WAGES.

HC Deb 15 March 1927 vol 203 cc1927-76

Mr. KELLY

I beg to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the rates of wages now prevailing in industries in this country, even in those not, subject to outside competition, are insufficient to ensure to the men and women concerned and their dependants a reasonable standard of life, that the provision of adequate wages should be made a first charge upon industry, and that in this, as in all other respects, His Majesty's Government ought to he model employers. In bringing this Motion before the House I desire to direct attention to the conditions under which the great bulk of our people have to exist, from the beginning to the end of each year, on wages that are inadequate, with no prospect of betterment, no hope of improvement, and certainly with no security. I do not know what would be said by those who make after-dinner speeches and preside at company meetings if they were compelled to live on wages such as the bulk of the people of this country have to exist upon. These are the wages received by the people who are responsible—never mind about the directing of their efforts—for the carrying on of the commerce and industry of the country. I have used in the notice I gave the expression "sheltered and unsheltered" because hon. Members opposite have been under instructions for a lengthy period now to bring before the House the question of wages in sheltered and unsheltered industries.

Mr. HANNON

Whose instructions?

Mr. KELLY

The instructions of the party opposite. I had noted on two occasions that hon. Members opposite were under instructions to bring forward such a Motion.

Mr. HANNON

Speaking for myself, I have no knowledge of any sort or kind of instruction ever having been given in the House.

Mr. KELLY

Had the hon. Member been in the House that day, he could hardly have passed his Whips as he entered without receiving a paper upon which there was the entry of such a Motion. I am not ping to define what is a sheltered and what is an unsheltered industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the people who have used the term have used it not because they are able to clearly define "sheltered" or "unsheltered," but in order to try to rouse up the feelings of those who are low paid against certain people who are higher paid in certain industries. I have wondered many times what industries they place under the umbrella of "sheltered." Is municipal service a sheltered industry?

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD

Is there any competition in it?

Mr. KELLY

I take it that that is accepted by the other side as a sheltered industry. Is Government service a sheltered industry? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Then I accept their definition, because I am going to show that this charge of high wages that is made against those in Government employment, particularly in the industrial establishments, and the charge made against those who are in municipal employment of being highly paid is away from the mark, because it cannot be proved that even the wage they receive is adequate for a reasonable standard of life. I am quite prepared to take what hon. Members opposite have hinted at as a sheltered industry for the purpose of the discussion. I wonder how many of them have taken the trouble to investigate what are the wages operating in those industries they term "sheltered"? I take municipal employment. In comparing the rates I find that they are between 40s. and 60s. per week. I am referring to those in the non-trading sections of municipal employment. Is anyone on the other side prepared to say that a wage of 60s. paid 52 weeks in the year is adequate for a reasonable standard of life? If they are prepared to say that, I think very little of their ideas of their fellow citizens. Take electricity supply, with wages ranging between 55s. and 65s., and the gas industry with its 52s. to 60s. I want to take the transport worker, because we have heard so much about the dockers with their 11s. to 13s. 6d. per day as something that requires to be reduced. I wonder how many Members realise what that means. Then we have people stating that that is a wage—55s. to 70s. at the very best—that ought to be brought down, a wage that the country cannot continue paying. Again, I ask Members would they like to live and work for such a wage and at such an occupation? Then there comes the favourite topic of employers who are dealing with wages, the topic of the railways. We are told how wonderfully well paid railway servants are. I have looked into it closely, and I cannot find those high wages operating. I find wages, so far as the traffic side is concerned, leaving out engine drivers' for the moment, of 40s. to 50s. a week. In the railway shops and sheds the rate is 46s. a week. Is anyone prepared to say that is even a reasonable, let alone an adequate wage for the work that is undertaken by those people? I am including everything. I am not leaving bonuses out. I am quoting all in wages.

With regard to road transport, we have the same level of wages, ranging from 60s. downwards, and even at the very highest in London the rate is about 70s. a week. That is a very inadequate wage for the work and responsibility undertaken by these people. Then we have the engineering industry. I hope the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) will make a note of the figures that I am about to give, because he must have some concern with that industry, coming from the Midlands. In that industry, we find wages running between 35s. and 43s. 6d. as far as the lowest paid workers are concerned, and as far as the highest paid workers are concerned, fitters in London going to a rate of 60s. 11d. In the so-called heart of the Empire—I have heard Birmingham placed in that category—we find a rate of 40s. a week operating for labourers in the engineering trade and 58s. a week for the highest paid men. Is that looked upon as an adequate wage? Yet we hear that wages are at such a level that we cannot continue industry unless wages are brought down.

Mr. HANNON

Is the hon. Member quoting full-time wages or not?

Mr. KELLY

I am quoting full-time wages for a week's work of 47 hours in the engineering trade.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES

Minima and maxima?

Mr. KELLY

I am quoting the time wages operating, of 35s. paid to labourers in some districts. The highest paid districts in the country—and I make a present of this to the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Edward Iliffe), who is to move the Amendment—are Coventry and London with 43s. 6d. a week. I would like to know how these people live on such wages. I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Sedgefield (Major Ropner), who is to second the Amendment, has a family connection with the shipbuilding industry. Certainly his family have had a close connection with that industry. If we take the shipbuilding industry, we find wages of 37s. all-in operating, and as far as the shipwrights are concerned, a rate of 56s. a week. Is that a wage to be proud of? Is that a wage upon which people can live? It is impossible for any hon. Member of this House to prove how these people can live at this time on such wages. These low wages apply also to the cotton industry. In the cotton in- dustry, one of the staple industries of this country, it is well within the mark to say that the average wage has been round about two guineas per week. I can quote the exact wages of warehousemen as far as the cotton-spinning section is concerned, which runs to 47s. a week for some, and for the general warehousemen 43s. a week. Surely, it is time that hon. Members on the other side had some regard for the conditions of life of the people of this country, and that they should realise that the wages which are now paid are altogether inadequate for giving reasonable standard of life.

In agriculture we have wages at the rate of 30s. to 42s. a week. How the people are living, I cannot tell. Later, I shall refer to one or two household budgets in order to show that wages in every industry arc inadequate, and I shall give figures to show that the wages paid by the Admiralty and the War Office and the Board of Trade—they have done nothing to help us to raise them—and the wages paid even by the Minister of Labour in his own Department are quite inadequate for giving a reasonable standard of life. In the earlier part of my speech I was interrupted by one hon. Member with the statement that the Government service is a sheltered industry. I am quite willing to quote what is happening in the Government service. There are 150,000 people in the Civil Service with less than £3 a week and 225,000 who have less than £4 a week. The women employed in the Government service receive wages which are a discredit to any Government, whether it be a Liberal Government such as we have had in the past or Conservative Government such as we have at the present time.

In the industrial establishments of the Government we find men receiving wages of 49s. a week. That wage is paid at the Arsenal. A wage of 47s. a week is paid at the dockyards to men for a full week, and 35s. a week to women. I hope that when the Minister of Labour replies he will be able to show us how people in this country can live at the present time on wages such as those I have enumerated. Then, we have the spectacle of the War Department declaring that people who stand high in their service must have no connection with the trade union movement, for fear lest their labour should be lost to the service of the War Department at some stage or other. Yet these people who stand so high in the estimation of the War Department are paid wages of from 51s. to 70s. a week, and for the last three years the War Department has refused even arbitration with the object of securing some improvement in the conditions.

I must leave a number of the figures that I desired to quote. I would remind hon. Members that we are often told of the high wages operating in America. I remember the Chairman of a Joint Industrial Council, of which I was secretary in 1921, reminding us that he had just returned from a visit to America—the industry with which we were dealing at that time is one of the most prosperous industries of this country—and saying that in America the workers had accepted reductions of 20 to 30 per cent. and that, if we were to hold our markets, we also must be prepared to accept reductions of 30 per cent., in order that our products might go to the markets of the world and be sold. Luckily, we did not believe that; luckily we fought against it, and luckily we secured an advance in face of the opposition of the employers. Now that we are hearing of the high wages paid in America, we hear nothing from those employers about the high wages in America and that we ought to follow the example of America as far as wages in that industry are concerned.

Mr. HANNON

Give us the production.

Mr. KELLY

The production is such that the shares of those companies engaged in the chemical industry stand at a much higher level now with the higher wage than they did when the lower wage was in operation. Now that I have mentioned the industry, perhaps the hon. Member will be prepared to agree with me. Many quotations might be made regarding women's wages. I wonder what employer can feel proud of the wages paid to women at the, present time, which run from between 20s. at the very best under Trade Boards to £2 per week. Yet women are asked to live at a reasonable standard on such a wage. It cannot be done. The mere mention of money wages, however, is not sufficient for the purpose of this discussion, and I want to show the purchasing value of these particular wages.

Quite recently I was in an industrial court dealing with members of my union who are employed by Trinity House, men who are employed in the light vessels around the, coast, on the wharves and on the Trinity House boats. As far as the men on the light vessels are concerned, we were able to have a complete account of the purchases made by them. They go aboard these light vessels for two months at a time, and they have to purchase a month's food before going. Despite all the examination made by those who were on the other side of the conference table, they were not able to shift any one of the figures presented to them, which showed that these men required over £5 per month for food for each individual man who went aboard the lightships, over £5 a month, and nothing for rent; no clothing, no tobacco, no newspapers, no luxuries, no cinemas for the men on board these light vessels.

