. WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. BRACE: I do not want to oppose these words, because I understand there has been some kind of arrangement to which I am not a party. The House must not take it that I am a consenting party to these words, but, after what I have been told, I do not care to accept the responsibility of offering objection to them.
  Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: Before the House decides to accept these words I should like to be sure that we quite appreciate their effect. It seems to me that they will have quite the opposite effect to that desired by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, and quite a different result from that which I desire with regard to any men to go back to work within the next fortnight. As the Clause stands, the minimum wage principle is made applicable from the moment of the passing of the Act. It will apply to every man who goes back to work to-morrow or the day after to-morrow; he will get the minimum wage from the moment he goes back to work, although the amount of it may not be determined for two or three weeks to come. I understand that the Amendment is to postpone the operation of this Act for fourteen days, so that there will be a period of fourteen days
  320
  after the passing of the Act during which anybody who goes back to work will do so upon a basis different from that of the; minimum wage. I am sure the Government do not intend to introduce that dual system. What they really mean is that anybody who goes back to work after the passing of the Act shall have the benefit of the Act. I believe that is what hon. Members below the Gangway mean. I am sure it is what I mean, and unless I am convinced that my interpretation of the Amendment is quite erroneous I shall certainly not agree to its insertion.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The Government seem to take the line of least resistance. If the Amendment is accepted it will mean that if a man goes back to the mine he is not to enjoy the benefit of the Act for fourteen days. That is a direct contravention of the pledge given by the Prime Minister that every man who went back to work after the passing of the Act would get the minimum wage. Why, without any reason or argument, is it to be made-not to apply for fourteen days? A definite pledge was given by the Prime Minister. If this Amendment goes forward I shall divide the House against it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There seems to be some misapprehension in regard to this matter. The reason why I suggested these words was for the purpose of meeting the view of both the employer and the miner. We thought they would carry out what both desired. If they do not desire the words, so far as the Government are concerned there is no necessity to press the matter.
  Mr. J. WARD: If you insert them you interfere with the very objects for which we are passing the Act.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It was not the Government that moved them.
  Mr. J. WARD: I know that.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I am responsible for this Amendment in the sense that I accepted the suggestion for modification of an Amendment which I was prepared to move. I am bound to observe that the words do not quite meet the case. I do not think myself, either, that the Amendment is going to tend in its present form to bring the miners back to the pits. As that is the object for which I desired to move the Amendment, and as it does not appear to satisfy any section of the House, I ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  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.
  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 under this Act.
  (2)The Board of Trade may recognise as a Joint District Board for any district anybody 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 and for giving the chairman a casting vote in case of difference between 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 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
  322
  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 rates) 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 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.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "minimum" ["at a minimum rate "].
  Leave out the word "that" ["than that settled"], and insert instead thereof the words "the minimum rate."
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "and in settling any minimum rate of wages the Joint District Board shall have regard, amongst other matters, to the average daily rate of wages paid to the workman

  323
  of the class for which the minimum rate is to be settled."
  Some direction, it was considered, ought to be given, or might be given, to the District Committees and to the chairmen as to the basis on which they might take into account the consideration of the minimum rate which they are about to make. We were asked to go further than that, and to say that the minimum rate of wages settled under the Act ought not to be less than the existing rates of wages. We did not see that we could settle or limit the operation or the power of the District Committee representing both sides. The House will remember that in Committee the Prime Minister undertook, if it would meet the general desire, to put certain words in, and the words of this Amendment are practically the identical words he read out to the Committee.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: This Amendment relates to one of the most important considerations of the Bill. I should have preferred the words of the Amendment which stands lower down on the Paper. But I hope that we may interpret the intention of the Amendment which has been put down by the Government to mean that it is their intention to make it perfectly clear that existing agreements, customs, and rates of wages in each particular district are to be the governing considerations for the District Board when it comes to consider the matter. I hope also it is their intention to include both the miners and day-wage men, as I understand was the undertaking given to us on a previous occasion. I think if that is made perfectly clear at the present time it will have a stronger effect in inducing the men to go back to work than any other provision of the Bill. I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain whether the proposed chairmen of the Joint Boards will be bound by the same considerations in regard to this matter. In other words, will they take into account when they give their casting vote the existing rate of wages, the existing agreements, and customs as governing considerations? If we get a satisfactory assurance upon that point, I believe, in the absence of the figures which we ask for, that this Amendment will go further than any other provision to settle the strike.
  Mr. S. WALSH: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, if this Amendment is accepted will it cut any further discussion out? I have an Amendment further down.
  324
  They both deal with the same point. I think my Amendment is a little more effective.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the House decides, that the Joint Board should take these matters into consideration, I should say it would not be open for the House to consider the second Amendment.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Then I beg that the discussion should go on on this particular point. I am quite certain that the objects desired by the right hon. Gentleman will not be served by the form of the Amendment. The words "shall have regard" seem to me to be rather vague and loose. "Other matters" does at least make it a little better, but that the Boards "shall have regard" to is just as intangible as the whole Bill from beginning to end. My Amendment a little later was to make it obligatory that the existing rate of wages in the district affected must be the minimum rate. I think that is the intention of practically every Member who has spoken in this House. It is, indeed, the intention of a very large number of employers in the United Kingdom. I am not giving any secrets away when I say that 65 per cent, of the employers in the kingdom were prepared here and now to pay the existing wages as a recognised minimum, and on the understanding that peace was assured to them for about two years. I certainly think that if the Government are in earnest in saying that they want a reasonable minimum wage; if they are in earnest in saying that having found 65 per cent of the employers willing some time ago to give this thing, if it be a fact that 65 per cent, of the employers were prepared to give the present rate of wages as the minimum rate as an assurance of peace being granted to them for a reasonable time then, I think, it is right that the employers should take their courage more resolutely and carry out the Amendment I have on the Paper, so that in no case shall the minimum rate be under that already existing in the district. The mere intimation that the Board "shall have regard" to it does not carry it any tangible distance. The Bill is a thing of shreds and patches. I say with great earnestness, as a citizen of this country, that when this Bill does pass it will be the duty of every citizen to make the best of the Bill. I say that openly and seriously and I am prepared to take the consequences that may follow. Our citizenship should be higher than our trade union, and with me it will be, and I appeal to the

  325
  Government to help us to that end. An immense responsibility rests upon the miners' agents. I know it is easy to bandy words in this House and to talk of the leaders running after the men and the leaders being afraid. We are not afraid, but we want some condition that will give us hope and that will give the men hope. My Amendment, so far as I am capable of understanding the English language, will carry out the ideas intended. I am afraid the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman will but leave the whole thing vague and insecure, and for that reason I hope the Government will not insist upon their own Amendment, but will accept the form of words which I suggest. I do not know whether I could move my Amendment in the form on the Paper, but I was thinking that perhaps it would be permissible for me to move to amend the official Amendment in this regard, and if that were so I should move after the word "shall" in the Government Amendment ["the Joint Boards shall have regard"], to leave out the words "have regard amongst other matters to," and to insert instead thereof the words "not fix a rate of wages less than." The Amendment would then read:—
  "In settling any minimum rate of wages the Joint District Board shall not fix a rate of wages less than the average daily rate paid to the workman of the class for which the minimum rate is to be settled."
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to second the Amendment. I should like to say this is one of those points that I do not think affects the principle of putting a fixed sum into the Bill, while it gives at the same time the satisfaction to the men of knowing that they are going to have something tangible. There has been a great deal said about the difficulty of getting the men back to work, and that the leaders ought to recommend them to go back to work. But it is difficult to get men back to work unless their leaders can give them some definite assurance that they will not be in any worse position than they were before. I think that could be done by an Amendment like this, which distinctly lays down that this Bill is intended to improve their position, and that when this Bill is passed they can go back to work with the assurance that their position will be no worse, and that there will be a minimum rate fixed. The strike will then be brought to an end much sooner than otherwise.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I cannot but feel the Government will acquiesce in my appeal not at all events to accept these words. Of course, if they accept these words, they are simply going back on everything they have said. It would mean not only inserting the Schedules which we have resisted, but it would mean inserting something more than the Schedules, because, at all events all through the federated areas, it was practically agreed that the minimum rates are less than anything like what you say is the average or normal rate. How can a minimum rate possibly be an average rate? The average rate is formed between what may be the highest and the lowest rate of pay, by which means eventually you arrive at an average. How can you ever have a minimum that has anything to do with an average? My objection to the Government Amendment is that it introduces the word "average" into the Bill. It seems to be an absolutely false standard to give to the District Boards. If they are to be advisory words it is an absolutely wrong principle, because you call their attention to something that never could be a minimum wage. The average wage could never be the minimum wage, and it seems to be absolutely bad drafting to put such words into the Bill. So far' as the owners are concerned the Government have consistently, in answer to our Amendment, said, "Leave these matters to the District Board; they will consider them"; and the undoubted presumption was that that was what the Government intended to do. When we moved Amendments we were always met with that argument.
  During the discussion we have had two things promised us—two declarations that would help us in coming before the District Boards. One promise was that the employers should be safeguarded. The Government have given way to-night and withdrawn these words. Another promise was that we should be given a certain amount of time to get ready our pits before the minimum rate came into operation, from the desire to hasten the application of the minimum rate. That also has been withdrawn by the Government. They have withdrawn all declarations in favour of the owners. I ask them to withdraw this declaration which they are now inserting in favour of the men. So much on the general principle. But the immediate thing, I ask the Government most

  327
  earnestly, is this. They have gone aside from the view which they held throughout, namely, that the Act ought not to lay down general directions to the Board, but that they should be left to exercise their own judgment. I ask now that we ought not to have the judgment prejudged by the fact that when they study the Act they shall only find one direction, and that is to attend to the average daily rates of wages. Because, if they do that, it will influence their judgment to such an extent that we shall not get the unprejudiced decisions we should all like to have. I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can connect the average with the minimum rate? I am sorry he did not tell us what he means by daily rate of wages paid to the workman of the class affected. I am aware of no instance, except in Durham, where they have what they call a county rate that might possibly come under that description. But apparently this is a daily rate of wages. How did the Government get it? It is not a wage paid to hewers, because it is not a daily rate compared with the work the hewer does. What, therefore do they mean? Do they mean the particular wage that is paid in what are called abnormal places when a man is taken from his work and sent to do special work for the management? If that is considered the average rate of wage it is nothing of the sort, because it is very much better. That is the wage they give to a good man for doing special work when they draw him out of his place where he would be earning a large amount on piecework. Then they have to give him a high daily wage to remunerate him. That certainly could not be called a daily rate which is to be given to the arbitrators as a factor in establishing the minimum wage, which would be very much lower. We have had no explanation of this matter from the Government. When this suggestion was thrown out by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) we were discussing the question of the day wage men. When it is applied to the hewers it is in my opinion going back entirely upon what the Government has put forward. I protest against this proposal as a breach of the agreement which has been carried out by the owners, and if necessary I should put the House to the trouble of a Division. We have had no explanation why the Government has gone back, and by a side wind they are endeavouring to introduce this Schedule. It is on that ground I oppose this Amend-
  328
  ment and the Amendment of the Government.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. If it is not accepted then you are going to get fresh trouble and more unrest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Well, I will give reasons for the faith that is in me, because I am speaking of something I know. There are 7,000 men under one company in my county, and this company has agreed to pay the minimum wage for normal or abnormal places. If the stalls are abnormal—bad roofs, bad roads, or water in the roofs—then this wage is paid; but if the men do not earn the wage in a normal stall owing to the shortness of tubs, unequal distribution, or bad management, then they are paid this wage, and it applies to 7,000 men under one company. Supposing the Joint Board is at liberty to reduce these wages, who can keep these men at work? Why they would at once strike no matter what anybody said. If this Bill passes, and their minimum is to be fixed by the Joint Board at less than what they are having now, do you think the men would work? There is no man in Europe could get them to work under such circumstances. I say these wages must be retained, and nobody must have power to reduce them.
  Mr. BUXTON: That point is covered by an Amendment which I inserted in Committee. The point the hon. Member is making is, if a man is at present, by agreement or custom, receiving a certain rate of wages, and if the minimum is fixed below this rate, it will be brought up to the minimum. The Amendment I inserted in Committee will cover that altogether as long as the custom lasts.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: Then, I understand, the existing rates cannot be interfered with.
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: If I have the assurance that the rates paid now—that is, the existing rates—are not going to be interfered with, that meets my point.
  Mr. BUXTON: As the Bill stands now, with the verbal Amendment I put in just now, it provides "that 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 rate higher than the minimum rate settled under this Act." I

