§ (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.
224§ (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. AMERYI 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 HARDYMay I ask on what authority the right hon. Gentleman says conferences are being continued at the present moment with reference to this question?
§ Mr. BUXTONThey were being conducted when I left a quarter of an hour ago.
§ Sir CLIFFORD CORYI think my right hon. Friend—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think we had better proceed with the matter in hand.
§ Mr. BUXTONWith 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. CORYI 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. SPEAKERThat 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. CORYI 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. SPEAKERBecause one irrelevant statement is made that is no reason why others should be made.
§ Mr. BUXTONI 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 BANBURYAs 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.
229| 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 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 LONGI 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 HARDIEOn 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 LONGIf 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 LAWAs 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 MACDONALDThe 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 MINISTERI did not seek to apportion the blame or the responsibility.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDIt 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 MINISTERAfter the Act is passed.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDAfter 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 HARDYI 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. LONGAfter 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. BRACEI 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. BUXTONAs 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. BRACEMay 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 CASTLEREAGHThe hon. Member who moved the Amendment has done so in a persuasive manner—
§ Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Noble Lord is opposing the Amendment. Should it not have a Seconder?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Amendment was proposed and seconded before. The hon. Member in making his second speech spoke by leave of the House.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHThe 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.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHI 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. POINTERHon. 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 CASTLEREAGHHon. 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. BUXTONI 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. HARVEYI 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. NEWTONCan the hon. Gentleman give us the figures for the federated area as opposed to Scotland and South Wales?
§ Mr. W. E. HARVEYI 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 MARKHAMThe 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 LAWSONNobody said "No."
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI thought the hon. Member did.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONNo. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI 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. CORYThe 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. MARKHAMI did not say so.
§ Sir C. CORYI think I am in the recollection of hon. Members.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI said the Government, but not the owners.
§ Sir C. CORYThe 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. MARKHAMWhat 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. CORYI 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.
§ Sir C. CORYThe 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. BRACEMay 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. CORYAccording 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. SPEAKERThe 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. CORYI 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. RICHARDSThe 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. CORYThe letter the hon. Member referred to was written privately, but I can give the name. It was Mr. Jones, of Mount Llanelly.
§ Mr. T. RICHARDSI 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. MILDMAYWe 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 HARDIEThe 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 CECILIt was not successful.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEI 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. ROWNTREEIs the hon. Gentleman sure that if the figures were fixed work would be resumed?
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEMy 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. McLARENI 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. LOUGHSo 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. DILLONWe did not get half the court to represent us.
§ Mr. LOUGHWhat 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. HARVEYIf this would be against the miners, why are the coal owners opposing it?
§ Mr. LOUGHThe 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 MONEYIt 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. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is anticipating to-morrow evening's Debate.
§ Mr. MONEYI 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 BATHURSTWe 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 MASONThe 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. BATHURSTMay 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. MASONThat 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. LOUGHMy 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. MASONI 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-THOMSONThe 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 HARDIEWhat 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-THOMSONYes, 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 HARDIEIt is not a matter of what we tell them then. They will not accept the Bill.
§ Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSONThe 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 HARDIEYes.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI 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. ROWNTREEI 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 SPICERThe 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. KELLAWAYI 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 RUTHERFORDI 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.
301| 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. |
| 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. WALSHI 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. ADAMSONI 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. WALSHMay 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 ISAACSI 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. WALSHI 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.
305§ Mr. S. WALSHI 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 WARDI 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. BUXTONBoth 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. WALSHIt 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. BUXTONIt 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. WATTIt 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. BUXTONI 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 JONESI 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. BUXTONYes.
§ Mr. E. JONESThat 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)."
309§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI 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 SPEARI 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. BUXTONThe 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-BOSCAWENIt 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 I beg to move, after the word "conditions" ["shall lay down conditions"], to insert the words "for safeguarding employers."
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI 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 HARDYThe 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. BUXTONMy 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. WALSHI 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. BUXTONI 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. BANBURYIf 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. KEATINGIn 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 HARDYI 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. BANBURYThe 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. KEATINGThe managers decide-the efficiency of the workmen.
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo; 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. WATTThe 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. BANBURYOne 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. ADAMSONI 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. PARKESI 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. BRACEThe Government, I think, would be well advised to withdraw the word "safeguard," and we would withdraw the word "workman."
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGI 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. BUXTONWhat 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. BRACEI 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. WALSHI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. BUXTONThis 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. BATHURSTI 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. PARKESI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. J. WARDI 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. BATHURSTThat 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. WARDIn 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 ISAACSI 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. BATHURSTI 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 HARDYCould 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. BATHURSTI 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. WHELERI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. BRACEI 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 SWIFTBefore 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. MARKHAMThe 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 ISAACSThere 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. WARDIf you insert them you interfere with the very objects for which we are passing the Act.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIt was not the Government that moved them.
§ Mr. J. WARDI know that.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI 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.