Over £5 a month for food! If that is the case what must be the position of those people who are asked to continue on wages such as those operating in the industrial and commercial side of this country's activity. What is the opinion of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench when they think of the people in their own services endeavouring to exist on less than £3 a week? I wonder how these charwomen at 30s. a week exist. I wonder if the Minister of Labour will tell us, as he told the Committee on the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1925, that the working people, the men and women in the Government employ, are able to save sufficient to keep themselves during the six days they are waiting for unemployment benefit. I say without hesitation that there is not a margin in the wages operating in industry at this time, and particularly in Government services, and I claim that it is the duty of the Government to be model employers and see that those in their service receive wages which will enable them to maintain a reasonable standard of life. The budget. I quoted is not for the highest quality food or for large quantities of food. In this budget of £5 is included the purchase of meat, and I have here the receipt from the butcher who sup- plied it, at 6d. a lb. 1s that what our people are expected to live on? I have had a budget taken out for South London, where the cost on the home was £3 5s. per week for a family of five. The wages are on such a level that they do not enable people to purchase anything but poor quality and small quantities of food. It is the bounden duty of the Government to give a lead in regard to wages and to see that those in their employ are adequately paid so that they may have an opportunity of rising to a decent standard of life.

Hon. Members who are moving and seconding the Amendment are making a very bitter attack on the employers of the country. I am sorry they have taken that line. They talk in their Amendment about having efficiency in production. Who are responsible for inefficiency. None but the employers, and I say that without hesitation. The hon. Member who is moving the Amendment knows something about Coventry. Does he say that they are inefficient there? Does the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) declare they are inefficient? Is it an attack upon the efficiency of the workers. If it is I imagine they have not looked much into the conditions of industry during recent times. I hope hon. Members opposite, who we have to meet sometimes in conference, will realise that industry cannot be carried on with low wages, which prevent people living at a reasonable standard. All the talk about our wealthy possessions and our Empire pales before the fact that people cannot get enough upon which to live, and cannot find a home that is worthy of the name. In making this Motion I ask the House to pass it so that it shall be an instruction to the Government that wages must be adequate, and in the hope that something will sink into the minds of the employers that they must not look for cheap labour but pay those in their service a wage which will enable them and their wives and children to live a decent and reasonable standard of life.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG

I beg to second the Motion.

I have listened with much interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), who has given us a very informative and lucid statement in regard to the wages paid in certain industries in this country. To my mind he has shown quite clearly that the wages paid are, in the main, quite inadequate to provide a decent standard of life for many of the wage-earners of the country. These wage-earners are the vast mass of the working population. They are the overwhelming majority of the actual producers of our national wealth, upon whose wellbeing the prosperity and development of our industrial and commercial activities depend. It will be no answer to our Motion to-night for hon. Members opposite to say that wages are higher to-day than they were before the War by more than the increased cost of living. We do not admit that wages were adequate before the War, and we certainly do not admit that they are anything like adequate to-day. We are asking to-night that the Government will endeavour to assure an adequate wage for all workers, whether those wages be high or low, a wage which will be sufficient to secure a decent livelihood. We are not very much concerned as to the number of shillings that are paid per week. We are more concerned as to what these shillings will provide for the worker. The Motion says that the provision of adequate wages should be a first charge on industry. That is not a presumptuous demand, but an ethical claim, with which I am pleased to believe an ever-increasing number of people not obsessed with the idea of big dividends are willing to agree. I say it is not a presumptuous demand, but an ethical claim, and if the Government is to be a model employer of labour, it should give immediate effect to that claim, and it should give effect to that claim quite apart from the rate of wages paid even by trade union assent to men employed by other employers doing similar work to that done in Government Departments. For the Government to pay trade union rate of wages is not enough in many circumstances. If those wages are not adequate to insure a decent standard of life to its workers, then it is not a model Government.

In ordinary employment, in circumstances such as exist to-day, economic considerations are very often divorced from ethical principles. If a Govern- ment Department or a municipal authority decides to become a model employer of labour then the provision of an adequate wage to its workers becomes not only a moral obligation, but a moral obligation which every public body in the country should be willing and anxious to fulfil. The principle of a living wage is to guarantee means of subsistence to all. The first essential for a citizen in any democratic country is that for work done he should have a wage large enough to provide, and not only to provide, but to maintain, comfortable physical efficiency on the one hand and social and economic well being on the other. It is infinitely more important that we should have 45,000,000 citizens earning incomes sufficient for their needs, than that we should have 40,000,000 citizens earning inadequate wages and 5,000,000 citizens enjoying incomes far beyond their needs. It is far better for the nation as a whole that we should all live in small and comfortable houses than that a comparative few should live in large houses and palatial residences, while hundreds of thousands of our fellow countrymen are condemned to live in slurps, in insanitary areas and unhealthy homes. We cannot justly blame those who, having lost all hope of attaining a decent standard of life, become regardless of moral, social and economic amenities.

But we do not wish to burke the problem which we have a placed before the House. At the same time we have a right to point out what has intensified the problem. At the present time we are faced with a great problem of unemployment. A million of the workers are earning no wages at all. In addition, large numbers are not earning full wages. How far is that due to the depressing of wages that many employers of labour followed since 1920? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour knows, as we know, that there is a tendency, even in prosperous times, to check expanding trade by demanding for commodities prices far in excess of a reasonable return over the cost of production. That is what took place in the years immediately after the War. In 1919 there was a good deal of saved wages in the pockets of the working classes of the country, and there was money in the possession of men who had returned from war service. Where did it all go? The circulation of essential commodities was freer and the demand for them was greater. Where did the saved money of the people go? I will tell hon. Members opposite.

Apart from a little extravagance here and there, by thoughtless and not farseeing people, the savings of the War period and the wages then paid to those who were in employment were extracted from the pockets of the consuming public by methods of profiteering, which were quite well known to the Government of the day, and were complacently tolerated, if not actually encouraged. The inevitable result followed. Consumption declined and demand fell off. Then began the slump of 1921. Wages decreased practically every year. It is true that there was a slight interruption to that decline in wages. In 1924 the Labour Government threatened to deal with profiteers. With what result? There was a decline in the prices charged for commodities. There was an increase in the 'Wages Bill of the country for the year, and there were indications of a return to good trade. That was all to the good. Some of us at that time thought we had turned the corner and that we were getting out of the east wind of industrial adversity. The result of the General Election of 1924 was responsible for more than putting a reactionary Government in office. All the tendencies of 1924 vanished on the advent of this Government. With what result? That the cost of living in February, 1927, is not less than the cost of living in September, 1924. And this is the result—that there is an increased percentage of people unemployed, although there are half a million more workers covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act to-day than there were then. And with this further result—that during 1926 there was continuous decrease of wages going on.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)

When was it that this decrease in wages went on?

Mr. YOUNG

During 1926. Not only that, but while we are now hoping for improved trade, wages deductions are still going on. I learn from the "Labour Gazette" that in January of this year there was a weekly wage reduction of £38,000, covering 270,000 people. On the other hand, I admit that there was an increase of £20,000, covering 400,000 people, leaving a net decrease of £18,000 a week. We have to realise that the continuous progress of a country depends not alone on the industry of its workers but also upon their ability to procure an ever increasing portion of the things that they produce. Can anyone say that that has been their lot during the past seven years? When the slump threatened there was a cry from many platforms for increased production. I confess that I took part in that cry. I have no reason to believe that there was no response to that cry. But I know this —that increased production without increased consumption of the things produced leads to stagnation of trade, to lower wages and to increasing unemployment. That was what happened again in 1921. The purchasing power had been diminished by high prices, by falling wages and by extensive profiteering. All led to the unemployment which we are experiencing to-day.

In spite of it, what has been the cry of hon. Gentlemen opposite? The cry has been that the Government should not interfere in industry. In spite of the demand of Liberals and Conservatives for Governments not to interfere in industry, the fact remains that wages are a social and national concern. Unmerited poverty and bad conditions of life should not be tolerated in any civilised state, and still less in one—if we hark back to last Friday's Debate— which claims to uphold the tenets of Christianity. It is strange that in the stress of war we learned that much, and that now in the time of peace what we learned in the stress of war is not only denied by hon. Gentlemen opposite but in many cases completely forgotten. What did we learn under the stress of war? I trust that I shall be allowed to quote the following. It is from the Ministry of Reconstruction pamphlet entitled "State Regulation of Wages." It says: One tiling is certain. The question of wages will never be allowed to return to the position of 10 years ago, when the Government had no concern in it. A policy will be pursued of stimulating production, and at the same time securing to the workers a fair share of the product—a reasonable standard of wages must be a first charge. That is our Resolution to-night. Then, on 18th August, 1919, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne)—who has considerably fallen from grace since those days—introduced a Bill, the preamble of which read: Whereas it is expedient that minimum time rates of wages shall he fixed for all persons of the age of 15 years and upwards; that all such persons, whether employed at a time rate or otherwise, shall be afforded an adequate living wage; that a Commission shall be appointed to inquire into and decide what these rates shall be, and the manner in which they shall be brought into operation. After quoting that, we have a right to ask what have past Governments done to maintain a decent level of wages and to fulfil their promises made during the War? The answer is, in effect, nothing. The continuous decline in the wages bill goes to prove that nearly all the efforts of the Coalition and Tory Governments to assist industry were along wrong lines, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is not blameless in this connection. He was Prime Minister of the Coalition Government. Perhaps he is sorry for that now. He promised the workers a new earth. It is a good thing for us that the promise of a new Heaven was not within his ken. What did he say? He spoke for many people who now sit on the other side of the House, because this Government is the lineal descendant of the Coalition Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There are Members now sitting on the Treasury Bench who were associated with the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government, and when he said the words which I am about to quote he spoke for them—? Millions of young men have fought for the new world. Hundreds of thousands died to establish it. If we fail to honour the promise given to them, we dishonour ourselves. With that in mind, I find it difficult not to recall the experience of last year, when the Government practically became a committee of the mineowners, with the result that hours had been increased by Act of Parliament, and the wages of the miners have been decreased. If there is any dishonour, the dishonour lies there. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is not in his place. If he had been, I would have asked him, "Is this world any better to-day for the workers as a result of winning the War?" As he is not here, we may ask one or two of his followers—I almost said employés. We may ask them, what they think of his promises? He went on, in words of burning eloquence and with a picturesque and rhetorical imagery which he alone among all his country men can conjure up with startling vividness, to ask this question: What was the old world like? and he answered it as follows: It was a world where toil for myriads of honest workers, men and women, purchased nothing better than squalor, penury, anxiety and wretchedness, a world where, side by side with want, there was a waste of the inexhaustible riches of the earth. If we renew the lease of that world, we shall betray the heroic dead, we shall be guilty of the basest perfidy that ever blackened a people's fame. The old world must and will come to an end. No effort can shore it up much longer. If there be any who feel inclined to maintain it"— I recommend these words of the right hon. Gentleman to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite— let them beware lest it fall upon them and overwhelm them and their households in ruin. 9.0 p.m.