  329
  think that meets what my hon. Friend desires. If a man is receiving 8s. a day, and afterwards the minimum rate is fixed at 7s., that man will not be affected so long as the agreement exists, and he will continue to receive 8s. per day. I may say that I have no objection to leaving out of my Amendment the words "amongst other matters."
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: This is a Minimum Wage Bill, and not an Average Wage Bill, and if this Amendment is accepted you will be producing the ridiculous result alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, that you are not to have a minimum wage less than the average existing wage. If you make a minimum wage above your present average wage, you are destroying the incentive to work, and if you are going to pay a minimum average of existing wages, you are going much further; if you are going to make two things comparable, they must bear some relation. If the desire of hon. Members opposite is that the men shall be no worse off working under the new conditions than they are now, then it is perfectly right to say, from their point of view, that any future minimum shall not be less than the existing minimum; but to say the future minimum shall not be less than the existing average, is not dealing with things that are comparable. There is a further point. Under Clause 3 of this Bill, the minimum when fixed is only capable of revision in one of two events. If employers and employed both agree, then it may be revised, but if the minimum is operating favourably for the employed, it is not likely that there will be an application for a revision, and so that alternative may be put aside. The only other alternative in which the Board may revise the minimum is after a year and three months' notice. So, if you get altered pay conditions, it may be fair to revise prices. The effect of any such Amendment, even the Government Amendment, and still more the Amendment to the Amendment, would be that though conditions have altered which preclude the possibility, commercially speaking, of continuing wages at the existing minimum, you cannot alter that for a year and without three months' notice, to expire at the end of the year. You are going to introduce a state of things which will compel the owner to keep his mine open and pay a wage he cannot pay because he cannot get an agreement, which is the only other alternative. It is not business. It is a vice to
  330
  compare a future minimum with an existing average, and, if you are going to keep the minimum of the future, you ought to deal with that minimum in relation to the existing minimum of to-day.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am quite sure the House will welcome the declaration made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Walsh) as to the spirit in which he and his Friends intend to work this Schedule when it becomes law. Everybody will appreciate the patriotic spirit in which he spoke, and nothing could augur better for the future than declarations of that kind. I am sorry, particularly bearing in mind the way in which he has approached the discussion of this matter, that the Government cannot accept the Amendment to the Amendment which he proposed. The view which is embodied in the words on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade really carry out exactly what was argued for and stated by the Prime Minister in the discussion on Friday. They carry out almost I think in the ipsissima verba. what he stated. Those words have this effect with regard to the average day rate of wages. When dealing with the minimum wages the Joint District Board must; have regard to the average daily rate which is paid in that district to a workman of that class. That is what is intended, and that is what we thought the House had really agreed to and considered the right course to take. It is certainly what the Prime Minister proposed, and I do think it is the fullest extent to which the Government can go. It will cover the case if the day men, and it will cover the case of the hewer who is engaged at day rate. It will cover both those cases, and it will mean that when the Joint District Board has to consider this question of fixing the minimum rate it will not be bound rigidly by the average daily rate, but must take into account what is the average daily rate in that district.
  Sir R. FINLAY: What is meant by the "average daily rate"?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should have thought the Joint District Board would have no difficulty in determining the daily rate.
  Sir R. FINLAY: What is the average daily rate? Are you to take all the rates and then strike an average?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The right hon. Gentleman surely does not suggest the Joint District Board will not know how to arrive at the average daily rate. Having regard to all the circumstances and on the facts before them, showing what is the average daily rate, they have to come to a determination of fact as to what they think is the average rate paid in that district. That is the point, I think.
  Sir R. FINLAY: My question is a simple one. What does average mean? Does it mean that all the rates paid to men in the district shall be taken, and an average struck from them?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think if the right hon. Gentleman had looked at the words which follow he would have seen the answer to his question. It is the average daily rate of wages paid to workmen of the class for which the minimum rate is to be settled. A particular class will be taken and surely the Joint Board can settle what is the average. There is a serious difficulty in applying existing rates which, in the absence of an agreement, cannot be altered for a period of fifteen months. What in that case the Board will have to say is, "We think, as a result of our inquiries and of the representations made to us by both sides, such and such would be the average daily rate for the district." As a matter of fact the existing rate might be particularly high in a given place at the time that the rate has to be fixed. I have been asked by the hon. Member for North-East Lanark whether this will apply to day men. That point has already been answered. Then it was asked if it would apply to chairmen. It certainly would.
  Sir C. CORY: I, too, want to know what average rate means. Suppose you have six collieries in a district on varying rates would you add the rates together, or would you take the number of men in each colliery, calculate their wages, and divide the total by the number of men. How do you propose to get at the average?
  Mr. PETO: I should like to know what daily rate means. Does it mean the average rate of those men who are paid daily wages or does it mean the average sum received by every workman, whether working piece work or day-work? In both cases it would be an average daily rate of wages.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should have thought that the words were quite plain.
  332
  As I have already said the Joint District Board, in fixing the minimum rate, are to have regard to what is the daily rate of wage paid to the workmen of the class. When dealing with a particular district, surely the Joint Board will be able, on representations from both sides, to settle the average daily rate of wage paid to the workmen of a given class. That is all they are asked to do. These words carry out what was stated in the Debate on Friday.
  Sir C. CORY: I have had no answer to my question, and I ask for a reply, to which surely I am entitled.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I regret very much that the Attorney-General has not seen his way to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh). I can assure the Government and the House that if this Amendment had been accepted it would have gone a long way in the direction of making the Bill acceptable to the miners. During the course of the Debates on this Bill we have had Member after Member getting up and stating that they could not accept the Schedule of rates put forward by the miners' representatives without examination, and that it would simply be taking those rates without having an opportunity of discovering whether they were fair rates or otherwise. The owners, in the course of the negotiations that have gone on regarding the question, have also stated that the Schedule of rates attempted to fix a higher wage than was actually being earned in the respective districts that the Schedule covered. The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend would obviate that difficulty, because the Joint District Board would only fix the minimum after careful inquiry, and after they had taken every possible means of discovering what was the actual average wage being earned by the various classes of workmen in their respective districts. If an individual minimum wage was fixed on that basis, I do not think that the coal owners would stand to lose so much as they are attempting to make us believe that they would lose. I think that it would cause the coal owner to take greater care in giving the men proper facilities for doing their day's work. That is exactly the opposite of what is being done to-day. During the past five or six years we have had no less than 150,000 extra persons dumped into the mines of the country, with the result that the mining population has had short working time, and has had a greater spell of the unemployment problem

  333
  than ever we had during any previous period in our existence. If this Amendment is to have the effect of causing the management to readjust their methods with a view to giving the workmen greater facilities, so that the workmen would have an opportunity of giving them the best day's work they were capable of doing, I do not think the colliery owners would stand to lose so much as they are trying to make us believe they will do. I hope that, notwithstanding what has been said by the Attorney-General, the Government will yet see their way to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to the deletion of the words "amongst other things." I think it must be common knowledge to everyone that where you have a reference to an arbitration, where you get one particular matter specified "amongst other things," to which the arbitrator is to give attention, that is the principal thing to which the arbitrator will give attention. Therefore it is quite sufficiently introduced if you have the words "amongst other things." If you leave out those words there will be a great temptation to the District Boards to consider nothing but the average daily rate of wages existing in the district. I understand it is the intention of the Government that the District Boards shall not only consider the average daily rate of wages, but shall take into consideration all the other matters which are pertinent and material. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why not leave in the words "amongst other things," so as to make it perfectly plain that the average daily rate of wages is not the only thing which must be considered. I will ask him to reconsider the opinion which he expressed just now, I think somewhat hastily, when he said he had no objection to the deletion of those words. Everyone must have recognised the sentiments which the hon. Member (Mr. Walsh) expressed, but if he insists upon his Amendment, will he not really be preventing the objects which he has in view, because if he succeeds in inserting in this Clause the words "the District Boards shall not fix a rate of wages less than the average daily wage," surely he will prevent a great many of these Sections being worked at all. Let me give an instance. There is a provision that if a District Board finds that a particular mine or group of mines ought not to have the district
  334
  rate applied, they may consider the conditions applicable to the mine or group of mines. If he gets a hard and fast provision in the Bill that the District Hoards shall not fix a rate less than the average rate in the district, the District Hoards will not be able to give effect to that provision.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: I, for one, very much regret the attitude the Government has taken up in this matter. After all we have not conceded, as far as the Bill is concerned, the two main points which the miners have been contending for the whole of the time—namely, the Schedules for the hewers or the figures for tins day men. The object of the Bill when it was introduced was to get the strike settled, and I think the Amendment is much more likely to be effective in that direction than the very vague language inserted by the right hon. Gentleman. The reason why many Members refused to insert the figures was because they felt that one figure would not do for the whole of the country. What the hon. Member has proposed is not to have a hard and fast figure all over the country, but to take the existing rates in the districts. That is a reasonable proposal, and one which the Government might very well have accepted Some reference has, been made to an agreement with the coal owners. I should like to know what the object of an agreement with the coal owners is. The coal owners have refused to come to the assistance of the Government in settling the strike. If they had agreed to the 5s. and 2s. we should have finished the Bill. I do not say whether they are right or wrong, but they have refused to settle on that question, and I do not see that we are bound in any way by an agreement such as is said to exist. We are trying to pass this Bill to settle the dispute, and therefore I think that an alleged agreement with the coal owners—an agreement of which we are not cognisant, and to which we are not in any way parties—should not bind us. If such an agreement exists, we should know its terms. I know from conversations I have had with most moderate trade unionists in my own Constituency that one of the fears the men have, rightly or wrongly, is that somehow they are going to be disadvantaged in the fixing of the minimum rates. That is one of the reasons why we want a minimum rate indicated an the Bill. I should have thought that under any Bill any reasonable Conciliation Board would

  335
  naturally have regard to the average rates. There should be such directions given to the Boards as would enable the men to form some idea of what the minimum rates are to be. We are told that we should not hamper the Boards. I do not see why we should adopt such an attitude. Nor do I see that we should be paralysed by any instructions given to the bodies we create. I do not see why we ought not to give instructions. It is our duty to give instructions as to what are our intentions. We have had speeches from hon. Members who are continually getting up and saying that they are in hearty sympathy with the principle of the Bill, and that they are in favour of a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, but when we come to putting anything in the Bill we are told that we must not do it, and that we should leave it to outside bodies. If the Amendment goes to a Division I will support it.
  Mr. SANDYS: I oppose this Amendment because it has been urged upon me by the representatives of the collieries in Somerset that if embodied in the Bill it would have a very disastrous effect on their industry. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said it was necessary to have some directions embodied in the Bill to enable the Boards to settle the minimum rates with regard to the various classes of workmen. He said that he considered this average daily rate should form the basis for consideration. I do not yet understand whether this is to apply to piece workers or not, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to clear that up. I should like a further explanation as to how this is going actually to work out. If it is going to be the governing consideration, and if the Boards are going to fix a minimum wage by that governing consideration, and supposing that a certain body of men are earning 5s., and another body of men employed at the same class of work are earning 7s.—the average working out at 6s.—is the Board to regard that amount as the governing consideration and to fix the rate at 6s.? Suppose that the Act has been in operation for twelve months, then on three months' notice being given the whole question can be reconsidered. Meantime the average has been altered. Those who were previously paid 5s. are now paid 6s., while those who were paid 7s. previously are still paid 7s. Consequently the new aver-
  336
  age will go up to 6s. 6d. If, therefore, that is to be the governing consideration observed by the District Board, then when it comes on for consideration the next time the same advance will occur. It seems to me, therefore, that this is a most serious fallacy in this Amendment which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to clear up.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The previous Amendment safeguarded the existing rates. The District Board has no power to interfere with them in fixing the minimum. What we are now considering is the case of men who are paid very low wages, and what rate is to be fixed for them. The Government Amendment proposes that infixing these rates—
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Not the Government Amendment, my Amendment.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I take the name on the Paper. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton) says that regard is to be had, among other matters, "to the average daily rate of wages paid to the workmen of the class for which the minimum rate is to be settled." What my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) proposes is to leave out the words "have regard," and insert "shall fix a rate not less than the average of the wages paid to workmen of that class." Perhaps the Government think that it is a small point. We do not. "Have regard" is undoubtedly a sort of indication to the Joint Board of what they are to have in mind when fixing the rate of wages. If you say in plain language, not lawyer's language, but the language of the average man, "fix a rate not less than," everybody understands that, and it will tend to make the Bill more acceptable to the miners. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sandys) and others, you might spend a little time here discussing what an average is. That does not affect this. It is a term perfectly known to the trade, and perfectly familiar to employers and employed, which has grown up and become part of the language of the coal trade, and what appears to hon. Members as difficult will present no difficulty in reality when the matter comes to be considered by the owners and the workmen and the Joint Board. On the face of it, obviously it means the average earnings per day of the class of men for whom the wage is to be fixed. That is what the Amendment says, and, I believe, what it means, and if you

