INDUSTRIAL UNREST.

HL Deb 07 November 1917 vol 26 cc905-52

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to call attention to the Reports of the Commissions of Inquiry into Industrial Unrest; and to move for Papers.

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the House, whose absence through indisposition we all regret, in a recent debate in your Lordships' House upon the subject of India reminded us, in an eloquent passage, that the events of the war were felt in all parts of the world, and that there was not merely politically but socially a repercussion from those events upon the labour situation and the social situation not only in Russia but also in India. What is true of Russia and of India is, to a far smaller extent and in a very mitigated form, true of this country; and I shall, therefore make no apology to your Lordships for venturing to bring under your notice the subject of industrial unrest.

This has already been a matter of public discussion, and there have been a series of very interesting articles upon it in The Times. I do not know that your Lordships will agree with every word in those articles; probably many of us will consider that they take rather an exaggerated view of the situation. But not only has the matter been the subject of public discussion; it has also been the subject of official inquiry, and there have been, as your Lordships are aware, Commissions appointed for different districts in various parts of the country whose business it has been to inquire into the cause of this industrial unrest. Though we may think that some commentators have taken an exaggerated view of the situation, undoubtedly what these Reports reveal is sufficiently formidable.

I feel, if I my say so, very inadequate to the task which I have ventured to set myself of bringing these matters under your Lordships' notice. They are very difficult and want a special knowledge of the subject which I am afraid I do not possess. Moreover, there are particular difficulties attaching to the question. It is so very difficult, in discussing this subject, to avoid a sort of attitude of intolerable patronage towards the working-classes which I should desire to avoid. On the other hand, there is also a temptation—if I may use such a word—to truckle to the working-classes, to say things which we know or think will be pleasant to them, for the purpose of earning their applause. I shall try and avoid both risks, and I assure your Lordships, and any others, that I for one approach this subject in a spirit of the deepest sympathy with the working-classes.

What is the principal impression left on the mind of any candid reader of these Reports? I do not care very much which Report you take, or from whatever part of England it emanates. I say that the principal feeling with which you rise from reading these Reports is an impression of distrust. The Commissioners report that in almost all respects there is in the working-classes a feeling of distrust—distrust, of course, of employers, distrust of Government, distrust of Parliament, distrust of the trades union officials themselves, distrust of the whole social system. I am not responsible for those statements. They may be exaggerated, but that is the general impression left after reading these Reports.

I am not going, I assure your Lordships, to trouble you with many quotations this afternoon, but I want to read a word or two to justify what I am saying. I take the Report of the North-Western area, and I find on page 19— There is no doubt that one cause of labour unrest is that workmen have come to regard the promises and pledges of Parliaments and Government Departments with suspicion and distrust. Again, a little later— It was painful to hear the common use of the phrase a scrap of paper so constantly used by working men in describing what they felt of Government promises. That is the attitude with regard to the Government. I could find scores of quotations more or less similar, though the one I have just read is particularly striking. I have said that it is not only the Government that they distrust, but that they even distrust the trades union leaders. I take a quotation from the Report of the South-Eastern area— This loss of confidence in the Government is unfortunately associated with a diminished reliance on the power and prestige of the trade unions and the impairment of the authority and influence of their executive bodies. This is the note that you find in these Reports, and this attitude of distrust has a direct effect upon the position which the working-classes occupy with regard to the burning questions of the moment. I take as an example the one with which all your Lordships are familiar—the dread which they feel that what I call the pre-war conditions will not be restored according to the pledges of the Government. It is probably true that the pre-war conditions cannot in their integrity be restored, but it is also true that the late Government—and we all, of course, accept the responsibility—pledged themselves up to the hilt to restore the pre-war conditions. That is a very difficult and a very odious situation in which the Government and Parliament have found themselves. I blame no one.