No wonder right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite and those behind them conjure up visions of red revolution, bringing upon them this disaster which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs prophesied would overtake them. The right hon. Gentleman lost his opportunity. He allowed it to slip past, and the result now is that the only way to redeem it is the threat that we are going to have 500 Liberal candidates at the next Election to save the country from Toryism on the one hand, and Socialism on the other.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

This is some little distance away from the question of wages.

Mr. YOUNG

I desired to the programme and the policy been suggested in relation matters.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member suggest that these 500 candidates will affect wages?

Mr. YOUNG

I was going to suggest that these promises had been made and that we are entitled to ask about the fulfilment of the promises made in 1919. What were those promises? Again I say, many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side were pledged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. The first was a living wage for all workers—and that is what we are asking to-night. The second was a maximum of 48 hours a week—and the Tory Government refused to ratify the Washington Convention. The third was a voice in working conditions—and last year the voice in working conditions for many was silenced, as far as this Government were concerned. That is the position in which we find ourselves tonight. I have asked what this Government have done and what past Governments have done to fulfil the pledges made in relation to this matter. What is the net result to the workers to-day? We find wages reduced by £10,000,000 a week and, in addition to that, £500,000,000 has been given to the Income Tax payer. The policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite seems to be one of low wages, low Income Tax, and increased hours. That policy has been and will continue to be a miserable failure, but I am a bit of an optimist. There is a saying, "The young live in the future, the middle aged in the present, and the old in the past." My name happens to be Young, therefore I want, to live in the future, and I believe that good wages can be paid to the workers if profiteering is punished and if high profits and dividends are curtailed. The economic circle is only vicious because, we go the wrong way round it, Demand is weak because wages are low; consumption is small because prices are high; prices of essential commodities are high because profits are high. Let me give an illustration or two. Take this in reference to the production of houses and their cost, for which the workers are always blamed. I cut it from the papers on the 21st of January of this year, and it is called "A real dividend appetite." It says: In the Chairman's remarks read at the Maidenhead Brick and Tile Company meeting yesterday were the sentences: I am aware, considering the results, that some of the shareholders think they ought to have been paid more than the 17½ per cent. on the Preference and the 56 per cent. on the Ordinary shares. But I think it is better to place the company on the pinnacle of sound finance so as to be in a position to meet any contingency that may arise in the distant future.' The company raised its profits from £13,666 in the previous year to £14,777 in the past year, notwithstanding the industrial disputes. That is not bad for the profiteers. That is how the wages of the workers, even as paid to-day, do not provide them with an adequate sustenance. There is another quotation, dated 12th March of this year, as follows: As indicated by yesterday's rise in London Brick Company and Forders shares to 52s. 3d., the market was well satisfied with the dividend statement. The final distribution of 10 per cent. makes 20 per cent, for the year, which is the same as for the previous year. Goodwill item which stood in the books at £60,000 has been written off, and the outstanding balance of £39,943 of the 4½ per cent. and 6 per cent. Debentures has been redeemed. There are now-no charges in front of the share capital. That company paid 10 per cent. in 1923, 15 per cent. in 1924, 20 per cent. in 1925, and 20 per cent. in 1926, and it gave £70,000 in the form of a capital bonus, and that bonus was the fourth in six years.

Dr. WATTS

Will the hon. Member give particulars of the profits made in the cotton trade?

Mr. YOUNG

I will give another quotation. It is headed "Coal Wages and Prices," and it occurred before the end of the industrial dispute: At Nottingham it is reported that five miners working at Clifton Colliery drew £40 in wages. They worked 5½ shifts of 7½ hours each. That is not bad. That means £8 per week, but listen to what they did for it. They hewed 323 tons of coal for it! The report goes on: This coal was sold by the colliery company at the pit-head price of 55s. a ton, which works out at £888 5s. For which they paid £40 in wages! I have only one word more to say. I am a believer in peace in industry. I have worked for peace in industry. I believe it is in the interests of the worker as well as in the interests of the country as a whole, but it must be peace based on mutual agreement. I have no doubt we shall be told to-night that the interests of Capital and Labour are identical. Do hon. Members opposite believe that? Under certain circumstances, I am prepared to say that I agree that there should be agreement between Capital and Labour, but I know this, that as long as Capital, which is the product of labour, takes precedence over labour in the results of industrial progress, then recurring contention and dangerous disputes are bound to break out. Capital must place itself in a new relation to Labour. It must no longer assert the position of supreme boss or tyrannical master in relation to Labour. It must realise that its function is to increase the productiveness of labour, and when it realises that, I shall have no hesitation in then believing that the Motion that we are moving will be readily accepted. At all events, better relationships between employer and employed will begin when the former are prepared to give an adequate sustenance to each willing worker, which will be sufficient for the purposes of life.

Sir EDWARD ILIFFE

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add, instead thereof, the words the rates of wages and regularity of work now prevailing, even in sheltered industries, have been adversely affected by the general strike and the coal strike of last year, that the only way permanently to improve the standard of living and of wages is through increased efficiency of production, and this House calls upon all political parties to co-operate to this end. Members of all parties will agree that in many industries the wages of this country are too low to-day, and it will also be agreed that the standard of living, although that standard of living today is higher than it has ever been in this country, is altogether too low. But a mere increase in wages is going to be no solution whatever to this problem, because, after all, if higher wages are imposed on any particular industry than that industry can afford, the only result will he unemployment and a lowering of the general standard of living in the country. What we have to do is to make higher wages possible, and that can only be done by making industry more efficient in this country than it is at the present time. It is all a question of high production, and this is the policy of the Unionist party to-day. We believe absolutely in increasing the production of the individual, we believe in cheapening the cost of living so that the wages paid are more effective, and we believe absolutely in encouragement to pay the highest possible wages that industry can afford. It is only by that method that we can hope to increase the standard of living for all sections of the community in this country. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), who moved the Resolution, dwelt on the fact that higher wages must be paid. I agree with him, but he got the sequence entirely wrong, and the sequence is very important. The first thing is to get greater production and greater efficiency, and following that high wages, and then, following that, you will get greater demand, and in that way this high production will be equitably distributed throughout the community. It is that, and that alone, which will make for an increase in the standard of living in this country, and also—which is most important—automatically an increase in our export trade."

The Mover of the Resolution seemed in some doubt as to what was a sheltered industry and what was an unsheltered industry. An unsheltered industry, in my opinion, is an industry which is subject to world competition, and a sheltered industry is an industry which is not subject to world competition. The difficulty with regard to getting this increased efficiency in industry, which is so necessary, is due to the attitude of the Labour party and the attitude of the great trade unions, who do not seem to grasp really fundamental facts. The trade unions, of course, are absolutely necessary organizations, because, after all, the workers must have the power co bargain collectively. But I do wish the trade unions of this country would copy to some extent the methods of some of the American trade unions. These American trade unions, first of all, have nothing whatever to do with politics. They concentrate on two things, and two things only—first of all on making their industries as efficient as they possibly can, and then on extracting the highest possible wages for their members from those industries, and, I say, more power to their elbow. Do our trade unions really encourage efficiency? [An HON. MEMBER: "It has nothing to do with it!"] I think trade unions have everything to do with it, and until they realise that they have something to do with the encouragement of efficiency, we shall never get as high a standard of living in this country as we ought to have. The trade unions, as far as I gather, do not encourage the introduction of labour- saving machinery, which is the workers' best friend. It is essential, as I say, that trade unions should make industry as efficient as possible.

Mr. KELLY

Would the hon. Member tell the House of one trade union in this country which has prevented the introduction of such machinery?

Sir E. ILIFFE

I do not say they have prevented industry from being efficient, but I say they are not encouraging it to be efficient. I shall believe trade unions are really encouraging their members to be efficient when I pick up in the morning an illustrated paper, and see a photograph of Mr. Cook handing a trophy to a body of workers who have brought up the largest amount of coal in a particular district, or when I see an illustration of Mr. Coppock handing a prize to a bricklayer who has laid the largest number of bricks in the country for his normal day. That, indeed, would show there was a different spirit in industry, and directly we get that different spirit we shall find the standard of living will rise. [Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must point out that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion were given an attentive hearing.