  337
  are going to give the Joint Board any sort of guidance at all in the matter, you could not give them any safer guide than the average earnings when you propose to fix the minimum. I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which makes clear what is now obscure and does not alter the meaning, because, obviously, if we want the District Board to do what my hon. Friend says it should do, the words he proposes would make the matter perfectly clear.
  Mr. E. JARDINE: If this Amendment of the hon. Member, who always speaks so fairly in this House, and who has the admiration of all parties in trying to soothe this fearful and bitter quarrel, were accepted, the effect would be this: All will admit that if two men working in the same position, one, a man of superior physique, energy, and of greater skill, will earn twice as much as the other man who is lazy, incompetent, and unskilful, when both are working under exactly the same conditions. The one will earn 10s. and the other 5s., and I think no one will dispute that, who understands labour. The effect of this Amendment would be at once to establish that, where the average piecework price was a fair price, admittedly a fair price, you take these two men, one earning 5s., because he is incompetent, or for some other reason, and the other earning 10s., and you add the two sums together—you can add together the earnings of 200 men if you like—and you immediately make an average of 7s. 6d. The Amendment, if accepted, therefore, would simply mean that the incompetent or lazy man would have his wages raised 50 per cent., and he would be getting 25 per cent, from the man who was earning twice the money. It is a most dangerous Amendment, and one which I hope the Government will realise that it is impossible to accept. Even the 5s. and 2s. would be preferable to the Government's acceptance of this Amendment. I therefore oppose it.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I would suggest that the difficulty might be got over by leaving out the word "average." To begin with, the principle of the minimum wage is ipso facto accepted. I think the object of my hon. Friend below the Gangway is that the workman, in submitting his case to the District Board, is not to be damnified by their decision. The workman is not in future to get less than he is getting now, and the meaning of that would be that the Board would have to consider
  338
  the circumstances under which the man is working, and they must also consider the circumstances of the colliery in which he is working at the present moment. I think to insert these words "average daily rate of wages" of the district is an absurdity. We all know that in mines circumstances vary extremely, and what is a fair rate of wages in one mine is not necessarily a fair rate in another. Why should we tie the hands of these Boards in any way whatever? Why should we not leave it to both parties, who are properly represented before the Board, under a chairman who, no doubt, will be thoroughly impartial. No point vital, either to the employer or the employed, could be overlooked. How could it be overlooked? The miners would haves their representatives and the employers would have their representatives, and either side could call attention to any particular point. If we advise the Board to have regard to one particular point, they may assume, though I do not think they ought, that that particular point is the standard on which they are to base their decision. It seems to me that we might get the instructions to the Board framed in a clearer way than in the words now proposed. I would recommend the taking out of the word "average" and to make it clear to the Board that no workman is to be damnified in any way for his present position. That, I understand, is in the Bill now. If that is so, all we have got to do is to get rid of the word "average" and avoid unnecessary instructions to the Board.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the effect which the acceptance of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman might have on Clause 3. Clause 3 provides for the revision of the minimum wage at the end of a year, and that the revision shall be determined by the same rules as are laid down for the primary fixing of the minimum wage. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) proposes that the minimum wage shall be not less that the average daily wage that exists now. If the minimum is fixed at not less than the present average it is quite obvious that from now onwards, all wages below that being eliminated, that the average must necessarily become higher than before. Consequently, at the end of the year, when the revision takes place, the minimum fixed again must necessarily go on increasing, and must be fixed at a higher rate, quite independent of any justice or reason given

  339
  for it. Consequently it will always be in the interests of one party to claim revision to get a higher average than before.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I may refer to the words of the Prime Minister on Friday, on which I believe this Amendment was literally drawn. I prefer the words of the hon. Member for Ince, the "existing wage" being a more definite carrying out of the words than the "average wage." I think the House will see, when I read the Prime Minister's remarks, that the words are open to verbal correction. The Prime Minister said:—
  "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"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1912, col. 2270.]
  I think that that answers the criticism with regard to the Government Amendment which we are now considering. If the words "average daily wage" are open, as I believe they are, to much of the criticism which has been passed upon them, I would suggest the substitution of the words "existing rates of wages in the district." That would faithfully and fully carry out the Prime Minister's pledge of Friday last.
  Mr. AMERY: If the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Ince were accepted it would be distinctly against the interest of the mine owners to employ any men at a wage above the average, because by so doing they would be raising the average wage for a large number of men, and therefore the very effect of the Amendment would be to lower the maximum down to the average. The whole object of the minimum wage, whatever meaning is given to the words "have regard to," is that it should be substantially below the average wage, so as to give an inducement to people to do efficient work, and it should be above the abnormally low wage which is created by abnormal places or deficiencies in the mine. The whole object of this Bill, I understood, was to enable men to earn a
  340
  tolerable wage even in difficult, abnormal, unfair circumstances. But if you once make the wage of the worst workman as good as the average between the bad and the best workmen, you destroy every incentive to efficiency and every inducement to an owner to employ good men and pay them a good wage.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: It is necessary to be quite clear as to what the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ince is. My colleague suggested that the words were "a rate not less than the average daily rate," but another Member has suggested that the word "existing" is used without the word "average." That would be fatal. As far as South Wales is concerned, the whole controversy has arisen over abnormal places. If you are going to take as the minimum the "existing" wage, you may have a minimum of 1s. 4d.
  Mr. WALSH: The average daily wage.
  Mr. E. JONES: Then the hon. Member does not propose to insert the word "existing." He wishes to provide only that it shall not be less than the average daily rate. I cannot see why there is all this objection on the part of owners to the Amendment, and I certainly cannot understand why the Government are not accepting it. The Prime Minister's words mean that, if they mean anything at all. An hon. Member says that it is putting in the Schedule. It is nothing of the kind. Take the position in South Wales as it would work out if you agreed to the form suggested by the hon. Member for Ince. First, assume that you have a colliery now paying a minimum rate. Under a Clause already in the Bill that colliery will come out; it stands apart. Suppose the minimum for the future is 7s. 6d., and you have a colliery now paying 8s., that colliery will continue to pay 8s. Divide the collieries that remain into two classes—the few that pay good rates of wages and the many in South Wales which, according to the owners, are doing badly and pay low wages. Let us see how we can work it out for the coal owners as well as for the miners if you ask the Board to fix it at not less than the average daily rate. Take a good colliery with good seams and good roads, where the bulk of the men are earning good normal wages that must necessarily be much above the average. It will not affect those collieries one bit. Take those collieries that are paying rather badly—if we believe the owners—what is going to be the position there? I really

  341
  cannot see that here this is going to be of very much value to the miners. The whole position, so far as South Wales is concerned, is this: Here you have a number of stalls in a colliery where a number of men earn normal wages, and a large number of men in abnormal places earning ridiculously low wages. Obviously, if you are going to put these ridiculously low wages that have been in existence for the last twelve months in South Wales and which have created the whole of this controversy and forced this strike upon the country, to strike the average, it must necessarily be a very low one, considerably lower, I think, than the Schedule of the Federation.
  Therefore I want to press upon the Government that if they will work out the effect of this section by section they will find that there is not very much in it for the miners in figures. I cannot see at all upon what ground the coal owners are raising any objection to it. There is no serious objection that can be raised on the ground of the classes of workmen. Take the day wage men. The coal owners now pay the day wage men an average — or more than an average, 4s. 11d., 5s., or 4s. 6d. If, then, the coal owners' contention is right, they need have no fear of a minimum fixed above the average. I hope the Government may see their way to accept the Amendment for other reasons. There is not much in it financially for the miners, but there is very much in it so far as a settlement of this strike is con-
  cerned. We have not been able to accept the figures urged by the men. This thing is substantial—very substantial, as I think it will be in sentiment, in the effect and power that it will have tomorrow upon the minds of these thousands of men. It is mainly upon those grounds that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince made the speech that has earned for him many compliments. I do appeal to the Government at this last moment to reconsider, and not to stand upon little questions of detail and forms of words when there is this great controversy that we want to get settled. I appeal again in the hope that the form of words may be accepted by the Government.
  Mr. GIBBS: I do not like this word "average." If the average is going to be the minimum, it will mean ruination to some of the mines in this country. In Somerset and Bristol, if the average were made the minimum, it would mean an enormous increase in the cost—so great that many mines would have to be closed up. The Board of Trade, when they went into this matter, found that an increase in the working cost of the Bristol mines would mean that they would have to be closed altogether.
  Question put, "That the words 'have regard' stand part of the pro posed Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 101.

  Division No. 57.]

  AYES.

  [11.10 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. S, J.

  Agnew, Sir George William

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Bentham, G. J.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Armitage, R.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Baird, J. L.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Boyton, James

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Davies, Timothy (Lines, Louth)

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Doughty, Sir George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Butcher, John George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Campion, W. R.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Eyres Monsell, Bolton M.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Barnston, Harry

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Falconer, J.

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Chaloner, Col, R. G. W.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Clough, William

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Beauchamp, sir Edward

  Clyde, James Avon

  Fleming, Valentine

  Gardner, Ernest

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  George, Rt. Han. David Lloyd

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Goldman, C. S.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Goldsmith, Frank

  M'Callum, John M.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Grant, J. A.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Griffith, Ellis J

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Sanders, Robert A.

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Manfield, Harry

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harcourt, Rt. Hen. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Mort no, Percy Alport

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Swift, Rigby

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Munro, R.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks. Abingdon)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Ogden, Fred

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hickman, Col T. E.

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hills, John Waller

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Shee, James John

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Waring, Walter

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Trades folk

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  King. J. (Somerset, N.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Winterton, Earl

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

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

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

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Leach, Charles

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South shields)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hinds, John

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hodge, John

  Alden, Percy

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Barnes, G. N,

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Hudson, Walter

  Barton, W.

  France, G. A.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brace, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Lansbury, George

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Dawes, J. A.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Dr Forest, Baron

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  344

  345

  Middlebrook, William

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wardle, George J.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Snowden, P.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Worrell, Philip

  Spicer, sir Albert

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Needham, Christopher T,

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Neilson, Francis

  Sutton, John E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Grady, James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomas James Henry (Derby)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wor s., N.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Richards, Thomas

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Walton, Sir Joseph G.

  Roberts and Mr. Pointer.

  Rowlands, James

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move in the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "amongst other matters."
  I understand the Government are prepared to favourably consider this Amendment. It goes rather further than the pledge given by the Prime Minister last Friday, and, therefore, as it would clearly, in the ordinary course, restrict the Joint District Board to the average daily rate of wages, I beg to move.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I hope the Government will not yield to this Amendment. The Government have all through the two Debates in Committee and on Report said they will not give directions to the Joint District Boards, but will leave them to decide for themselves. If they take out these words, they do leave one simple direction in the Bill. As long as these words are in the Bill, they will consider this with other matters. If you take them out it shows a desire to limit their consideration to the one question of the average wage which we do not think desirable. The Government have yielded a good deal this evening, and I hope they will not yield any more.
  Mr. BUXTON: I propose to agree to leave out these words which, in my opinion, are not of very great importance, as they neither greatly restrict nor greatly add to the directions to the District Boards or chairmen. This Amendment was made in accordance with instructions given by the Prime Minister in response to the appeal of the hon. Member for Mansfield, on Friday. But attention was drawn to the fact that these added words might possibly limit what he desired, namely: that this question of the average daily rate should be a matter to which the attention of the District Board and the chairman should be especially called: it was suggested that the addition of the words might weaken that purpose, and under the circumstances, in accordance with the undertaking my right hon. Friend gave to the
  346
  House he desires that these words should be excised. Personally, I think the Amendment without the words will be more effective for the purpose the Prime Minister had in view.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: A more laboured excuse for accepting an Amendment was never offered before. The Prime Minister made it perfectly plain in his statement on Friday that in agreeing to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Mansfield he was only agreeing to something which he said the District Committees would do without any direction. In carrying out that idea it was specially put in that the District Committees were to consider amongst other matters the average rate. The words "amongst other matters" were deliberately put in for the express purpose of limiting the Committee in the decision it was to come to, and by taking them out, what the Government are now doing, is deliberately lessening the powers of the Committee, while they have themselves explained over and over again that the whole principle of this Bill is that matters can only be dealt with by the Committee, and that no definite instructions of any kind should be given by the House of Commons. I think the concession the right hon. Gentleman has just made is a very inadvisable one. If the matter is pressed to a Division, I should vote against leaving out these words, but I hope my hon. Friends will not think it necessary to take up much time in discussing a matter so plain that everyone can understand it.
  Mr. NEWTON: On Friday last I asked the Prime Minister a question to which he gave me a courteous reply. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether any instructions would be drawn up for the guidance of chairmen as far as securing the safeguards which the Government were anxious to apply for one party to this dispute. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that it would be most improper that any instructions should be

  347
  given to the chairmen of these Joint District Boards. I shall be very glad now to hear from the Attorney-General how he reconciles the giving of guidance and instructions to the chairmen in the interests of one side with the statement of the Prime Minister that in the interests of the other side it was most improper that any instructions should be given.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has forgotten what it was the Prime Minister did say with regard to this matter. I will refer the Leader of the Opposition to the words of the Prime Minister, from which he will see that by leaving out the words "amongst other matters" we are carrying out exactly the pledge which the Prime Minister gave to the House, and which we thought the House had agreed to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why put them in?]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Was this Amendment drafted without consideration by the Cabinet?
  Mr. J. WARD: Is it not a fact that in moving this Amendment to-night—I made a note of it at once—that these words were left out, and were they not left out when the Amendment was read from that box.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The President of the Board of Trade undoubtedly stated that he was willing to leave them out, because there had been representations made about them. I will read the words used by the Prime Minister on Friday. It is these words we are dealing with.
  Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: No, it is not.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Surely, when an hon. Member says that we are doing something contrary to what the Prime Minister has stated, I am justified in referring to the words the Prime Minister used. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Next, in regard to what was said by the hon Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) T 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 he had by the Joint Districts Boards to the average daily rate paid for work of that class in the district."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1912, col. 2270.]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Read the rest of the speech.
  Mr. NEWTON: Will the Attorney-General read the Prime Minister's answer to me?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I can only deal with one point at a time. The Leader of the Opposition asked me to read the rest of the speech. What does he mean?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I want the part which followed.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is this:—
  "I do not think that any Joint District Board which understood its functions would fail to take this into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1912, col. 2270.]
  That carries out exactly what I was stating to the House. That was that regard should be had to the average daily rate. Some fears were expressed by hon. Members below the Gangway as to the use that might be made of the words "amongst other matters," if inserted in the Amendment, and they consequently say, "we prefer to adhere to the exact words used by the Prime Minister on Friday." It is in order to give effect to that that we propose to leave out these words.?
  Mr. NEWTON: It is no doubt my fault, but the Attorney-General did not understand what I said when I referred him to the Prime Minister's answer to the question I put to him, a question which he very courteously answered, although it was a Friday.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That surely does not touch the point. Undoubtedly the question was raised, and has been discussed again and again, as to giving definite and distinct instructions in the Bill to the Joint District Board. This carries out exactly what the Prime Minister said, and what we thought was agreed upon by the whole House.
  Mr. SANDERSON: May I put a question to the Attorney-General? Is it not intended that the District Board should consider other matters besides the average daily rate? [HON. MKMBERS: "Of course it is."] Then why in the world do you leave out the words "amongst other matters." If you leave out the words, and give an express direction to the tribunal to have regard to one particular matter, is there not a grave risk that that tribunal will come to the conclusion that that is the only matter which they have to decide?
  Question put, "That the words 'amongst other things' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 267.