I am not imputing blame for a moment—but in perfect good faith a promise was made to restore the pre-war conditions, and it now appears that it is impossible, or may be impossible, to carry it out in its integrity. Of course, there is nothing to be done except to appeal to the working-class, to say to them: "We are in an impossible situation; we, as it were, throw ourselves on your mercy; we are pledged, but we appeal to you as fellow-countrymen and Englishmen to recognise the difficulty and to co-operate with us in finding a solution." We must, that is to say, make a demand upon the confidence of the working-class; and it is the absence of that confidence and the difficulty of appealing to it which is the formidable symptom to which I am now drawing your Lordships' attention.

To what is this loss of confidence due? It is in the first place due, of course, to the circumstances of the time—circumstances of great stress, which naturally make people suspicious; it is due in the second place, no doubt—let me speak quite frankly—to mistakes on the part of the working-class itself; it is due to certain faults, not confined to the working-class, but belonging to all classes—a certain class selfishness; also, perhaps, to a certain ignorance, and want of knowledge of exactly how the laws of political economy work. But those are not the only reasons—neither the circumstances of the time, nor the faults, such as they are, of the working-class itself. We cannot conceal from ourselves that the industrial relations which have existed for many, many years between the employers and employed are largely responsible—I might almost say principally responsible— for the loss of confidence which these Reports reveal.

I am no historian, and I should not venture to trouble your Lordships with my crude views of history on the present occasion, but undoubtedly there was a spirit which grew up in the nineteenth century, a very adverse spirit, in which the relations between the employers and the employed and their relative positions were differentiated in such a manner as to reveal those hostile forces. It is quite wrong; they were not really hostile; they ought never to be treated as hostile. But that was the spirit which grew up. It began a long time ago. I suppose every one of your Lordships is familiar with the great romances of the late Lord Beaconsfield (Mr. Disraeli), and will remember how in his time he called attention to this in that great novel "Sybil," which everybody has read. There it appears how deep was the chasm which divided the two classes at that time. He spoke of the two nations—not the same division as The Times made the other day, the division between the rich and employing class and the poor.

I do not mean to say that the state of things now is the same as it was in the days when "Sybil" was written, but a great deal still remains of that spirit. Of course, there are a great many good employers. Indeed, I believe that the vast majority of them are good employers. But there are some who are not good employers, and, if we are to speak the truth, we must say so. To them undoubtedly labour is very little more than one of the raw materials of industry and men merely human machines whose business it is to create so much wealth for those who employ them. That is a spirit profoundly to be regretted, and, as I believe, it is largely the origin of the want of trust and the want of confidence which we see at the present time.

I do not think that Governments have helped to allay this spirit. I speak of Governments. I hope your Lordships will believe me when I state that in nothing that I am going to say to-day do I want in any sense to attack the present Government. I should be very sorry to do it on a subject of this gravity. No, I am speaking of the way in which successive Governments have dealt with working-class objects and working-class legislation. The governing classes, if we are to speak the truth, have been inclined to regard the working-class as a sort of dangerous animal sometimes—a dangerous animal of enormous strength and of great potential violence, which it is necessary to be very civil to, to caress, to cajole, to out-manœuvre, but (over and over again it is true) never to give confidence to, and never to trust. I am perfectly persuaded that this is a most profound mistake, fraught with the greatest danger to our country.

Your Lordships will find that this spirit of want of confidence in the people of the Government continues to the present day. In one of these Reports, the West Midland Area Report. I find this passage— The Government have all through been too much afraid of the public; they have not realised how solid and unbroken is the determination to finish the war, and they seem to have been led by a few spasmodic outbreaks and irresponsible utterances to the opinion that there was a dangerous element who might misuse any information it obtained. The result has been that the public has been kept in the dark not only on military matters, but on matters on which no necessity for secrecy existed. This was the finding of the Commission. I am quite sure your Lordships will agree that it is absolutely necessary that we should correct that attitude of suspicion. I do not say it is universal—anything but that; but I say there is a large element of it in a great many working-class minds, and that it is very dangerous. The working-class, or many of them, are always afraid that they are being exploited in somebody's interests, and they have an attitude and feeling of suspicion of everybody who approaches them in the sphere of government.