Sir E. ILIFFE

Some hon. Members regarded the General Strike as a strike in order to secure for a certain body of people a higher standard of living. In my opinion, the General Strike really was a strike against high wages, because the result of that strike has been a loss of production. It has meant higher costs for articles purchased by industry, higher local rates, and, therefore, has meant a smaller margin for wages, at any rate in the unsheltered industries, which have to compete in the markets of the world. I think if we can really settle down to work, and if we can avoid all this prejudice, this country is bound to go ahead, and the standard of living is bound to rise. After all, we are all partners in the great enterprise of running this country, and we all participate in the success of that operation.

The Seconder of the Motion referred to the fact that certain industries show large profits. I never can understand why the trade unions of this country do not invest more of their funds in in- dustry, as is done by American unions. If we were all partners, if we all did our best to make industry in this country successful, we should find the standard advance very rapidly indeed. Personally, I feel that the solution is that every working man should become a capitalist, as is the case in America to-day. In a Debate in this House the other day, an hon. Member pointed out that the "Economist" published statistics showing the results of 1,500 industrial companies, and he said that their profits showed that they were making no less than 11 per cent. on their ordinary capital. He seemed to think that that was rather a dreadful thing, considering there was so much poverty in the country. The reply to that is that all those shares are purchaseable in the open market, and, therefore, why should not trade unions in this country invest their money in that way? That is, obviously, the right thing to do. I have not doubted the hon. Member's figures, although, of course, it is quite clear he only dealt with successful companies, and did not deal with companies which have failed, as, obviously, those companies would have no annual return to include in the list. But the point was that 11 per cent. was being made. If 11 per cent. were being made, why should not the trade unions make it? If I were a trade, unionist, one of the first things I should do would be to try to get my union to organise, say, a trade union investment trust. I would go to the City of London, and get the very best commercial man I could, put him in charge, and give him a high salary and a bonus upon results if he could produce 11 per cent. We are all partners, and if trade unions would only take a leaf out of the book of the American trade unions, we should find the workmen of this country would soon own a very large slice of industry.

Mr. OLIVER

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that trade unions are forbidden to invest in such securities?

Sir E. ILIFFE

I certainly was not aware of that, and if that be so, the sooner that law is altered the better. Let me reiterate, that the standard of living depends upon more production, and upon the distribution of that production, which, as I say, can be brought about through higher wages. Take the example of America and the example of Russia. In America, you have got a high output per individual, high wages and a high standard of living. In Russia you have got a low output per individual and low wages, and a low standard of living. Take another example, the position of this country to-day and the position a hundred years ago. We all realise that the standard of living has enormously risen in the last 100 years, and that we are all better clothed, better fed and better housed, but why is it? Because production per individual has increased so enormously through the use of labour-saving machinery and the more scientific management of industry, and not through working longer hours or under more ar[...]ous conditions. If this increase of production has brought about an increase in the standard of living, the policy in future should be a continuance of increased production. If we did that we should make the life of the Minister of Transport a burden to him, because we should soon find we had as many motor cars on the roads in this country as they have in America in proportion to our population. If that were the case, we should have nine times the number, because every working-class family in America owns a motor car. It seems to me it is absolutely necessary that all parties in this House should co-operate and try to create the right atmosphere for producing high wages, that is, that we- ought not to make the workers dissatisfied but make them desire themselves to become capitalists, and we ought to avoid half truths and misrepresentations. If we only pull together in that way we can enormously increase the standard of living in England.

Major ROPNER

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Proposer of the Motion this evening did little more than recite a series of figures. He gave us what I am quite prepared to accept as facts with regard to the wages paid in certain industries. There is no Member on this side of the House who would not wish to see the raising of wages in every industry in the country; but the hon. Gentleman has given me very little to reply to. The Seconder of the Motion also gave us the rates of wages in certain industries and, in addition, made a series of groundless and unsubstantiated accusations against the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government and against hon. Members sitting on this side of the House. I am well aware that in seconding the Amendment I run a considerable risk of being misrepresented by hon. Members opposite and I must add that except for one word and a grave omission I can find no fault with the Motion, which calls attention to the discrepancy between wages in sheltered and unsheltered industries and their inadequacy in both cases. I will not deal for the moment with this discrepancy between wages in sheltered and unsheltered industries but call particular attention to the last few words of that part of the Motion which I have read. If it is a pious hope that wages may be raised, then we on this side of the House entirely agree with that view. Whether the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion will receive unqualified support from their own side of the House, I am not nearly so certain, for reasons which I hope to dwell on shortly. Then the Resolution runs: That in the opinion of this House, the rates of wages now prevailing in industries in this country, even in those not subject to outside competition, are insufficient to ensure to the men and women concerned and their dependants a reasonable standard of life. I will now reply to the Proposer of the Motion concerning his remarks with regard to the shipbuilding industry. I would much sooner see wages of 46s. or 50s. or less paid in British shipyards than I would see those shipyards closed and the men who are now employed in them go on the dole and British ships be built in foreign shipyards.

To revert to the Motion for a moment, anyone who has been even a very junior subaltern in the Army knows that such words as "insufficient" or "reasonable" should never be employed in orders. I will read a short extract from the Field Service Pocket Book which I looked up this morning. It says: Orders and reports must be as concise as possible, consistent with clearness. Language should be simple and anything of an indefinite or conditional nature should he avoided. Could anything be more indefinite or conditional than the Motion which we are discussing this evening? It may be a good thing for orders and reports to be concise and definite, but hon. Members opposite when tabling a Resolution find very often that it pays to be conditional arid indefinite. The next clause of this Resolution says: The provision of adequate wages should be made a first charge upon industry. That is a phrase with which I cannot agree—not because I consider that wages should not be a first charge, but because wages are already a first charge on industry, as I hope to show. Just to finish the Resolution, as I have been dealing with it clause by clause and phrase by phrase, I will draw the attention of the House to the last sentence which says: In this as in all other respects lids Majesty's Government ought to be model employers. I can only say that a model Government cannot help being a model employer. Model Ministers cannot help being model employers, therefore, so long as the present Government remain in power, that last phrase is quite unnecessary. I should like now to try to show that wages are already the first charge on industry, and to do that I will ask the House to remember that the essentials of production are land—which we may leave out of our discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, you can for the purpose of this argument—labour and capital. Labour can be divided into what is usually known as skilled and unskilled labour, that is manual work, performed by those workers who are usually termed wage-earners; and the second division of labour is represented by managers, officials, clerks and the black-coat brigade, who work for salaries.

Capital we may also separate into two divisions. There is that capital which expects reward in the nature of interest for the provision of plant in the broadest sense of the word, factories, machinery and everything else, and which provides, for instance, wages and salaries while, say, a factory is being built and wages and salaries are being paid. Then, secondly, there is capital which quite rightly asks to be rewarded for taking risks. Imagine the start of a new industrial undertaking, we will say a factory for making red flags and red ties. The factory must be built, machinery must be provided, and during the whole of that time wages must be paid, and wages will be paid. They are the first charge on the industry. Salaries will be paid also. What may not happen is that the capital invested in that industry will receive any interest. And that the ordinary shareholders—as distinct from the debenture holders, who expect a set rate of interest on their money—may lose the whole of the capital which is invested. Whereas the men who risk their capital may lose everything, wages will be paid so long as the undertaking can carry on at all; and in that sense, the economic sense, wages are undoubtedly a first charge on industry.

The Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend and myself is meant to draw attention to the criminal folly of the general strike and the coal strike, and the responsibility for the general strike and the coal strike which rests on the shoulders of hon. Members who sit on the benches from which this Motion was proposed. I will give a few figures to illustrate the appalling loss which was the direct result of those two industrial disputes. The general strike cost the workers alone £20,000,000—these estimates are necessarily somewhat vague, but that, I believe, is the estimate of the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald)—and 500,000 men were thrown out of work. The coal strike cost the country £500,000,000. The miners lost £60,000,000 in wages, and other workers, as a result of the coal strike, lost £40,000,000 in wages. We cannot have a raising of the standard of living in a country which is subjected periodically to industrial disputes of that nature.

A decade ago, nearly, the Great War was won. Attention has been drawn to remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) but I am not going to discuss whether false hopes which were raised during the War were justified at the time or not. It may be that we needed cheering up, and that when we were, told that we were to mine back to a country fit for heroes to live in we fought a little harder or, at any rate, did not run quite so quickly. That, however, hardly enters into the discussion this evening, except that it prevents us perhaps from fully appreciating the appalling losses in capital suffered by this country during the war. You cannot blow up capital for five years and expect to find a more wealthy country at the end of that time. We found ourselves impoverished, and just because the country is impoverished as the result of the War we have an increase in Socialism, which is a disease of poverty. As a result of the increase in Socialism we have seen a growth of the Labour party. We have seen also, because Socialism is also a disease of discontent, the capture and exploitation of the trade union movement by the political Labour party; but that captive trade union movement has become too strong for the Labour party, which is now in the impossible position of representing itself as being a party of the State and has meanwhile sold itself body and soul to one section in the country, the trade union movement.