  Division No. 58.]

  AYES.

  [11.30 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baird, J. L.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grant, J. A.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, W. R.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, H.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barrie, Hugh T. (Londonderry)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

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

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Royds, Edmund

  Begland, Alfred

  Hills, John Waller

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

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, James

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bridgeman, w. Clive

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Butcher, John George

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Campion, W. R.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cassel, Felix

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Swift, Rigby

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cave, George

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

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  McCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Winterton, Earl

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Fell, Arthur

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Remnant and Sir A.Griffith-Boscawen)

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brocklehurst, William B

  Duffy, William J.

  Adamson, William

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Edwards, Enoch, (Hanley)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)>

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

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, II.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, II.)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Essex, Richard Walter

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

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Armitage, R.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Ffrench, Peter

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Clough, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Barnes, George N.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Glanville, H. J.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Goldstone, Frank

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Barton, William

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

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

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

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Dawes, J. A.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Black, Arthur W.

  De Forest, Baron

  Hackett, J.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dillon, John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Brace, William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brady, P. J.

  Doris, William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthy Tydvil)

  350

  351

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rowlands James

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Middlebrook, William

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Millar, James Duncan

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Molloy, Michael

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Hinds, John

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charlec E. H.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Hodge, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morrell, Philip

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Munro, R.

  Snowden, Philip

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hudson, Walter

  Nannetti, Joseph p.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Neilson, Francis

  Sutton, John E.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Mehioneth)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Dowd, John

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Joyce, Michael

  Ogden, Fred

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Grady, James

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Wadswotth, J.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Malley, William

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

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

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walton, sir Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Shee, James John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lansbury, George

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wardle, George J.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Waring, Walter

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Leach, Charles

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Webb, H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  White, James Dundas (Glasgow)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lundon, T.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lynch, A A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Wiliams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Reddy, M.

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Richards, Thomas

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

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Manfield, Harry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Question put, "That the words 'and in settling any minimum rate of wages the Joint District Board shall have regard to the average daily rate of wages paid to the workman of the class for which the
  minimum rate is to be settled' be there inserted in the Bill".
  The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 139.

  Division No. 59.]

  AYES.

  [11.42 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Adamson, William

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Brace, William

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Brady, P. J.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Ainsworth, John Stirling)

  Barton, W.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Armitage, R.

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Clough, William

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lansbury, George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  Reddy, Michael

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richards, Thomas

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Lough, Rt. Hon, Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, Timothy (Louth)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Lundon, T.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  De Forest, Baron

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Den man, Hon. R. D.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dillon, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McGhee, Richard

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Doris, W.

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

  Rowlands, James

  Duffy, William J.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  McCallum, John M.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Manfield, Harry

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ffrench, Peter

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marks, Sir George

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Snowden, P.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gill, A. H.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meehan Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Middlebrook, William

  Swift, Rigby

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Molloy, M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hackett, J.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Thorne, W. (West Ham)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hardie, J. Keir (Werthyr Tydvil)

  Munro, R.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Neilson, Francis

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wardle, George J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Waring, Walter

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Webb, H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wedgwood, Josiah c.

  Hinds, John

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Dowd, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hodge, John

  Ogden, Fred

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Grady, James

  Wiles, Thomas

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Malley, William

  Williams, J. Glamorgan

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shee, James John

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

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

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H.

  Keating, M.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William, R.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Barnston, Harry

  354

  355

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. William

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

  Grant, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. G. A.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Boyton, James

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

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Butcher, John George

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Campion, W. R.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Clyde, James Avon

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stewart, Gershom

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull Central)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lewisham, viscount

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Touch, George Alexander

  Dairymple, Viscount

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Doughty, Sir George

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Malcolm, Ian

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M,

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Winterton, Earl

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mount, Wiliam Arthur

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Newton, Harry Kotingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  G. Lloyd and Mr. Pollock.

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "for" ["provide for"] insert the words, "securing equality of voting power between."
  Leave out the words "voting as separate classes."—[Mr. Buxton.]
  Mr. L. HARDY: I beg to move in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "casting vote," and to insert instead thereof the words, "deciding voice."
  I think it must be clearly seen that while it may have been possible for Conciliation Boards to settle rates with a casting vote that when it comes to Boards which have to decide all the intricacies of district rules, safeguards, and all other matters, that it is very important that the chairman should have the deciding voice and not merely a casting vote. The Government have tried to avoid making the chairman into an arbitrator, but they cannot do so. They will have to face it in Clause 4, where they make him into an arbitrator. I do ask the Government to consider whether it is not most desirable
  356
  that this question should be left so that all these matters can be decided on their merits and not merely on a question of a casting vote. Under Clause 4 the chairman becomes the District Board in order to bring about a settlement within the time. When he becomes a District Board what power does he have. That is only a temporary clause, and you have to look back to Clause 2 to discover what his powers are. I think it is desirable that some clarifying words should be introduced. I press on the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question of the casting vote in order that these matters may be decided on their merits.
  Mr. BUXTON: As the Bill stands, the chairman has a casting vote only in what I may call the earlier stage of the proceedings, and if the Joint Board are unable to come to an agreement as to rates and rules, then he has the power of deciding for himself. It was proposed on a former occasion that the chairman should at the initial stages, have this power of decision. I promised to

  357
  consider the matter, at the same time stating that I preferred the process proposed in the Bill. I have considered that point, and I adhere to the view I then took. We all desire that in the earlier stages the chairman should act rather as a conciliator than as a chairman with powers of decision. I think that is the better way of getting agreement, and that is the procedure well known in the coal mining trade. From that point of view it would be a mistake to give the chairman too great a power at the earlier stages of the proceedings. If in the end the two sides are unable to agree, then the chairman will have to decide the rules and the rates. As regards how far the Clauses 2 and 4 conflict, I have Amendments on the Paper to make the point clear, and I think there is no doubt whatever that the Clauses will not conflict.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: "In Sub-section (2), after the word "classes" ["between the two classes"], insert the words "of members."—[Mr. Buxton.]
  Mr. WALSH: I beg to move, in Subsection (3) to leave out the words "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 districts 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."
  Considerable attention was given to this matter in the Committee stage, and I rise only to suggest that the sub-division of which this Clause is capable should be, if not prevented, at least much limited. The first part has special reference to the formation of a Joint District Board for a particular area which may be described as a joint district, but the latter part very seriously undermines the value of the earlier portion. It is whittling down the value of the measure. If there is any value in the Bill it is that there shall be a definite district within which the rates are settled, and the employers have something like equality of conditions. If you begin to break up the districts and have smaller areas, employers in those areas may have to meet unfair competition, and the workmen may not be on equal terms.
  12.0 M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Gentleman says that we discussed this at some length in Committee, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by discissing it again. But the words read into this Subsections that follow. The hon. Member will see that there are some Amendments put down by the Government.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4). This is, I conceive, the very worst Sub-section in the Bill. Subsection (3) is already subdivided dovn to "classes of workmen" to whom the general district rules and minimum shall be applicable, but this subdivides down to the classes of workmen in any mine. There are Amendments on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, but we are anxious to delete the Sub-section. It serves no useful purpose. It would really play into the hands of the employers, who would get small bodies of men to agree to be exempt from the operation of the general district rule. It would do away, or very largely do away, with the efficiency of collective bargaining in the mines.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second this Amendment. The Amendment put down by the President of the Board of Trade does not meet the point raised by us. There are a number of large colliery companies in various parts of the coalfield. Some are employing as many as ten to twelve thousand men, and have a large number of pits under their control. Some of these pits may be pits at which no profit is being earned, while taking the whole concern, a good profit may be earned. These groups under the Amsndment of the President of the Board of Trade would have the pits where no profit was beang earned brought up and reviewed. That would not meet our poin at all.
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think my hon. Friends have quite grasped the effect of my Amendments to Sub-section (4). We have given the matter careful consideration and great attention, and we thnxc it is quite as much in the interests of the men as the owners that the District Board should have some power of elasticity with regard to certain groups of mines. As the Clause stood in the Bill, these powers not only applied to groups of mines, but to single mines, and to classes of wcrkr men in mines. My Amendments exclude

  359
  that, as I think it would have extended the elasticity too far. We limit the application to classes of single mines, and we take out the words "any classes of workmen" for the reasons given by my hon. Friends, because the impression left upon members on both sides of the House who studied the Sub-section, was that it gave powers to the District Boards to take men working in particular mines, and to fix a different minimum rate for them. That was never intended, and we have cut out these words and the words remaining will be "groups of mines." That will keep the elasticity from the Boards, but will not in any way interfere with the general principle on which the Bill is based. I think that really meets the case made by my hon. Friends, and I hope it will meet with the general assent of the House. There will be sufficient elasticity, but not excessive elasticity, given under the Clause as it will be when amended.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: One question as to the word "groups." The President of the Board of Trade conveyed that it was not the intention of the Government where there were different seams in a mine that the men should work under different conditions. There are cases where one seam in a mine may be profitable, while another could not pay higher wages without leading to its closing. If you are going to fix the same principle for one mine you destroy the whole question of differentiation. I have a mine in my mind where the average wages earned by men working at one seam of coal would be 10s. 6d., and at another seam in the same mine the average would be 9s.—a difference of 1s. 6d. I know another mine where the average wage earned at one seam is 9s., and in the second seam 7s. What does a "group" of mines mean, then? Does it mean one mine or two or three or four mines?
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move in Sub-section (4) to leave out the word "shall" ["(4) The Joint District Board of any district shall"] and to insert instead thereof the word "may." The word "may" is not so imperative as the word "shall," although I admit that the Amendments to be moved by the President of the Board of Trade are an improvement on the Clause as originally drafted.
  Mr. WALSH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I wish to support this Amendment. The object of it is that discretionary power should be given to the District Boards.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in Sub-Section (4) to leave out the words "coal mine within the district or of any" and to insert instead thereof the words "group or."
  Sir F. BANBURY: As the Clause originally stood if there were a certain number of mines in a district and only one was just paying, then the District Board could not take into consideration the circumstances of that mine. As the Clause will read with this Amendment the group of mines will have to be considered. As far as I can see there is nothing which defines what a group is, and "group" is a word which the District Board will have to define. It must mean more than one. In case there are six or seven mines in a group, and if out of that number there is one mine which is only just paying, that mine will have to be shut up or worked at a loss. I cannot conceive what is the object of giving the District Board discretionary powers to consider special cases and then putting a limitation on them and thus preventing them doing what it was the intention of the Government they should do. It is evident these words very seriously alter the power of the District Board to deal lightly with mines where, if the actual minimum rate for other mines is applied, the only result will be that they will be closed and the workmen will lose their employment. Having settled a very large number of Amendments in Committee, we are asked by the Government on the Report stage, which was supposed to be formal, to reverse what we have already done. I will not say they have departed from their pledges, though they are really sailing rather near the wind on this occasion. Unless the Attorney-General can inform us how it is meant to define a group, and unless I am wrong in thinking the re-Bult will be to destroy poor mines altogether, I think we ought to divide upon this Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: I always thought we had a Report stage rather with a view to considering questions which had been discussed in Committee, and especially questions to which the Government said they would give their attention to see whether Amendments should be made. This is one of the cases where after careful consideration we did think if you had a whole series of mines excluded from the minimum rate fixed for a district there would be a considerable curtailment of the application of the principle of the Bill. It is not likely that the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman referred will occur. What is likely to occur is that a group of mines, which, of course, must be more than one mine, or a class of mine of a particular character, might be shown to be in a peculiar position and might deserve special consideration. It would then be for the District Board and for the chairman to consider whether under these circumstances proper cause could be shown for treating them in a different way. I have already explained that the words "different class of workmen" has given rise to some misunderstanding. Really the words are not necessary. They are covered by the words "group of mines."
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I must say I do not understand the object of this Amendment. It seems to me to be entirely contrary to the principle on which this Bill was introduced to the House. The provision was deemed so very important that, although but comparatively few details were given when the Bill was brought in, this matter was specially mentioned, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. The sole object of the differentiation is that if the mine is found to be of such a nature that it cannot be worked at the same minimum rate of wages as other mines in the district, the effect of this Bill shall not be to close the mine. Any District Committee would desire to make such a provision ii it could possibly be done, and the natural instinct will be to have the area as wide as possible. But to deliberately make this Amendment is contrary to the principle of the Bill, and is done with an object which cannot possibly be justified to the House.
  Mr. BOOTH: The case of a group of mines in West Yorkshire is fully met by this section as amended. But I think it will not add to the smooth working of the Board to enable a particular colliery at any time to keep on raising its own case.
  362
  In West Yorkshire there will be from twenty to forty mines at least that would go as a group, and it would not help the case of any one of them if it tried to hold out for a separate decision on its own account. But I think the effect of this proposal will be entirely opposite to what the miner's representatives wish, and I wish to throw out this caution. The change no doubt meets our case in West Yorkshire: we shall be considered as a group. But should there be one colliery in a different locality which desires a very low minimum the effect will be disadvantageous to the rest because very probably the District Board and the chairman will hesitate to decide upon a minimum which they enow will close even one mine, and it will most likely be found to be the case that, the miners themselves will come forward for an amendment of this Act in the future in an entirely opposite sense. I mention this in order to put the House in full possession of the possibilities of the position. The change meets our case in West Yorkshire, but it may be there is an odd mine which stands in a unique position, and then the operation of the Amendment will be as I have stated.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: It seems to me that the Government Amendment is a most fatuous proposal whether in the interests of the men or of the owners. It does, not appear to me to be likely to make for peace. If you have a district in which there are two mines to whose special conditions the general district minimum rate could not apply you can consider them separately. But if it happens to be a district in which there is only one such mine to which the minimum rate would not apply it cannot be dealt with separately. It is an absurd proposition. Hon. Members must see there is not really any advantage to them whatever. Sub-division was provided for in Clause 6, as originally drawn. I think it is a great pity that the Government have given way on this point. There is a good deal in what has fallen from the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), that by insisting on keeping your district larger and not taking into consideration the cases of special individual mines you will tend to prevent the District Board from fixing so high a minimum rate as they might otherwise do.
  Sir C. CORY: May I put the case of a district in the Rhondda Valley, where at one pit coal of second class value is drawn, while in the same area there are other pits