We are fighting to-day, in another war for civilisation, a more dangerous and a more insidious enemy. Disunion and envy are being stirred up all over the country, largely by hon. Members opposite. Whereas during the general strike we heard only a plaintive whisper against the strike from the more responsible and moderate leaders of the Labour party, we now listen daily to floods of invective pouring forth between one trade union leader and another, between some prominent and between some unknown members of the Labour party. Since the War nearly 300,000,000 working days have been lost in industry through disputes. A simple mathematical calculation will show that at 10s. a day that is equivalent to a loss of £150,000,000 in wages. That takes no account of other workers put out of work in other industries as a result of those disputes. The Proposer of the Amendment has already drawn attention to the fact that you cannot raise the standard of living in a country unless you increase the national dividend. Mr. Alfred Marshall, in his book, "The Economics of Industry," wrote: By adding together the incomes of any society, whether a nation or any other larger or smaller group or persons, we arrive at the social income—the National Dividend. Everything that is produced, every service rendered, every fresh utility brought about, adds to the national income and to the average level of wages which can be paid throughout the country. It is perfectly true that by trade union restriction of output in a sheltered industry you may definitely benefit the men employed and the members of that trade union, but the workers and everyone else throughout the country are going to suffer in the end by that restriction of output.

Mr. OLIVER

What trade union does that operate in?

Major ROPNER

The bricklayers', for one. It is important to accentuate this fact once again, that before you can raise the standard of living you must get a greater national dividend, by means of higher efficiency in industry and, in consequence, higher wages. When we have given trade unions political freedom, when we have crushed Socialism, but not social reform, then we shall have prosperity in spite of the Labour party, then we shall have industrial peace and increased efficiency in spite of what remains of the Socialist party, and then we shall be able to pay higher wages and raise the standard of living. What is the use of Resolutions such as the hon. Member for Rochdale has proposed and to which we have moved an Amendment, when the unofficial leaders of the Labour party are driving their official leaders further and further from the paths of idealistic Socialism which they tentatively tread from time to time down the steep hill of revolutionary Socialism. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aber-axon (Mr. Ramsay. MacDonald) has said with truth that there is no future for this country at all industrially, unless by hook or by crook we can establish industrial peace on a sound and enduring, foundation. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Manton) only a few days later said that the talk about industrial peace at the present time is cant and humbug. The Labour party are more and more committed to the policy which is a direct negation of the Resolution which has proceeded from the Labour Benches this evening. They are determined to bring Socialism and "Socialism in our time" by destroying profits ruining industry, starving the people, cad if the electorate cannot be persuaded to welcome Socialism they are determined to make them beg for it by reducing the whole country to a state of starvation. Could there be a more classical case of cant and humbug than the Resolution before the House this evening, coming as it does from hon. Members opposite?

Mr. POTTS

After listening to the speeches made by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, I want to say at once that what they have told the House so far as industry is concerned has no foundation in fact. So far as the Resolution is concerned, it is well grounded. Much has been said to-night with respect to the mining situation, but I have no intention of speaking very long on this subject. I will, however, endeavour to put what I have to say in a very few words in support of the Resolution before the House. I will confine myself to two points. One is connected with the mining situation and the actual position so far as the wages of the miners are concerned at the present moment. My other point is to demonstrate to this House that under the Tory Government, so far as trade is concerned, we have less trade to-day than there was under a Labour Government. I hold in my hand a newspaper circulating in the borough which I represent, and only last week that newspaper endeavoured to lead people to believe that the wages and conditions of workers in mines at the present time were actually better than before the stoppage, and that the miners were receiving better wages. That newspaper says: So far from the men experiencing under the new conditions any shrinkage of pay their wages have gone up to the tune of 7s. End per week above the wages paid before the stoppage. This splendid result shows that the condition of the settlement are on a thoroughly liberal scale. Let me examine the situation so far as Yorkshire is concerned. Yorkshire is one of the highest paid counties, In Yorkshire the wage ascertainment for last January shows an average wage per shift worked in our mines throughout the county of Yorkshire lls. 0–72d. In December, 1925, I pointed out to the Prime Minister that there would be a stoppage of labour in this country, but he took no notice, and then we got the lock-out from which we have suffered so much. The wages in 1925 for the entire year were 10s. 6.08d., so that the average, compared with last January ascertainment, shows an increased wage of 6–64d. The average wage for the quarter ending March, 1926, was 10s. 4.79d. Compared with last January, ascertainment shows that the wages are only 7.93d. higher than in March, 1926. It should be remembered that in Yorkshire we are working half- an-hour longer that we were prior to the stoppage. What is the value of that extra half hour I happen to be the individual who submitted the case to the Royal Commission for shorter hours, and we established that case. It works out in the whole country exactly at 1s. 6d. per shift for every shift worked in the mining industry, so that after working half-an-hour longer than we did prior to the stoppage the result is that the present position is that the miners, instead of getting an advance of wages for the additional half hour are actually getting less.

Major PRICE

Has the hon. Member added the subsidy in 1925?

Mr. POTTS

Yes, the subsidy is included in that, and the subsidy never added a penny to the miners wages. I can prove that if it is necessary to do so. The Seconder of the Amendment has been talking about profits. Let us see where we stand at the present time. The miners in Yorkshire, which, as I have already said, is one of the highest-paid counties in the country, have less than 8d. additional wages per shift under the existing arrangement, which is said to be such a liberal and good arrangement. That statement, therefore, has no foundation in fact. Making allowance for the additional half-hour, we have a reduction. I find that 9d., the value of the half-hour, has gone to the employers, and, in addition to that, they are making additional profits. The employers get 8.54d. per ton increase in profit, according to the returns for January of this year, plus the 9d. I have already mentioned, making ls. 5.54d. increased profit to the owners at the present time, while the workmen receive 7.93d. In the quarter ending March, 1996, the profit in the mining industry—[Interruption]. I know what the losses were in 1925; I have them here; but, taking the March quarter of 1926, we find that the profit exceeded 1s. 8d. per ton, while in the Eastern area the profit on this ascertainment in Yorkshire is 3s. per ton, and, the higher the selling price, the more the profit under existing conditions.

In the January ascertainment, the average selling price of coal was 17s. 1.89d., as against 15s. 9.47d. for the March quarter of 1926. I say, without fear of contradiction that the employers in the country are taking advantage of the public so far as prices are concerned. The miners are getting no more wages, having regard to the extra half-hour, and all the increase is going to the employers, whose profit is increasing. The arrangement that has now been made is an unfair arrangement, and one which ought never to stand. I have always tried, all my life, to get peace in the indusry, but this arrangement cannot stand, and, in order to get an opportunity, whether we have to fight or not, we shall take every step we can to break down the existing arrangement.

Mr. LLOYD

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that, if that increase in profit does exist, it acts, through the ascertainment, to increase wages?

10.0 p.m.

Mr. POTTS

No, Sir. Owing to the existing conditions, the employers are participating at a higher percentage in the proceeds than they did before the stoppage in the industry, and the conditions that have been forced upon the men are such that the men cannot possibly get the wages they have been getting hitherto. This arrangement will result in the workmen being, in a very short time, in a much worse financial position than they are to-day. Taking the whole of the year 1925, the average working time was 4.79 shifts per week. In the March quarter of 1926 it was 5.12 shifts per week. Why did it rise? Because the employers knew they were going to lock out the men, and worked the pits more than they would have done under normal conditions. I only say that to show that what hon. Members opposite have in their minds has no foundation in fact. In the paper I have already quoted, I find a statement that the percentage paid to the men over their basic wage is 68.81 per cent, but that statement has no foundation in fact. The January returns give 61–81 per cent.

In the Press we find stated the basis wage plus 61.81 per cent., but I want hon. Members to remember that the standard wage includes 10 per cent. belonging to the pre-War period, and you have to allow for that 10 per cent. in calculating what the percentage increase is. The percentage, therefore, is not 61, but 51. Taking the actual wages paid in March of the year preceding the War, and working out the figures for last January, the miners receive their pre-War wage with an addition of 34⅓ per cent. at the present time. That is what they have to set against the increased cost of living. We were told by the Prime Minister that he wanted us to have a square deal, but, instead of getting a square deal, we have a worse deal by far than we had, owing to the Eight Hours Bill having been brought in and passed in this House. We are told repeatedly by Members on the other side, at election after election, that, if the workmen of this country want higher wages and shorter hours, we must endeavour to get increased exportation from this country to other countries.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE

Hear, hear!

Mr. POTTS

The hon. and gallant Member says, Hear, hear!" I will give the results, and if any Member of this House desires to challenge my figures, and if you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me, I will give every figure in connection with the exportation of manufactured goods. The result is this I will take, for purposes of comparison, the year 1923, before the Labour Government came in; I will take 1924, which includes two months of Tory Government; and I will take 1925 and 1920. In 1924, when the Labour Government was in office, our exports increased, as compared with 1923, to the extent of more than £55,000,000. When the Tories came back into office, in 1925, our exports fell in that, their first year of office, by over £13,500,000, and in 1926 they fell again by £149,000,000 odd. [HON. MEMBERS: "The strike!"] But in 1925 there was no strike or lockout. I have heard hon. Members opposite making statements not long ago, and that is why I examined the figures.

If exportation is increased wages can be increased and hours can be decreased, then the credit stands to Labour, and the country ought to elect Labour to this House of Commons. The figures demonstrate it by the increase over 1923, when Toryism was ruling, and by the decrease in 1925, when Toryism came back and when there was no stoppage. In 1926 the figures fall again. Therefore, I say to hon. and right hon. Members on the other side of the House, and to the country—and I will defend it on any platform in any constituency in this country—that the figures demonstrate that, if Labour ruled instead of Toryism, there would be more trade in the country, there would be higher wages, and there would be better conditions. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting our object and our Resolution, that we may endeavour to alter things to the advantage of the country, and of the working people of this country in particular.

Major HILLS

I hope the last speaker will forgive me if I do not follow him in all the details of the figures he has given. If I refrain from doing so, it is not from any lack of respect to him, but because I have a few remarks of a more general nature to make, and time is going on and many hon. Members want to speak, so I want to cut my speech as short as possible. May I start by saying that I agree with the last speaker entirely in one point. Wages are too low and ought to be raised. Whatever standard of living you take—and many have been put out to us—over large blocks of industry the amount of basic wage is not sufficient to support the family in a decent standard of life. I do not believe that anybody in the country, and I am sure nobody in the House, would deny that.

Mr. KELLY

In every industry wages are too low.

Major HILLS

There are certain wages in all industries all over the country that do not support a decent standard of life. I believe we shall all agree on that, but on this question I find myself in disagreement with some of the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not think we shall do very much by quotations of speeches made in 1919 and 1920 and by exchanging quotations across the floor of the House. This question is so much bigger, and I think it is approaching a condition when a settlement is more likely than some hon. Members on both sides of the House appear to think. When I say that I want to raise wages, if I really express my own thoughts, I want to do much more than that. I want to take away the distinction that at present exists between the man who is paid a wage that is drawn every week, and the man who is paid a salary, or the man who draws a dividend. I should like to see all wage-earners over the whole of the country converted into dividend drawers. I know that is a very Utopian wish, but I do most sincerely think that we could get a wage dividend. One fault of the present industrial system is the sharp division that cuts right down, cutting off the wage-earner at one end from the more fortunate individual at the other who draws a salary or who draws dividends.

But when I come to the particular means by which the Mover and Seconder of this Motion propose to deal with the existing state of affairs, I am afraid I must part company with them. You would not increase wages by a single shilling if you incorporated the whole of your Motion in an Act of Parliament. It would not have that effect. I do not believe an Act of Parliament could do it. In fact, I go further. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to cast their minds back 30 or 40 or 50 years. In that time millions of money have been spent on strikes; first on strikes to raise wages and then on strikes to maintain wages. I believe, except in certain of the sheltered industries, that all that money has been wasted. I do not believe that wages have been raised a single shilling. All that money has been thrown into the sea. Why should not the Labour movement do what was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir E. Iliffe) and which was received with some laughter from the Labour benches? Why should it not copy the American system and invest some of its surplus money in industry? It does not waste those funds by investment. Investment conserves and increases, and supposing a strike is unavoidable, and strikes under certain conditions are necessary, all the money is there and can be used for industrial war. Cannot we get the conversion of this country into a country of capitalists? I do not think it is so difficult. I believe it is much nearer than some people think, but I do not think that it would be helped by passing a resolution of the kind we see on the Paper, even though that resolution were made into an Act of Parliament.

Now I come to what I think we can do. I do not think the Government can do very much. I do not believe that legislation can do very much. It can do something. I agree with the Mover that the Government ought to be a model employer. I agree with the Mover that the Government is not in all cases a model employer. I agree with the Mover that it pays women, at any rate, scandalously low wages. I believe those wages ought to be increased, and I do believe that the Government might reasonably consider whether the Fair Wages Clause in all cases is in line with modern conditions and modern requirements. It was passed, after all, a long time ago, and it has fulfilled a number of purposes. A good deal of water has flowed under the bridges since then. Then it might be that the Government could encourage the forming of co-partnership schemes or profit-sharing, though I know the objections which are felt to that from the trade union side, and I share some of those objections.

But the two factors which count most in any change of the sort are the employers and the trade unions, and they can do far more than any Government can do. I think the employers can recognise the increasing share of labour in management and in the operations of business. Behind the wages claim stands the bigger claim comprised in the word status. It is not only a demand for more money; it is a demand for human recognition, and as such it has my most sincere sympathy. I believe it can come inside the lines of our present system, modified sufficiently to meet the changed conditions of the case. The trade unions can do a very great deal. They can do a great deal more than they are doing now. They can encourage the desire to get the best out of work and to get the best results out of employment. I think the employers can do a lot. I cannot put it in words and I cannot put it in an Act of Parliament, but there is a new spirit moving in the air, and we should do all we can to encourage it. I believe we are going through the same sort of industrial revolution that the United States have gone through in the last few years, because of the immense wealth and the large distribution of wealth which has taken place owing to the very high wages paid and to the investment of those wages in the industrial concerns of the country. I believe we are about to start on the same course. I do not believe we can do it by passing abstract Resolutions of this sort. I do not approve of the low wages quoted by the Mover of the Resolution. I believe that wages ought to be raised, and that they ought to be such as to support a decent standard of life. I do not think you can get it by pressing the Government to decree this or to decree that, but I believe I see it coming and it rests almost entirely with the employers on the one side and the trade unions on the other.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Perhaps one of the things that have most justified the Debate has been the extraordinarily suggestive speech to which we have just listened. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a brief word or two about it later. But I should not be dealing with the Motion if I did not refer first of all to the speeches of the Proposer and the Seconder. There is a kindred spirit in all orators, and when I listened to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) and then to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young) I could not help thinking of Mirabeau, who always counselled audacity—audacity in the first place, audacity in the second place and always audacity. [Interruption.] It is true, perhaps, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) but it is equally true of the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. To start with, the Mover called attention to the discrepancy between wages in sheltered and unsheltered industries but he discreetly omitted that in the Resolution he moved, and I should think the reason is quite plain. If anyone tried to deal with the discrepancy between the wages in unsheltered and sheltered industries, he would come hard up against the economic facts at once. That was the last thing, I think, which the Mover of the Resolution would want to do, if he wanted to get it accepted by the House.

The hon. Member who seconded the Motion was very indignant with the Government. He produced many severe statements and be buttressed them up with a certain number of facts, as he called them, one or two only of which I was able to take down. One of the reasons for his condemnation was that there had been a continuous decline in wages in 1926. I have had that matter looked up since he made that statement and I see that in 1926 there was a net increase in the wages bill of £37.500 per week.

Mr. R. YOUNG

If that is so, I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It does not agree with the figures at my disposal.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The next time, I will let the hon. Member have more correct figures at his disposal in order to save him from making misstatements of that kind. From both hon. Members there came a criticism of the Government with regard to the general rates of pay in Government employ. We were severely condemned. If I remember aright, there are Whitley Councils which deal with the rates of employés in Government Departments, and there are those who take the cases on the workmen's side before those Whitley Councils. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) would be a perfectly ideal representative for that purpose. He is persuasive, he is combative, he is not too rigid in his adherence to logic and, consequently, he would state their case ideally. Yet, at the same time, I rather think that he signed some of those agreements himself, perhaps more than one.

Mr. KELLY

I am a member of at least four of those Councils. In no case have I signed or has the workers' side signed those agreements. In fact, the Government of 1922 and 1923 forced the redaction upon the workpeople in the dockyards and in the arsenals.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Dockyards and arsenals. Then I take it that the hon. Member did not sign any of them, not even with regard to messengers?

Mr. KELLY

indicated dissent.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Never mind, the Seconder of the Motion really got my hon. Friend out of his trouble, because he said that merely to observe conditions laid dawn in the Fair Wages Clause and to observe trade union rates, does not mean that the Government is a model employer. I look at the practice under the late Labour Government, and I take the statement of their practice by the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition. He said: The practice of the Government is to pay rates and wages and to observe hours of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised by employers and trade societies, or in the absence of such recognised wages and hours those which in practice prevail amongst the employers in the trade in the district where the work is carried out. In fact, he adopted that as his own standard.

Mr. WEBB

My right hon. Friend was merely quoting what has been the Fair Wages Clause for a great many years.

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND

Indeed he was, and he was also adopting it as the standard of his own practice. That is what hon. Members will find if they will look up the quotation on the 15th May, 1924. I quite admit that the party opposite may have thrown over their leader once more. He has been made to toe the line over the Chinese question and I have no doubt he will be made to do it again. [Interruption.] I am within the knowledge of every hon. Member opposite when I say that. [Interruption.] I adhere to what I have said. I take the figures quoted by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. The hon. Member for Rochdale referred to the ease of the engineers. I quite sympathise with their ease and also with the ease of the iron and steel and shipbuilding employés. But the hon. Member should not over-state his case. He referred to the rate of 57s. a week for engineers—in sotto voce he added the word time rate—but he knows that engineers work on piecework rates wherever possible.

Mr. KELLY

That is not so.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Every employer if he can and every workman if he can prefers to work on piecework, and the rate for piecework is time and one-third, and there is all the difference between 57s. a week time rate and time and one-third, which is the basis for piece rate.