  363
  which produce only very high priced coal. Would you have the same minimum in both cases?
  Mr. AMERY: I would venture to put one further point. So far as I understand the wording of the proposed Amendment, a District Board may be empowered to make special arrangements in the case of one district where there are three mines employing about fifty men apiece, and may not be empowered to make special arrangements for one mine where there are 1,000 men employed. Surely the wording of the proposed Amendment is entirely unsatisfactory.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish to ask whether it is the intention of the Government that the word "mine" shall mean a colliery, or shall mean a seam. In Lancashire the word "mine" means one of the seams, and a colliery may have as many as five or six mines in it, while two or three collieries may each have six-seam mines. Considerable confusion has been caused in that way. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) used the word "mine" as if he meant a colliery. The whole sense of this Amendment will be quite different from what hon. Members think it is, unless we make the meaning quite clear.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: That will come under the definition of a coal mine contained in the Coal Mines Regulation Act.
  Sir C. CORY: There is no reference to the Coal Mines Regulation Act.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: That is rather an important point, and it ought to be made quite clear. May I ask the Attorney-General whether the word "group" means mines in the same locality or contiguous to each other?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It means a group of mines in a district.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Take the ordinary level of drifts. Does it mean that house coal drifts are one group and that steam coal drifts are another group?
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment which I think will deal with the point. It provides that in sub-divided districts, sub-division shall be made by the Joint District Board in respect of seams as well as in respect of localities, so that the sub-division should be not merely superficial—that is to say, it shall not be horizontal, but, what is far more important, vertical. There might be a far greater difference between seams as to conditions of quality and thickness and prices if taken vertically than if taken superficially. But that matter will more properly be discussed on Sub-section 5, and I only thought it might assist the House if I informed it that I have an Amendment down on the subject.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It may be my fault or the lateness of the hour, but the President of the Board of Trade's answer conveyed no meaning to me whatever. He said that if the mines were separately dealt with by the Joint District Board it might seriously imperil the principle of a minimum wage. I do not know what the principle of the minimum wage is, and I do not know whether the Government know. But the minimum wage is to be adjusted to the circumstances of the case, and why not to the circumstances of each, case and not only to the circumstances of every two or three cases? This is meant as a concession to the Labour party, but it does not seem to me that the Labour party or anyone else get anything out of aa arrangement frankly foolish. If you can trust a District Board with all the enormous powers this Bill is going to give them you can surely leave them the question whether the mines can be dealt with separately or in a group. I think the Government, after reflecting for twenty-four hours, might have produced a defensible Amendment of a little more intellectual creditability than the present one.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.
  The House divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 255.

  Division No. 60.]

  AYES.

  [12.34 a.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Boscawen, sir Arthur S. T. Griflith-

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Boyton, J.

  Baird, J. L.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Balcarres, Lord

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Banner, John S Harmood-

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Butcher, J. G.

  Barnston, Harry

  Bigland, Alfred

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Barrie, H. T.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortetcue

  Cassel, Felix

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Cave, George

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Knight, Captain E. A.

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Starkey, John R.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Glazcbrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Grant, J. A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks.,Abingdon)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Perkins, Walter F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Hills, J. W.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Frederick Banbury and Mr. J. Mason.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Adamson, William

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Dillon, John

  Hudson, Walter

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Doris, W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Duffy, William J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Ruthcliffe)

  Armitage, R.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Atherley-Jones, Llewell n A.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Joyce, Michael

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Keating, M.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Ffrench, Peter

  King, J. (somerset, N.)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstable)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  France, G. A.

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

  Barnes, George N.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lansbury, George

  Barren, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  Barton, W.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Leach, Charles

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Glanville, H. J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bonn, W. W. (T, Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Greenwood, Granville (Peterborough)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Lundon, T.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Brace, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Brady, P. J.

  Hackett, John

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Manfield, Harry

  dough, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hayward, Evan

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Crumley, Patrick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hinds, John

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

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Middlebrook, William

  Davies, Timothy (Lines, Louth)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Molloy, M.

  366

  367

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Morgan, George Hay

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Morrell, Philip

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Munro, R.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wadsworth, John

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Richards, Thomas

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Neilson, Francis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Waring, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Webb, H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Rowlands, James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  O'Dowd, John

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ogden, Fred

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Grady, James

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Malley, William

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Williamson, Sir A.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  Pearce, Robert Staffs, Leek)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Young, w. (Perthshire, E.)

  Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Question, "That the words 'group or' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Further Amendments made:—
  Leave out the words "or in the case of any class of workmen."
  Leave out the word "mine" ["of the mine or class"], and insert instead thereof the word "group."
  Leave out the words "mine or workman," and insert instead thereof the word "mines."
  Leave out the word "mine" [''that mine or class"], and insert instead thereof the word "group."
  Leave out the words "or class of workmen."
  Leave out the word "mine" ["applicable to that mine"], and insert instead thereof the words "group or."
  Leave out the words "mine, or class of workmen," and insert instead thereof the word "mines."—[Mr. Buxton.]
  Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to move the deletion of Sub-section (5). I think after what has already taken place in Subsection (3) and Sub-section (4), the necessity for Sub-section (5) has practically disappeared. The protection now given by the Bill extends to classes of mines in any district or group of mines in any district
  368
  upon good cause being shown to the District Board. Surely there is no need for any further sub-division? The Noble Lord below the Gangway wanted to know the reason why, if it was right to give; protection to any group of mines, it was not equally right to give protection to any one mine, or, indeed, as he put the question, to any single workman. I wonder whether the Noble Lord has ever heard of the process known in arithmetic as the greatest common measure. That surely is the whole object of the Bill to begin with that the greatest common measure of agreement shall be found in joint district for which the Board acts, and that, so far as that greatest common measure applies the decisions of the Board shall apply; but that there may be, as we have never denied certain conditions that would entitle a particular body of employers perhaps to relief. That has been amply provided for. The relief necessary in exceptional cases has been amply provided for in Sub-sections (3) and (4). You give power to separate your district in Sub-section (3), for special treatment of special classes. In Sub-section (4) you have enabled groups of mines or classes of mines to be taken, and surely that is as far as you ought to carry your exemptions.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: This seems a different point from the last. This gives power, if the District Boards desire, to divide any particular district into parts. In the Committee stage an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle in which he suggested that instead of allowing the committees to sub-divide to an unlimited extent they should be allowed to divide a particular district mentioned in the schedule into two parts. That seemed to me a very reasonable proposal. The next Amendment I have put down will limit that power of division to two, except by agreement, and, I hope, under the circumstances, my hon. Friend will allow the Sub-section to remain in.
  Amendment negatived.
  Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "a minimum rate," and insert instead thereof the words "minimum rates."
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move after the word "district" ["district rules"], to insert the words "into two parts or, if the members of the Joint District Board representing the workmen and the members representing the employers agree, into more than two parts."
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I confess I do not know whether the Government have inquired how far this Amendment will apply to the case of Scotland. The House will see on referring to the schedule that Scotland is given as composing one district. The effect of this Amendment would be that the Joint Board, acting through the neutral chairman as conciliator and arbitrator, would not have power to subdivide the whole of Scotland into more than two districts. I frankly hesitate to think that that is desirable. There are at least five separate districts in Scotland where different classes of conditions prevail. These are Lanarkshire, Fife and the Lothian, Ayr and Dumfries, Argyll, Stirling and Dumbartonshire. I may point out to the House that Staffordshire is divided into three parts, an additional part having been added in Committee. These are North, South (excluding Cannock Chase), and Cannock Chase. Really it seems to me that if these powers of sub-division are necessary in the case of Staffordshire, at least power ought to be given in the schedule, if it is thought desirable after the full consideration of the Board, and acting under the opinion of the neutral
  370
  chairman, to so sub-divide Scotland. Possibly the Government have considered the point, or perhaps it has not occurred to-them; but, in any case, I should be very glad to know their view. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will complain, of my raising the matter.
  Sir C. CORY: I think the same thing applies to the case of Monmouthshire. If you agree to the Amendment, certainly you ought to separate Monmouthshire from Wales.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I should like to invite some reason from the Government as to why a district may be divided into two without the agreement of the representatives of the employers and the men, but may only be divided into three or more if they agree. On what principle can that be based? I do not want to travel further than the immediate Amendment, which may have a very serious effect upon an Amendment which I propose, with. Mr. Speaker's permission, to move after this, with a view to defining more closely what shall be a district for the purpose of the Bill, and with a view to enabling subdivisions to be more elastic. There can be no logical reason why a district should be a district in two parts without agreement, and should only be a district in three parts or more by agreement. There is no reason in it at all. If you are going to trust the chairman and Joint District Board, why not trust them more fully? Why limit them? I cannot help suspecting that because this Sub-section is disagreeable to some hon. Gentlemen on the other side below the Gangway this modification is proposed. We have it that they do not want sub-division at all, and as you would not get agreement there could not be more than two parts to a district. I would also point out that the district which you are getting under this section as it stands is a district reckoned solely by surface.
  To take the example given by my hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), Scotland may be divided into two sub-districts without agreement, but how many classes of coal as regards quality and thickness, and how many conditions of work and differences of price at the pit-head exist throughout Scotland? And yet you are to treat the whole lot as one. The thing in itself is ridiculous. By a previous Amendment the question of the average daily rate has already been dealt with. If Scotland is to be divided into at most two-parts without agreement, what is going to happen

  371
  with regard to the average daily rate? It has got to be reckoned all over Scotland without reference to the different conditions. When the Joint District Board comes to consider the question of the minimum rate they will be very slow to adopt one which would have the effect of shutting down mines, and, therefore, so far as the men are concerned, they are likely to get a, lower minimum than they would get if the subject were treated with more elasticity. It is a matter which rests very largely upon the conditions in different seams underground. You may get a seam, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) says, where a miner may fairly ask as a minimum wage for his day's work 7s. 6d., 8s., or 9s., or in the same seam only 5s. or 6s. If the minimum is fixed with reference to the best seam you are not going to work the worst seam at all. If it is fixed with reference to the worst seam, the miners are not going to get as much as they might fairly expect from working the best seam. Those, therefore, who are opposed to elasticity are really injuring the cause they seek to promote.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the last remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman are directed more to the elasticity of the Sub-clause than the particular Amendment with which we are dealing. We have already discussed that at some length, and passed it. The case of Scotland was undoubtedly considered, and considered very? carefully. What is intended by the Amendment is that there should be one sub-division in that agreement, and thereafter you may further sub-divide subject to agreement. It would be very easy, of course, to say, as no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, why should you do it a third time by agreement, whereas before you do it by order of the District Board?
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes to appreciate my point. As I understand, the last clause dealt with what the District Board might do within its district. This Clause deals with what the district shall be. It is a totally different point.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What we are really dealing with here is the sub-division of districts. We considered what was put to us in Committee, and came to the conclusion that it was reasonable there should be some limitation placed upon the right
  372
  of sub-division, but no limitation where there was agreement to sub-divide, and that is the Amendment we are now upon.
  Mr. ADAMSON: For the last thirteen years we have had one Conciliation Board for the whole of Scotland, and one district rate of wages. During that time we have had all the various classes of coal to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, and I have never heard, even on the part of the employer, any desire for sub-divisions.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Not one district rate of wages?
  Mr. ADAMSON: We have had one minimum arrangement for the whole of Scotland.
  1.0 A.M.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg to propose an Amendment, the character of which I have already indicated. I do not intend to trespass further on the time of the House, but I do attach importance to the Amendment. It is not on the Paper, but I have given notice of it to the Government. The Amendment I propose is to insert at the end of the Sub-section (5) the words "and in making any such Sub-division a seam underlying the whole or any part of the district may, for the purpose of fixing a minimum rate, be treated by the Joint District Board as a district." This is not a proposal to create new boards. It is the same Board dealing with the same district. The next point is that you do get in the same district a number of different seams and also in the same shaft different seams, and different profit and different selling power. The hon. Member who spoke just now (Mr. Adamson) was good enough to refer to my ignorance of Scotland. Let me refer him to Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Take these counties as a district and fix your minimum wage in reference to the top hard seam or in reference to the low main seam. The one can fetch a much higher price than the other and can enable much higher wages to be paid to the worker You want elasticity. The greatest importance exists in distinguishing between the different seams underground, even in the same district. I would remind the House that we have no definition of a mine here. If you did have even the definition, which the hon. Member for Mansfield has alluded to, you would still have difficulties unless you accept this Amendment. What I want is to give a wage an reference to the possibilities

  373
  of the mine, and to give the fairest wage you can. You should not deal with the matter from the superficial point of view, but from the point of view of the seam.
  Mr. MOUNTseconded the Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The difficulty in the way of accepting this Amendment is that the districts are all mapped out geographically and not with reference to the seams running from one county into another. If we did not deal with them as here we would get into the most hopeless confusion. Supposing the same seam ran from Northumberland into Scotland, you would have a Joint District Board dealing with Scotland.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: No, no. Only when it is in the district.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am dealing with the matter in regard to the seams. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is affected by the Clause we have already dealt with, and is therefore, unnecessary, because its object, I think, is carried out without adding the words the hon Member desires.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: The hon. Gentleman has as great a lack of knowledge with regard to Derbyshire as he had with regard to Scotland. He cannot have any knowledge with what operates in Derbyshire. What obtains there is that for a very long time we have had an arrangement with the coal owners throughout the whole of the county. It has worked so harmoniously that we are desirous to retain it. It is not necessary that we should have a division in Derbyshire. The owners would not like it. It is well known by those who live in the districts surrounding Derbyshire that we have managed our business as well as anybody in the whole of the United Kingdom, and we have not done so by a division of districts, but by a united district. It does come with bad grace from a stranger to tell us to alter a system which has operated so well in these districts.
  Amendment negatived.

  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 this Act any occasion arises for the exercise or performance in any district of any power or duty under
  374
  this Act by the Joint District Board, and there is no Joint District Board for the district, the Board of Trade may either forthwith or after such interval an may seem to them necessary or expedient, 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 the Joint District Board within three weeks after the time at which it has been recognised under this Act for any district fail to perform any duty with respect to the settling of the first minimum rates 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 three weeks shall for the purposes of this Sub-section be substituted for three weeks, this Sub-section shall have effect as if that specified period were therein substituted for three weeks.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to insert at the end of Sub-section (1) the words, "the Board of Trade in. any such case where it appears to them that the necessity for the exercise of their powers under this provision arises from the failure of the employers to appoint members to represent employers on a board when the workmen are willing to appoint members to represent workmen, or from the failure of the workmen to appoint members to represent workmen on a board when the employers are willing to appoint members to represent employers, may, if they think fit, instead of appointing a person to act in the place of the Joint District Board, appoint such person as they think fit to represent the employers or the workmen, as the case may be, who have failed to appoint members to represent them; and in that case the members so appointed by the Board of Trade shall be deemed to be members of the Board representing employers or workmen is the case requires."

  375
  The object of the Amendment is in case of the appointment of the District Board, either side declining to appoint their representative it can, in these circumstances, be left to the Board of Trade to appoint the members of the committee. It is hoped that neither side would, in any case, decline to send their representatives, and it does not follow that the Board of Trade might necessarily carry out that course, but as a measure of precaution it is thought expedient to take these powers, which I think should never be used.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In Sub-section (2), leave out the words, "perform any duty with respect to the settling of," and insert instead thereof the word "settle."
  After the word "district" ["with respect to the settling of the first minimum rates of wages and district rules in that district"], insert the words, "or if the Joint District Board, within three weeks after the expiration of a notice for an application under this Act to vary any minimum rate of wages or district rules fail to deal with the application."
  Leave out the words, "perform that duty" ["the chairman of the Joint District Board shall perform that duty"], and insert instead thereof the words, "settle the rates or rules or deal with the application as the case may be."
  Leave out the words "the Board of Trade on a report from" ["on a report from the chairman of the District Board"].
  Leave out the word "direct" ["or if the Board of Trade on a report from the chairman of the District Board direct"], and insert instead thereof the word "directs."—[Mr. Buxton.]

  CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation and Provision as to Chairman.)
  (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 pur-
  376
  poses of this Act, or by the Board of Trade 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. BAIRD: I beg to move in Subsection (1) after the word "ironstone" ["The expression 'coal mine' includes a mine of stratified ironstone"], to insert the words, "except where stratified ironstone occurs outside the coal measures." At a previous stage of the Bill the Attorney-General said stratified ironstone would not be included in the definition where it was not included in the dispute. There is a small ironstone mine in Scotland where the quality of the ironstone is low, and it will be impossible to utilise it unless it is obtained at a low price. Otherwise this promising industry would be closed down at the very start. The outlook now is favourable in a part of the country where it is hard to obtain work, and it would be impossible to carry on the experiment if the wages were raised. The Cleveland district ironstone-miners voted against the strike. It was the only district that did not want a strike. They were afraid of any alteration in the conditions of employment which might lead to their being thrown out of work owing to the mines being closed down. The quality of the ironstone mined in the Cleveland district and in Scotland is very much lower than that which comes from abroad, and there is great risk of this trade being stopped altogether if these districts are included under the Bill.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to second this Amendment, but I am not sure that the Government may not consider that possibly at goes further than even my hon. Friend intends. Under these circumstances I would ask the Government to take some special steps to consider the case of this island in the north-west of Scotland which was referred to. It would be undesirable of course to have a special rate for ironstone miners where there are coal miners working alongside. I recognise that that might give rise to friction; but in the case of this island there are no coal mines anywhere near, and I think the Government might well take that case into consideration.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Amendment goes much further than, I think, the hon. Gentleman who moved it intended. It

  377
  would cut out various ironstone mines which are not intended by him to be excluded. I am afraid it is much too wide. If his point is merely to exclude the island to which he referred, we will consider how to meet it, and it shall be met.
  Mr. BAIRD: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The Clause contains a definition of the persons to whom this Act is not to apply. These are persons "employed solely in surveying or measuring, or an official of the mine." It is felt that the Clause as drafted would exclude numbers of bond-fide workmen from the benefits to be conferred, presumably, by this Act. Who is an official it is difficult to determine. The new Mines Act brings in quite a number of workers of various grades—deputies, firemen, timbermen and others of that type—all these might be classed as officials and so be excluded from this Act. I beg to move to leave out the words, "an official" ["or an official of the mine"] and to insert instead thereof the words, "who is a manager, or under manager, or other official who may be declared by mutual agreement by the joint committee not to be a workman to whom this Act applies." It will be observed that this Amendment does not lay down any hard and fast rule as to who are to be classed as officials. The Amendment leaves that to be decided mutually between the miners and the owners, and as it requires agreement between the two sides obviously no injustice can be done.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONseconded the Amendment.
  Mr. BUXTON: This is rather a difficult question involving a definition as to how far, if the word "official" is left in, it may put outside the Act certain men whom we have no desire should be excluded from its benefits. I have been in communication with the Home Office on the matter, and if my hon. Friend will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment, I shall be disposed to move it more or less in the same words, which will, I think, carry out his objects. I propose to leave out "an official of the mine," and to insert "or any manager or under-manager of the mine, or an official of the mine who is recognised by the Joint District Board as not being in the position of a workman."
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to leave out the words "an official of the mine" ["a person employed solely in surveying or measuring, or an official of the mine"], and to insert instead thereof, the words "or any manager or under-manager of the mine, or an official of the mine who is recognised by the Joint District Board as not being in the position of a work man."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move after the words last added to insert the words "or a person employed as mechanic."
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Does this Amendment cover the case of those who go occasionally down a mine?
  Mr. BUXTON: These words cover the point which the Noble Lord has raised.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask what is meant by "or a person employed as mechanic." I suppose "a mechanic" is what is meant. Would the right hon. Gentleman see that his Amendments are written in English in future?
  Mr. BUXTON: Obviously this is a clerical error.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is this to apply to an engine-keeper underground or simply to an engineer who goes down to construct or repair an engine?
  Mr. BOOTH: Does it include the smith who goes down occasionally to shoe the ponies?
  Mr. BUXTON: In reply to the hon. Baronet, I understand the Amendnment is he proper drafting.
  Mr. WALSH: This word "mechanic" has given us more trouble than any other under the Eight Hours Act. We have had scores of employers who have been trying to bring in the man who repairs a rope or looks after small parts of the engine, as a mechanic to whom the Eight Hours Act is not applicable. In the Committee stage we pointed out what confusion was likely to arise under the Eight Hours Act, and it has arisen. I am afraid we are going to have similar difficulties on this Bill.
  Mr. L. HARDY: I beg to move to add the further words, "any person whose principal duties are above ground."

  379
  This is really the point raised in the Committee stage—as to whether it is safe to leave out any reference to the people who go down a pit occasionally to do odd work. Electricians were mentioned during the Committee stage, and I do not think they can be quite called mechanics. I do not quite know what "mechanic" is without the "a." The hon. Member for Pontefract has mentioned the shoer of horses. There are a good many people who go down in connection with the ponies. There are the veterinary surgeon, the sadler to mend the harness, and various other people. If we look back to the first Clause we see mentioned "an implied term of every contract for the employment of a "workman underground." Therefore words are wanted to exclude those people sent down on. special jobs who are certainly not underground workers in any sense meant by the hon. Members of the Labour party. We are all agreed on the point, but the definition is not full enough.
  Mr. BUXTON: This point was raised in the Committee stage, and I can only answer now as I did then. Persons employed only intermittently would not come under the provisions of the Act. It is intended to apply only to those who are bond fide underground workers. We think they are fully covered by this definition Clause.
  Mr. L. HARDY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the two first lines of the Bill? It is no use the Government saying they intend to do a thing unless they do it.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am not a draughtsman or lawyer. I think the words referred to in the first Clause mean a workman employed underground in the ordinary sense of the term and not one intermittently employed. I have looked into the matter, and I am assured that that is the position. I will look into it again.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  SCHEDULE.—Districts.
  Northumberland.

  Durham.

  Cumberland.

  Lancashire and Cheshire.

  South Yorkshire.

  West Yorkshire.

  Cleveland.

  380

  Derbyshire (exclusive of South Derbyshire).

  South Derbyshire.

  Nottinghamshire.

  Leicestershire.

  Shropshire.

  North Staffordshire.

  South Stafford (exclusive of Can-nock Chase) and East Worcestershire.

  Cannock Chase.

  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 beg to move to leave out the 'word "South" ["South Yorkshire."]
  For the life of me I cannot understand why Yorkshire should be divided into two districts. Since the year 1881, when the miners of the two districts amalgamated into one organisation, the whole of the business has been done between the one organisation and the owners' association in the district. Now both those districts are in one conciliation area, and the Joint Board's work, so far as compensation cases are concerned, is the work of one Board for the whole of Yorkshire. If this is allowed to remain in the Bill as two districts we are liable, under an Amendment recently carried, to be split up into four districts. I think the Government ought to reconsider the matter, and place us, at all events for the time being, as one district.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. L. HARDY: I hope the Government will not go away from the schedule without very careful consideration. There are a good many reasons which could be given for this division. I think the most important fact we have to face is that, although undoubtedly there has been one district—one Board as it were—for the whole of Yorkshire, there has always been two associations of coal