Mr. KELLY

Do you mean to suggest that this applies to labourers say in the Birmingham area, your own district, who are working at 40s. a week? There is no piecework there.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I am referring to the hon. Member's 57s. a week, and he is now trying to draw a little red herring across the track. I am speaking of the 57s. a week person, to whom he referred as a skilled engineer and who is on piecework and wants to go on piecework whenever he can; and piecework is on the basis of time-and-one-third and not 57s. a week. Next take the instance quoted by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young) of the five miners who earned £40 between them in a week. The hon. Member said that the product sold at the pits mouth prices for £880, and the men were paid £40 in wages. To any outsider who had not studied the subject this would give the belief that the wage cost of that 323 tons of coal was £40, but those who are acquainted with the facts know that it is nothing of the kind. Besides the hewers you have all the rest of the men employed in the coal mine, and such over-statements of the case, unintentional as they are—

Mr. R. YOUNG

I only quoted what I read in a newspaper.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The hon. Member ought to be more critical when he reads his daily paper, and he ought not to pass it on without first properly digesting it himself.

Mr. PALING

The hon. Member referred to it as representing the wage cost of the hewers alone.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

That was not the way in which he stated it. I took particular care to note what he said. The hon. Member was very severe and talked about the dishonour that may attach to hon. Members on this side of the House, and to anyone who had supported the right hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) when he was Prime Minister—that did not, touch me because I had resigned. He was very severe on hon. Members on this side of the House. He used the word "dishonourable." I do not want to employ that word for the moment. I think he was simply forgetful or else he had not read his paper properly. Whatever form of mental aberration it was on the part of the hon. Member, his argument had the whole bottom knocked out of it. Let us look at the actual facts. We have had very few of them this evening. Let us look at the facts of the sheltered and unsheltered trades. That brings one down to the extraordinary discrepancies between them, discrepancies which have been remarked by everyone who has gone into the facts, whatever be their opinions in politics. I take Mr. Barnes, but the same was true of the Report of the Committee on Pay under Sir Allen Anderson. Here I have an extract from a statement by Mr. Barnes: I am glad to notice that at last the disparity in wage rates as between skilled and unskilled labour is attracting widespread attention. The present conditions in Southampton show how things are going. Here in London engineers are working side by side with unskilled labourers, who are paid nearly twice as high rates. The busman is paid higher, and the dustman is an aristocrat as compared with the engineer.

Mr. KELLY

He did not agree that the other man is paid too high.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I am pointing out the discrepancies which the hon. Member put. These are due to actual economic reasons. Every one knows, even the one black sheep from Birmingham. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, a white sheep!"] It all depends on the way the light is reflected on the fleece. The hon. Member knows quite well that the wages in the iron and steel trade and in the shipbuilding trade and, to a lesser but still an acute extent, the wages in the engineering trade, and in all the unsheltered trades, are much lower than all the other wages; not only lower, but the men in the trade, besides having lower wages, have had much longer spells of unemployment, and they are lower just because of the blast of foreign competition. Those are the hard economic facts. They are the economic facts which hon. Members opposite have not attempted to face to-night for one moment. You cannot cure those economic facts. They can be sometimes made worse; they can, indeed, by private action. I know of a municipality with a Labour majority, which recently made a contract and the English tenderer was not a closed trade union house. They put this contract abroad, and, as far as I can make out, no inquiry was made as to whether the foreign tenderer was or was not a trade union house before action was taken to the disadvantage of their fellow citizens. In that way it can be made worse. Corning back to the sheltered industries, I agree at once that wages are not as high as we should wish, and I am at one with hon. Members opposite in hoping that we can get a steady improvement. But when we ask what is really demanded in the way of improvement we get no answer. What does the hon. Member who moved this Motion think adequate for the unskilled workmen with 55s. a week I Should it he 5s. or 10s. or 15s. more?

Mr. KELLY

Whatever makes a reasonable livelihood.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I see, but the hon. Member carefully avoids giving as any figure. I can understand that,, from the ideal point of view, nothing short of the salary of a Cabinet Minister would be adequate. From all we hear from the Mover of the Motion he expects—this is the trouble—that the increased wage shall come down like manna from Heaven, while he stands by like some patriarch of old. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion was just the same. He is like a modern Elijah, who thinks he has a little cruse that will go on pouring out high wages for ever, and never petering out. We had no constructive suggestion from him at all. What is it that is expected? Is it 5s., 10s. or 15s. a week? If every pound of income over £5 a week could be re-distributed at this moment, it would not mean as much as 5s. a week per family in this country. You cannot get a quart out of a pint pot, and that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite refuse to recognise. We are much more humble in our statements. The only way to improve matters is by gradually increasing the productivity of the nation—there we are on common ground—and thus improving wages in a slower but a surer way, little by little. I would like to see all people dividend-receivers, and I think it could be done without any damage to the real interests of the trade union organisation. I would gladly see the workman having more and more of a voice in the management, in the settling of conditions and also in the knowledge of business.

I know the prejudice against profit sharing or co-partnership which arises from the fear that it would undermine the trade union position. I believe that advance is possible along those, lines without undermining any legitimate trade union influence, and I myself think it is not so much the profit-sharing alone, as the actual feeling that you know what the industry is doing and that you have some voice and some interest in it, that is wanted. Along those lines you can get a great advance in contentment in productivity, and also in wages, and that is the line to pursue. If it is to be done, it is to be done more by industry itself than by continually bringing politics into the question. I say that freely. If industry were left both to the employers and to the men, I think we should see, as I hope we may see, a greater advance than will be made if political considerations come in to warp and bias what might be otherwise take place. It is from that point of view that I cordially assent to the last part of the Amendment which states that this House calls upon all political parties to co-operate to this end. I think the foe to industrial advance is the fact of having too much politics, and I think the co-operation which we ought to exercise is an act of self-abnegation, that from the political side we should not interfere too much.

Mr. PALING

Not even to increase hours.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Not even to support the Communists or the quasi-Communists. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did you do last year?"] Let the party opposite settle it among themselves. They have condemned the people who caused the strike before now. If they like to put it in that way, I can well imagine the difference of opinion—even in a united party such as the party opposite—between the industrialists and the political people in the trade union ranks. If I were an industrialist there, in the trade union ranks, my feelings towards the political and labour ranks would be—. Your friends aren't my friends, And my friends aren't your friends, And the less we are together, The hosier trade will be.

Mr. WEBB

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think it discourteous if I do not attempt to follow all that he has said. Especially when he dropped into a somewhat lyrical strain at the end, I am sorry my abilities do not enable me to cope with him. There was one observation which he made for which I had been waiting, and when it came, it did not come in the form in which I had expected it. I have been very much surprised in leading the past history of discussion in this House at the way in which Government after Government and Parliament after Parliament went on busy over many things, but never once considering the level of wages that prevailed in the country. Mr. Gladstone never dreamed of that as a possible political question, but I was rather surprised that no one to-night has protested that Parliament ought not to be troubled with the subject of the level of wages. The right hon. Gentleman, in finishing up, gave us the modern version of that protest. He did not say the subject ought not to have been brought before Parliament—and that, I think, is a very great advance—but he said it was better to leave it to industry itself and not allow Parliament to interfere at all. I suggest that there is some difficulty in doing that. An hon. Member opposite said we were fighting another war to-day, a war upon which civilisation depended, and which was creatine dissension among the people and that, this was very injurious. I dare-say it is injurious, but that is what you have got because Parliament has not given sufficient attention to this question of the level of wages, and has been told, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, that Parliament should not interfere and could not effectively do anything. Therefore, in consequence of that, or at all events following this neglect of Parliament and of Governments, you have got this widespread state of what is called dissension and envy and discontent, which is apparently inimical to the highest possible production.

I submit that, unless yon will change the attitude of Governments and of Parliament with regard to this question of wages, unless you give up the belief that Parliament can do nothing and ought to do nothing, inevitably you will have the discontent continuing and existing, and the envy, dissension, and all those things that are hostile to the highest production. This House and this Government have their choice. I do not blame this Government only; I blame all Governments. Unless the Government does apply its statesmanship, and the House its influence, in order to raise the standard of life in this country, to enable the people to get a decent standard of living, you will have this war and dissension and envy. That is the choice which we have before us. I believe; that the Government can do something, and I would like to trouble the House with some considera- tions in regard to what has happened to wages generally.

I do not want to fail into the error of suggesting that things are worse off now than they were a generation ago, or 50 years ago, or a hundred years ago. On the contrary, things are better off now than they were then. During the 19th century, I suppose, our production per head has increased something like fourfold. I am not sure whether the standard of life of the mass of the people has risen as much as four-fold, but there has been an improvement, and that has been due to the enormous increase in the efficiency of industry. But what is very significant is that there has been no improvement in the distribution of the products. There has been a rise. The man at the bottom, in the lower ranks, has got more, and the man in the middle has got more, and the man at the top has got more, but it is very curious that the slope has remained almost unchanged during the last 100 years. However, for the moment that may not be so bad if people at the bottom have risen.

If you take the generation preceding the War, there was an increase in the prosperity of the country, and wages, apparently, increased at something about the same rate as the total income did. But I would like the House to notice that the whole of that increase as far as wages were concerned came to an end in 1895, and from 1895 until 1913, though you had a rise in money wages, it fell far behind the increase in prices, and that has been the case since the War. Consequently, you have these complaints today. Nevertheless, there has been some improvement, and it is very instructive to notice how that improvement has come about. You cannot show there has been an improvement in wages. There has been a backward tendency in wages as a matter of fact, if you take into account the rise in the cost of living over a particular period. But although there has been a backward tendency in wages, or, if you take another period, only a slight increase in wages, there has been a very perceptible increase in the standard of life of the people. You will find that in many respects. Following the great inquiry which Mr. Charles Booth made in London in 1891, he found that, fixing a possible line at which people could barely live at all, namely, 20s. a week, after calculating the income of every working class family in London, he found to his surprise that 30 per cent. of the entire population of London at that date was at or below this poverty line of 20s. per week. A similar estimate was made by Rowntree and various people in other towns, and they brought out very much the same figure. It would he extremely valuable if that inquiry in London were made again. The inquiry has been repeated in some other towns, and the result was in this way satisfactory, that there was a considerable diminution of the number of people who are in the lowest class. I expect we should find in London, that instead of 30 per cent. of the whole population being at or below what corresponds to 20s., you would probably find 15 per cent, or 20 per cent., which has been the result elsewhere.

My point is that you still have a very large number of people at a level which is not sufficient for a decent subsistence. I would like to point out that during the past generation in some industries which have earned profit to allow of higher wages, the employers have not given the higher wages. I can mention the brewing industry and the brick industry. It is suggested that, if an industry could be made to afford a higher wage by increased efficiency, the employers would be only too glad to give higher wages. Experience, however, shows that they are not. It is admitted that, when the profits are not only high but steadily increasing, you do not find that the employers increase the wages in those industries. They ask why they should pay higher wages than other industries. Yet hon. Members say to the trade unions that employers would give a higher wage if productivity was higher. No one can deny that there are great industries in this country which have been for the last five, 10, 15 years making large and increasing profits on their own showing, but we do not find that in those industries they have paid these higher wages in any single case.

Mr. WRAGG

Is the right hon. Member correct in stating that, because I believe that in the brewing industry the minimum wage is 56s. a week while prior to the War it was something like 18s?

Mr. WEBB

I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he has informed me that in the brewing industry prior to the War they were paying to the lowest-paid workers 18s. a week. The brewing industry prior to the War, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well, was making very large profits indeed. Yet they did not pay any more to their employers than they needed to pay. Why should they? When they say the wage now is 56s., you have got to allow for the increase in the cost of living. Besides, 55s. is one of those wages which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) quoted as being insufficient. What has been the cause of the increase in the standard of living where it has risen? I submit that the cause has been two-fold. One is the action of this House and of the Government in the gradual increase in the Measures of what we might call social reform. The fact that these Measures are now costing over £300,000,000 a year, whereas 30 years ago they were only costing £22,000,000 year, shows that that is a great element in maintaining a higher standard for the working classes. If we are asked for something constructive, I can only say that the Government and the House should go on in the same direction and cause as great an increase in social services in the next few years as in the past. On the contrary, we find the Government falling back again in the development of the social service. We find that they are cutting down some of the most valuable of these services and that they are refusing to go ahead on the question of hours of labour. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself has had time and again to explain to the House that, although he wishes to ratify the Washington Convention and intends that it shall be ratified and although it should, ought, could and would he ratified, somehow or other to-day is not the day on which it is to be ratified, but it is always the day after to-morrow. Take, again, the case of housing. Are we not threatened with slowing down the whole provision of housing and with a reduction in the housing subsidy?

It is those schemes which have been effective in maintaining the standard. It is along those lines, without adopting anything which they denounce as Socialism, that we ask this Government to go ahead, and we protest against this Government going back. There is one other way in which families have not been pressed down below the level quite so far as they used to be. I offer no opinion about this; I simply state it as a fact. The reduction in the size of the average family is recorded as a large factor in preventing so large a proportion of the total falling below the poverty line. The reduction in the size of the family is one of the most important and significant economic facts which have to be taken into account. The right hon. Gentleman is very anxious that we should take account of important economic facts, and I would ask the Government to take account of that economic fact, and take care of what they do in that matter if worse things are not to happen.

If we are dealing with wages which are below the poverty line, wages which do not allow of the maintenance of a decent standard of living—and the right hon. Gentleman has said there are such cases, and the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) of course knows there are such cases in almost every industry—a great instrument for raising those wages, which has proved more potent in these downtrodden industries even than trade unionism, and has been worked now for nearly 20 years with very great success, has been the Trade Board legislation. The operation of the Trade Boards Act has led to miraculous improvement in certain industries. Do we find that the Government are going to carry on that work? What has happened to the Trade Boards branch of the Ministry of Labour? What blight has fallen on that branch which has caused it to shrink in size and in activity? How many Trade Boards have been started during the last two years under the present Government, and how many more are going to be started next year? Between now and the General Election what extension of the Trade Boards shall we see? The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that

the Trade Board Acts have been magically successful in many of the industries to which they have been applied and without diminishing the profits of the employers.

I think we wish to see the Government not only a model employer and wish to see the Fair Wages Clause amended and brought up to date, and I hope we shall see the hours of labour reduced, the Washington Convention ratified, and the social welfare work, which has been costing £300,000,000 a year instead of £20,000,000 a year—let us hope to see that doubled. I do not say that it should increase in the same ratio as between the £20,000,000 and the £300,000,000, which increase has been the work of preceding Governments; if the Government cannot keep up that breakneck pace, at any rate they might let it be doubled in the next few years, let that £320,000,000 be made into £640,000,000. By doing that, we should be emulating the work of preceding Governments. When all these things have been done we shall then probably find that it is not necessary to wait for increased efficiency in industry, though we want that increased efficiency. The hon. Member who spoke about increased efficiency always seems to think that it means that the individual workman has to work harder. That is not how I see how increased efficiency has come in the last 100 years. It has been done through an enormous increase in capitalisation, in the amount of machinery, in technique, and in the skill and enterprise of the employers of the past generation. That is what we want to see increased—not the workman made to work harder. I would ask the House to reject the Amendment and vote for the Resolution.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes. 117; Noes, 200.

Division No. 44.]	AYES.	[11.0 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fite, West)	Bromley, J.	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Pay, Colonel Harry
Ammon, Charles George	Buchanan, G.	Dennison, R.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)	Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Duncan, C.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Cape, Thomas	Dunnico, H
Barr, J.	Charleton, H. C.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Batey, Joseph	Clowes, S,	Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Compton, Joseph	Gibbins, Joseph
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Connolly, M,	Gillett, George M.
Bondfield, Margaret	Cove, W. G.	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Broad, F. A.	Dalton, Hugh	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Ellin., Cent.)
Bromfield, William	Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Greenall, T.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	March, S.	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Montague, Frederick	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Groves, T.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)	Snell, Harry
Grundy, T. W.	Murnin, H.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)	Naylor, T. E.	Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Hardle, George D.	Oliver, George Harold	Stamford, T. W.
Mayday, Arthur	Palin, John Henry	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Hayes, John Henry	Paling, W.	Sullivan, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Sutton, J. E.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Taylor, R. A.
Hirst, G. H.	Potts, John S.	Tinker, John Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Purcell, A. A.	Townend, A, E.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-Ie-Spring)	Viant, S. P.
John, William (Bhondda, West)	Riley, Ben	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Ritson, J.	Watson, W. M, (Dunfermline)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)	Wellock, Wilfred
Kelly, W. T.	Rose, Frank H.	Welsh, J. C.
Kennedy, T.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Lansbury, George	Scrymgeour, E.	Whiteley, W.
Lawson, John James	Scurr, John	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Lee, F.	Sexton, James	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lindley, F. W.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Lowth, T.	Shleis, Dr. Drummond	Windsor, Walter
Lunn, William	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Sitch, Charles H.
Mackinder, W.	Smillie, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
MacLaren, Andrew	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut,-Colonel	Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Dawson, Sir Philip	Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, cent'l)	Dixey, A. C.	Knox, Sir Alfred
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	England, Colonel A.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Lougher, L.
Atkinson, C.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Balniel, Lord	Fielden, E. B.	Lumley, L. R.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Finburgh, S.	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Ford, Sir P. J.	MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	MacIntyre, Ian
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Forrest, W.	McLean, Major A.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Fraser, Captain Ian	Macmillan, Captain H.
Betterton, Henry B.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	MacRobert, Alexander M.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Gates, Percy	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Gower, Sir Robert	Margesson, Captain D.
Briscoe, Richard George	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Grant, Sir J. A.	Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Meller, R. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Merriman, F. B.
Bullock, Captain M.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Burman, J. B.	Grotrian, H. Brent	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Campbell, E. T.	Hammersley, S. S.	Neville, R. J.
Carver, Major W. H.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)	Harland, A.	Nuttall, Ellis
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hawke, John Anthony	Oakley, T.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Henderson Lleut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Penny, Frederick George
Clarry, Reginald George	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Clayton, G. C.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Sear. & Wh'by)	Perring, Sir William George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hills, Major John Wa[...]	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.	Holland, Sir Arthur	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Holt. Captain H. P.	Pllcher, G.
Cooper, A. Duff	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cope, Major William	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Price, Major C. W. M.
Couper, J. B.	Hutchison, G. A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Radford, E. A.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Raine, W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Jephcott, A. R.	Rees, Sir Beddoe
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Rice, Sir Frederick

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)	Starry-Deans, R.	Wiggins, William Martin
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Styles, Captain H. Walter	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Rye, F. G	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Salmon, Major I.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Sandeman, A. Stewart	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Sanderson, Sir Frank	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Sandon, Lord	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Savery, S. S.	Waddington, R.	Womersley, W. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne,c.)	Wallace, Captain D. E.	Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.	Wragg, Herbert
Smithers, Waldron	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Sprot, Sir Alexander	Watts, Dr. T.	Sir Edward Iliffe and Major Ropner.
Stanley,Col.Hon. G, F. (Will'sden, E.)	Wells, S. R.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. SCURR rose—

It being after Eleven o' Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.