  381
  owners, because the coal owners have recognised that, so far as they are concerned, it is impossible to work Yorkshire in one district. It is an interesting fact that at the end of last year these very questions in connection with which this dispute has arisen, were coming up. There was an attempt to deal with these questions locally by a Joint Board sitting with representatives of South and West Yorkshire, and they failed to come to an agreement. Just before this minimum question was raised they sought to discuss it, and, if possible, to settle it in separate districts, namely, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, so that it is actually the case that, so far as this type of question is concerned, they had already found it was necessary to separate those two districts. Therefore, we come here with a very strong claim when we say that these questions can only be adequately dealt with in this way. On the last two occasions on which this subject was before the House, I think, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A Markham) emphasised the great difference there was in West Yorkshire. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has also alluded to the matter again and again, and it was brought out in the Conference. In the case of the Midland Federated area and Cannock Chase the necessity for division has been recognised, and that being so, it cannot be said that South and West Yorkshire should not be divided.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am, afraid I must resist this Amendment. We considered the question of West Yorkshire very carefully. I do not think any one who attended the Conference thought South Yorkshire or West Yorkshire could be dealt with as one area. The whole circumstances of the coal trade in Derbyshire and Staffordshire and the methods of working are quite different.
  Mr. WADSWORTH: In those districts there are separate organisations. If there were two separate trade organisations in Yorkshire we should have no objection to division.
  Mr. BUXTON: As regards the miner, it is quite true that of late years there has been one association, but for many years there were two associations. Their interests seem different, and in many respects antagonistic, and, though the endeavour was to treat the district as a whole, it was found impossible, and it was
  382
  agreed by both sides that they should be treated separately. I am told there is an additional reason in respect of railway rates, and that the alteration of these figures would give rise to many financial difficulties. I hope, therefore, the House will support the proposal in the Bill for the division of Yorkshire, in the circumstances.
  Mr. BOOTH: I would like to appeal to the Yorkshire Miners' Federation in regard to this matter, and, speaking on behalf of the West Yorkshire mine owners, there is not the least wish that the miners' organisation of Yorkshire should be split, up or divided. The hon. Member knows that many of us in West Yorkshire regard the organisation at Barnsley as our best friends. The enemies we are afraid of are not the Miners' Association, who in Yorkshire give us every consideration, but the rival owners in the South. I want to appeal to the hon. Member to protect us in West Yorkshire against the rival coal owners in the South. The House has had evidence this week that some of them are ready to gobble us up. We shall hive to state the case for our mines before it joint board, including a number of owners. We have heard one in this House. He did not mind if a certain number of mines were closed. On behalf of those who would expire, I claim that we have the right to wriggle, and perhaps groan, before being sacrificed, and I want to appeal to the hon. Member whether he is prepared to hand over a number of mine owners, with whom he has always dealt on fair terms, to the owners of South Yorkshire, who will not show us the consideration which he shows us. I would appeal to him on account of the miners, in whose interest, I think, it is better that we should be kept separate. I sympathise with the efforts of the miners to get as high a minimum rate as possible consistent with the position of the collieries, and I think that the mine owner who wants to keep the rate down should have upon him the burden of proof to show sufficient cause. I am entirely with the hon. Member on that point, but I ask him to consider whether it is in the interest of the Yorkshire miners that the coal mines in West Yorkshire should be grouped with the South, thereby giving the arbitrator an opportunity of making a lower minimum over the whole county. I take this opportunity of saying I know more than one mine which would be closed to-day but for the miners' agents having come down to

  383
  our local people and appealed to them to give employers full consideration. I make that acknowledgment with gratitude.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I should like to ask the Government as to the definition of a district like South Yorkshire or Cleveland, for example, because, although those districts are no doubt perfectly well-known in the coal trade, and have been worked as districts by the employers' and workmen's organisations, yet, at the same time, does it not require some further definition when you are specifying these districts in a statute? I should like also to ask what would happen supposing there is a mine which is not covered by any one of these districts, as might easily happen. Take Cleveland. There are ironstone mines in other parts of the North Riding not in the district of Cleveland. What would happen there? Surely some other and more close definition is required.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I hope the Government is going to accept this Amendment. Supposing the case put by the hon. Member for Pontefract had been made out, the Clause we were considering a few minutes ago giving a District Board power to group certain mines for a certain rate entirely covers that case. The point of view of the miners is largely that this 'Clause was put in not only against their will, but without their having been consulted. It is now quite clear from the two speeches of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Laurence Hardy), and the hon. Member above the Gangway (Mr. Booth), that this was put in by the Government at the instigation of the employers without the men having been consulted.
  Mr. L. HARDY: I may say that is not at all the fact. The case was again and again openly stated by the owners in presence of the men's representatives at the conference.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: But the employers claimed it without consulting the men, and the Government accepted it.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am not connected with any owners' organisation, and I was only aware of this division when I saw the Amendment.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The owners asked for this and they have got it, and the hon. Member is glad to help them. That is one strong reason why this Amendment
  384
  should be carried, but there is the further point, that if it is found in actual practice that the division of Yorkshire is required, that division can be made. We ask the House to restore Yorkshire as a unit. If it is found in practice that south and west are in danger of playing the part of Kilkenny cats with each other, then a division can be made and the objects arrived at by the schedule can be secured. I hope the House is not going in its very last division in connection with the Bill, to assent to the proposition that the Government should give way to the desires of the mine owners without even having had the courtesy of consulting the miners on the point.
  Mr. BUXTON: Neither side was consulted.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The miners hold it would injure their position. In what is probably the last division, do not let us send the miners away with this feeling rankling in their minds that this is an Employers' Bill framed to suit the employers—which I believe it to be—to the disadvantage of the miners.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BAIRD: I beg to move, after the word "Scotland," to insert the words "the mainland of."
  Amendment agreed to.

  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.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, after the word "Mines," to insert the words ("including mines of stratified ironstone"). The point of this Amendment is to alter the title so as to include the words "mines of stratified ironstone." It alters nothing in the Bill, as the Bill already says stratified ironstone is included. It is necessary in order to bring the Bill into harmony with the practice and forms of the House. It is unnecessary to say more, except in regard to one important matter which I can only do very briefly as you, Mr. Whitley, happen to be in the chair at this moment. You were in the chair when the matter was discussed very briefly in Committee. All I

  385
  desire to state now is that it is of importance that when a law officer makes a statement to the Speaker and to the House and it afterwards turns out that the law officer was mistaken in his recollection of a definition in a Statute that he should state it in the House and should state it to you. I desire to state that when the question did arise at the last moment before the question was put as to the Second Reading my recollection was that in the Coal Mines Act of 1911, the definition of coal mine included stone mines, shale mines and fire clay mines. The Act does not in fact deal with the four classes of mines, but I was wrong in thinking that the definition was coal mine. The definition was, in fact, mine. That is the whole point. I state that in order that the House might understand how the difficulty had arisen and that I might put myself right with you, Sir, and with the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

  THIRD READING.
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot allow the Third Reading of this Bill to pass without entering my protest against it and against the conduct of the Government in bringing forward such a revolutionary proposal. I speak only for myself. I believe that this necessity would never have arisen if the Government had carried out the proper functions of a Government in governing the country. What are the functions of a Government? First of all to protect life and property. If the Government, at the commencement of this strike had stated their determination to protect every man who desired to work I do not believe that this strike would have lasted a fortnight. Instead of doing that the Government attempted to interfere between employers and employed, which is not, in my opinion, their duty—a duty which they are incapable of undertaking, which they have tried to undertake during the last three or four years, with the result that they have intensified disputes. What has been called settlements have been only temporary, patched makeshifts, which have resulted in satisfying neither party, but which hare encouraged the party who have gained to go on with further strikes.
  Only this evening a right hon. Gentleman, representing one of the divisions of Islington, speaking in defence of the Government, made this statement; he said this was the most extraordinary
  386
  departure from legislative methods that he had ever remembered; and it is an extraordinary departure not only from legislative methods, but an extraordinary departure from the laws of political economy. It has been justified by the Government solely on the ground that it was a temporary measure which they believed would end the strike. It is a temporary measure which is not satisfying or agreeable to either party. Hon. Members below the Gangway have told us over and over again that they are not satisfied with the measure, and that the miners will not accept it. The Prime Minister told us to-day that the owners take the same view, and therefore what we are going to do is to make a departure the result of which no man can foresee, and the object of which will not be attained by the passing of the Bill. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have made my protest. I should certainly, if it was worth while, have divided the House, but as the House has chosen to adopt this policy—a course which eventually it will rue, and which must tend to the destruction of the prosperity of the country—I will not interfere with the course which it has so foolishly adopted.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I ought to apologise to the House for adding even five minutes to the length of the silting, but unfortunately it must be done. The House is fully aware that during all the discussions on this Bill my colleagues and myself have done our very best to make this a strike-settling Bill. We have failed. The Amendment upon which we put the greatest store, namely, the five shillings and two shillings Amendment, we pressed upon the Government. I believe that if that Amendment had been carried this Bill would have settled the strike. That Amendment was rejected in Committee, and it was rejected to-day. We therefore had to consult our colleagues of the Miners' Federation, and to report the whole case to them. In conjunction with them, and after very careful consideration of the whole circumstances, we have felt that nothing has been left for us bit to vote against the third reading of this Bill. Now, the position I have as a matter of fact, explained. We want results. We do not believe it is possible for the men to go in until something tangible has happened. They are not out for words; they are not out on sentiment. They are out for an increase of wages and for the establishment of a bottom wage which will have some

  387
  relation to the expenses of living. When men come out this House cannot expect them to go in until there is some reason for their going in. If this had not been a struggle in the coal trade this House would not have interfered at all. As I said the other day, if it had been carpenters or joiners who had struck this House would have stood by them. The strike would have gone on and would have been finished just in the ordinary way strikes are finished. But this House—I think quite rightly—in view of the circumstances of the case, was bound to take the strike into consideration. When it did take it into consideration it was bound to do by legislation just enough at any rate to enable the men to resume work. It has not done that in this Bill.
  Therefore it would be sheer folly on our part, it would be deluding the public, and it would be deluding this House, if we accepted this Bill as a settlement. Now in spite of us, the Bill will, I suppose, be earned, because the junior Member for the City of London does not yet lead the Conservative party. The Bill will be carried. We have had combinations today in the division lobbies which show how the Bill is being supported, and it will be carried. When it is carried it will be an element that has got to be taken into consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince, in the earlier part of this sitting, in eloquent language declared that he was a citizen first and a trade unionist afterwards. I have no doubt that in the conference that is to be held to-morrow morning by the Miners' Federation to consider its attitude to this Bill, my hon. Friend will deliver the same speech and gather the influence round about him to which he is entitled. But the position today and the position now is a much narrower one than that. We have to put to ourselves this question: in view of all that has been said by the Government and hon. Members opposite, speaking for capital, telling us of magnificent intentions while they were going to vote against carrying out those intentions, and in view of all these things we are compelled now to put this one, simple, narrow question to ourselves: Does this Bill grant to the men something sufficiently substantial, which would enable the men to resume work to-morrow morning, if they could only vote upon it? It does not.
  When the Bill is carried the men may consider how best it can be put into
  388
  operation in their interests; but there is no Member of the House who can get up and say that when this Bill is carried, whilst the minimum is being considered, whilst the districts are being divided and sub-divided, whilst all the elements that are going to settle wages are being taken into consideration—whilst, as a matter of fact, nothing but a few words have been inscribed on the Statute Book—a minimum wage that is limited, confined and taken away by subsequent Clauses and Sections of Clauses—whilst that is all that has been done for the men who have been out for two or thee weeks to go in and leave all the making definite of these Clauses to the courts of arbitration, to District Boards—I say it is simply playing, it is simply making fools of the men who have shown themselves to be so solid in their determination to improve their condition. At the same time, if the men can use this Bill by all means let them do so. But whilst they are trying to use it do not let us imagine that the strike is going to be declared off. This House has refused to help us to make the Bill effective. There are certain things in the Bill which, in the opinion of the men themselves, may make the difficulties of the trade union in the coal industry greater than they are now. The very subdivisions that the hon. Member for Yorkshire has drawn attention to are cases in point.
  We shall continue our efforts to bring something about that will make peace, and, as I have said, this Bill once passed will be an element in the situation. But we cannot possibly—we would be untrue to every principle we have put forward, to every attitude we have taken up from the commencement of this Bill—we cannot possibly go to the men to-morrow morning and say, "This Bill is so-satisfactory that you ought to resume work at once and await its application, knowing that you are going to get what you desire." Not being able to do that, we cannot vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, because that would be committing the men to a course of action to which we cannot conscientiously commit them. We regret that, and in a way that is very difficult to express. We are sincerely sorry that it is impossible for us to take up another attitude, but after careful consideration of the men concerned, and taking everything into account we have been reluctantly but unanimously compelled to come to the decision I have announced.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I sincerely regret the decision which my hon. Friend has announced, and I regret still more the language in which it is couched. I cannot help regarding it as very deplorable. My hon. Friend has chosen to stigmatise this very remarkable departure in legislation as being nothing but words. If it is nothing but words, it at least embodies the very words which the miners themselves went out on strike for. Has my hon. Friend really considered, or did he consider before he uttered that phrase, what were the words upon which the miners themselves balloted before they decided to embark upon a struggle of great moment to themselves, and of great gravity to the whole of the industries of the country—a struggle involving great suffering to themselves and their families, and greater sufferings to millions of other workmen in the land? These are the words of the ballot:—
  "Are you in favour of giving notice to establish the principle of a minimum wage for every man and boy working underground in every district in Great Britain?"
  Those are almost the words embodied in this Bill. This was not a vote taken upon a Schedule; it was not a vote taken upon a question of fixing a definite figure. It was a vote taken upon the principle of whether a minimum wage ought to be established. They decided to vote in favour of it; by a majority of four to one they struck on that. I say that that principle is embodied, and embodied for the first time, in the history of a great industry, in an act of the legislature which was carried by a majority of 120 in this House, and I think it is very deplorable that my hon. Friend should have treated that as if it was merely a matter of words, of no substance at all. Has he realised—I am sure he must have—what the Bill means?
  There is no mistake at all on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the import of the measure. It establishes for the first time in a great industry the principle of the minimum wage. It may be said that we are simply embodying the principle. But there is machinery for carrying that principle into effect. And let me point out that as far as the vast majority of those who are engaged in that trade are concerned, he was prepared to accept the method of the Government for carrying the principle into effect. I have followed the subject very closely for the past two or three weeks, and, after all, the 5s. and 2s. only applied
  390
  to a comparatively small minority of those who are engaged in the underground work of the mines. The vast majority are engaged in hewing and are on piece rates. My hon. Friend regards the machinery of the Bill for carrying out the principle of the minimum wage as, on the whole, adequate for the purpose. Why should he say, then, that in the case of those who are working for day wages it is pure words, if in the case of the hewers he is prepared to accept it as something substantial? I think he will consider, on reflection, that he has gone very much further than he himself would have wished to do.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am sure my right hon. Friend does not want to take an unfair advantage. No one knows better than he does how great a difficulty there was to get anybody even to consider what he is now referring to.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that is really the case. The miners, I understood, were prepared to accent the method embodied in the Bill for the purpose of settling the Schedules of minimum rates for the hewers in the trade. I am only answering my hon. Friend's point that this Bill is pure words. I am not referring merely to himself. If the miners' leaders thought that this machinery was pure words for the hewers, does anyone imagine for a moment that they would be prepared to accept it merely in order to get 5s. and 2s. for the datallers underground? They must have known that it was a substantial concession. The responsibility which they are now undertaking, what is it? It is a very grave responsibility.
  My hon. Friend is not satisfied with the way in which we have met certain Amendments. Well, we cannot all get ou way in Acts of Parliament. But even without the 5s. and 2s., what has he got? He has got for the first time a measure carried through the House of Commons embodying the principle of a minimum wage for one of the greatest industries in the land. He has got the machinery set up for the purpose of settling it He has got the legal method for enforcing it. Is not that a gigantic advance for labour in this country? Is he prepared to accept the responsibility on behalf of the Labour party of throwing out the first great Bill of the kind which has ever been introduced by a Government of this country, and carried through the House of Commons.

  391
  As a matter of fact he is not. Why does my hon. Friend intend to divide against the Third Reading. The words which he used are really the explanation. He assumes that the Bill will go through. He assumes that hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not undertake the responsibility of throwing it out.
  I do not believe even now if he knew that by a combination between his section and any other section of this House he would destroy a great measure fixing a minimum wage, he would accept that great responsibility. I ask him whether he thinks it altogether fair, whether it is altogether upright, whether it is a courageous course to take merely to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill as a protest, when he would not have accepted the responsibility of killing a measure of this magnitude, which marks one of the greatest advances of legislation for labour which ever he or I have seen carried through this House. I will say that I believe he knows that the Bill will be carried and that his Amendment will not be carried. Is he not accepting a very great responsibility in refusing, on behalf of organised labour in this House, the acceptance of this Bill; encouraging by that means the refusal to carry it into operation and by that means, without knowing how the machinery will work, without knowing whether that machinery will not give miners all they have asked for, undertaking the responsibility of plunging millions of people in this country into distress, and wretchedness, the consequences of which neither he nor I can see the end of.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: There is one point which requires to be cleared up. It has been referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite and has now been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point is that the ballot papers issued by the Miners' Federation did not specify any rates of wages but simply asked the miners to vote upon the principle of an individual minimum wage. That is the ballot paper. That is not disputed. But behind the ballot paper there was in every miner's mind the fact—[interruption]—I ask hon. Members and right hon. Members to remember this that a miner is not a lawyer. He does things very much by rule of thumb. He knows what his own meaning is but he does not draw up a document with the precision
  392
  with which a trained legal mind would. I want to repeat my statement and am going to prove it. In the miner's mind, when he was asked to vote for this principle, was the fact that a special meeting of the Miners' Federation, held on 14th November of last year, had passed this resolution: "That this conference, having heard the reports from all districts in reference to a demand for a district minimum wage, is of opinion that the best course to pursue at the present juncture, with a view to attaining that object with the least delay, is to negotiate nationally, and therefore we instruct the Executive Committee of the Federation to formulate a scheme for each district—a separate scheme for each district"—and the resolution goes on. Now, obviously, the ballot paper could not contain the whole list of figures, separate for each district ["Why not?"] Surely as business men you will understand why not. Schedules are not to be fixed by one million men. They were to be fixed by conferences at which the million men would be represented by properly accredited delegates. These conferences were to prepare the Schedules, the men were to decide on the general principle—a separate Schedule for each district being merely a detail. [Cheers.]
  Hon. Gentlemen are cheering too early. There were two figures which were not merely a detail. There were the 5s. and the 2s. I have said before that these were the base foundation of rates, and if these had been put into the Bill, as the miners have shown, they would have accepted them as the base rate, knowing that the hewers' rate would almost automatically have been fixed in proportion. But the base rates were cut out of the Bill. There is no foundation here upon which your Joint Boards can begin to build. It is because of the absence of that that the miners have come to their decision, and that the Labour party, after having considered the question in all its aspects, have come to their decision this evening. Let me add this remark, that no matter what decision the Labour party had come to, the miners would not have resumed work until the minimum wage had been fixed. It is as well that the House and the country should know that the responsibility for the strike going on is not due to the decision of the Labour party, but to the failure of the Government to implement the hopes that were raised when

  393
  they set out to deal with the question, and said they would deal with it in a manner that would settle the strike by putting into the Bill something which the miners could honourably accept and immediately resume work. Because that is not there, the Bill is practically of no use for settling the strike. We do not say it will be of no use in the future, but the Bill was not brought in for the future.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Might I ask the hon. Member of what use the Bill would be for the future if thrown out on Third Reading?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The Bill does not deal with the future. We are dealing with the strike now in existence, and not with the future. The Bill would never have been, heard of for the future. It was brought in to attempt to settle the strike. It is not going to settle the strike. That is the point, and, in order that the responsibility for the strike not being settled shall be placed upon the right shoulders, the party to which I belong have come to its decision, and will give effect to it in the Lobby.
  Mr. J. WARD: I am extremely sorry to be obliged to intervene in this part of the discussion. I have not spoken upon the main and general principle in the Bill. I have, it is true, taken some interest in the details of the measure, but now that it is in its final shape we are in a position to decide what our course is to be relating to it. We have just heard two very remarkable speeches—one from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) and the other from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). They, of course, are responsible for their speeches, and they, of course, must take the consequences; but one cannot forget that one heard from a man much more closely connected with this trade entirely different sentiments. If the speeches to which we have listened had been on those lines, namely, a gentle protest against Parliament interfering without doing what it was thought the situation demanded, but that when Parliament had done its best in reference to a great national crisis, it was well to face the new situation thus created in the spirit in which this Bill has been dealt with in this House, one could have quite well let the matter rest at that.
  But we have heard suggestions in the speeches just delivered as though
  394
  there had been a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government, who have had a very difficult situation to deal with, to raise hopes in the minds of the mining population of the country which this Bill in no way has brought to fruition. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. It is the suggestion that has been made. I have known a little about the pros and cons of this situation during the week from the inside, and I venture to say that no hopes have been created by the Government that have not been performed in this Bill. It is true that we shall have to do more. It is true that desperate efforts were made, especially last Friday evening, to get what is known as the 5 and the 2 included in the Bill, but, having failed in that, so far as the Schedules were concerned, there is not the slightest doubt that those who led the men were, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared, absolutely prepared to leave the Schedules to be settled by the very Bill that is before the House now. Yet it is declared now, at the eleventh hour, that the Bill is nothing but so many words, and it utterly useless for the purpose, when we know that, as a matter of fact, we were prepared to accept it, providing some other condition, which has nothing to do with the Schedules and the hewers at all, could be got outside. On purely labour questions I have nearly always voted and acted with my Friends.
  I am a trade unionist, and a trade unionist officer, and I say most distinctly be the House that I only wish I could get this Bill for my men on public works. I only wish I could get it to settle the dispute in the main industry in the Constituency I represent in this House. I assure you that I should not feel that I was doing my duty to the trade union movement, to which I have belonged now for nearly thirty years, if I put up my hand or gave a vote in this House against a measure that establishes a principle which I do not believe, if the opportunity of this national crisis had not occurred, we should have secured without at least a quarter of a century of ceaseless agnation. While one deplores the condition of affairs at the present time in industrial England, there will at least be one bright spot about it, and that is that Parliament, in its wisdom, in spite of its economic prejudices against the proposal, did face the problem when it was presented to it, irrespective of any preconceived opinions as to what was the right policy to pursue, grasped the difficulty as it was there, and then tried honestly to face it and settle it. In my

  395
  opinion the nation by this House—and I take it the nation is behind this House in what it is doing—has honestly attempted to meet with substantial justice the miners' original demand, and I at least shall support the Third Reading.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I want to say at once that I am vice-president of the Federation of whose committee the hon. Member for Stoke is a member, and I am astonished he did not tell the House the reason why he would like this Bill to apply to his own trade and to the potteries in the Stoke district. As a matter of fact, I know of no more disorganised trade than that represented by the Member for Stoke. I endorse every word said by the Leader of my own party. I think the Government has sold the pass. That is my conviction. I think the Bill is a Bill of words, and I am perfectly certain the men will not accept it. You set out to settle this strike. I admit that in negotiations it is a question of give and take. The miners agreed to let the Schedules go, but we adopt the principle that if you give something away you should get something else, and we asked for a minimum of 5s. a day. I cannot understand why the Government did not accept a condition like that, as the miners' leaders had agreed to tell the men to settle the strike. The hon. Member for Stoke said the nation was behind Parliament in this matter. I represent the most poverty-striken Constituency in the country—most of them poor Irish labourers—who are starving while trade is booming. What is the reply I get from these men? "Do your level best to settle this on honourable lines"; and the latest statement I have to-night is that the lines of this Bill are absolutely dishonourable lines. I am expressing the opinion of the man in the street in Leeds. He is out in the streets and is starving; but he will starve still rather than allow the Government to sell the pass on the miners. I wish to contradict the statement of the Member for Stoke. I say the nation is not behind the Government. I claim that the Government have simply backed up the capitalists, as they always have done in labour measures. Members on both sides of the House have urged the bringing out of troops to intimidate us and to drive the miners back. You can carry laws, carry resolutions, and bring your troops out, but, thank God, the men will starve rather
  396
  than go back on dishonourable terms. I hope the House will reject the Bill.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I am sorry I was out of the House when my leader made a reference to me. I am sure it was friendly. I did make a statement during the evening which I should have thought could not be taken exception to by any person who puts his citizenship first—the needs of his nation and his citizenship first, as I understand every Member of this House does when he takes the oath of allegiance at that box. We have tried—at least, I know every one of my Friends on these benches have tried—to make this Bill something more than a Bill of pious resolutions. It seemed to me—and I think so still—that a Resolution of the House a month ago embodying the principle of a minimum wage would have been almost as good, so far as any tangible benefit is concerned, as this Bill; but I consider that when we have done our best, when we have tried to amend the Bill, as far as possible, when we have failed to carry even the slightest Amendments that we thought might give some little vigour and force to that which at present is very vague and intangible, when we have done our best and have failed, then I say I am prepared to vote with my party against the Third Reading.
  But, after all, this House is the best judge of its own affairs. This House, after all, is the sovereign body, and if it lays down things in an Act of Parliament, it seems to me then the clear duty of every citizen to make the best of the thing that is, to evolve, with the common sense which, after all, distinguishes members of trade unions and the people with whom they negotiate, the best out of a Bill which at present we believe to be not nearly so good as we had been led to anticipate from the Government themselves. We may have been wrong in that anticipation, but the very strong speech made to us by the head of the Government some time ago in the Foreign Office was thought by every one of us to give a pledge of something more definite than is contained in this Bill. I have never given any indication that this Bill met my views. I have more than once pointed out distinctly that the Bill seemed to me to be a soulless and emasculated measure, but the overpowering strength which the Government have brought to bear against us will defeat us in the Division Lobby. Having done our best to amend it, I hold that

  397
  when this measure becomes an Act of Parliament it is the bounden and solemn duty of every person to make that Act work as well as he possibly can, and not— so far as is in his power—hold the country still in pain and travail. It is his bounden duty to do all that lies in his power as a
  responsible leader to relieve a situation which is rapidly becoming intolerable.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 48.

  Division No. 61.]

  AYES.

  2.40 a.m.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Addison, Dr. C.

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Ogden, Fred

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

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

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Shee, James John

  Armitage, R.

  Herbert, Colonel Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Hinds, John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barton, W.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Beck, Arhtur Cecil

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

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

  Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Bentham, G. J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, Michael

  Brady, P. J.

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Leach, Charles

  Rowlands, James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Clough, William

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lundon, T.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scan Ian, Thomas

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macpherson, James Ian

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  McGhee, Richard

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Dawes, J. A.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Manfield, Harry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dillon, John

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Tennant, Harold John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Doris, W.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Duffy, William J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Meagher, Michael

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford N.)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Middlebrook, William

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molloy, Michael

  Waring, Walter

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  France, G. A.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Watt, Henry

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Morgan, George Ha

  Webb, H.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Morrell, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Munro, R.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Needham, Christopher T.

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

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

  Neilson, Francis

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

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

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nolan, Joseph

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Hackett, J.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Sutton, John E.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Brace, William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lansbury, George

  Wadsworth, John

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  O'Grady, James

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gill, A. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Richards, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  George Roberts and Mr. Pointer.

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes before Three o'clock a.m.