I have spoken with gravity—I hope with not too great gravity—of these symptoms. But although they are grave and serious, there are many relieving features. Take the worst case—I mean the part of our country which has produced the worst Report, Wales. Undoubtedly the Report from Wales is much the most formidable Report. Whether it is justified or not, of course I am no judge. In Wales the extreme elements are very powerful; many of the working-class hold a view—with which I may not agree, but that has nothing to do with the matter—they hold a very strong and extreme view; a view which, in many instances, takes the form of so great a distrust of Parliament that they really intend to have nothing more to do with it, to take no interest in its proceedings, and to conduct their agitation in complete independence of whatever Parliament may do or say.

And yet even these extreme people are not unprincipled. I was very much struck with a passage in the Report which shows, I think, what I am trying to convey to your Lordships. These extreme thinkers are not out merely to get an unprincipled advantage over somebody else. On the contrary, they are most anxious to justify themselves. They are most anxious to found their action in high principle, and they have gone so far as this, that the South Wales Miners' Federation and the National Union of Railwaymen have jointly assumed financial responsibility for a Working Man's College—the Central Labour College—" where the workers may be taught the social sciences free from the bias and prejudice of the upper-class conception of history and economics." Of course, this idea that there are two histories and two systems of economics may seem to some of your Lordships very amusing—and it is in its way. But is it not also rather reassuring as showing that these men are in the pursuit of truth? They want to find out what in right. They are not going to trample os people's rights simply because they are, or intend to be, the strongest. On the contrary, they are going to study economies, and they believe—as we, think quite wrongly—that they will find in economies and history a justification for their wildest theories. In my opinion, this is a very reassuring frame of mind. If you want any other proof that these men are not unprincipled, that they are not devoid of love of their country, you have only to look at the recent ballot which has been decided and the magnificent support which these very extreme working men of Wales have given to the prosecution of the war.

How ought we to deal with a situation such as I have endeavoured to describe? In the first place, must we not altogether get rid of the want of confidence with which as I venture to think, the working-class have been treated in the past? We must be prepared to tell them the truth—always the truth. If it will not be thought at all polemical I might say that if we find, for example, that honours have been improperly bestowed, we must not scruple to give the right name to the transaction. That is the way in which we shall deserve, and I believe earn, the confidence of the working-class. Then we must appeal always to their sense of duty, and not always to their pocket. There is a great temptation to appeal to their pockets, because very often in the demands which they put forward it seems that they are thinking only of their pockets or of their stomachs. But I am sure we should not be misled by that. Indeed you will find, if you read these Reports, a great deal said about food, the price of food and the difficulty of obtaining food, as causes of industrial unrest. That is undoubtedly true. But these food questions—as I think the noble Lord opposite (Lord Rhondda) has already found—can be dealt with if they are handled vigorously and if a frank appeal is made to the people.

One of the elements into which the food controversy runs is a suspicion of what are called "profiteers." The suspicion of profiteering applies not only to food but to everything else. There is a strong feeling in the working-class that a great many men are making too much out of the war. I do not know what the truth is about that. I think it is, however, one of the things upon which the Government might enlighten us. Is it the fact that enormous fortunes are being made out of the war? I do not mean to say that it is wicked to make a fortune out of sound work; but I confess that if I had made a great fortune out of my country's necessities I should feel a little ashamed of myself. I do not see why we should pretend to have great sympathy with the people who have made a great deal of money out of the exigencies in which their country is placed. I should very much like to know the truth, and I believe the working-class would also like to know the truth. And why should we not know the truth? Let us know it, and, if necessary, let us apply a remedy; but do not let us treat the making of profit out of the war as a sort of State secret.

The next thing to appealing to the sense of duty of the working-class—that is to say, asking them to help us because it is our common country, and not because food is dear or cheap—is to go a step forward and to take them in all respects into partnership with Ourselves. I mean this not merely nationally but industrially. I am very glad to see the line which the Government have taken on the Whitley Report. Indeed, may I take this opportunity of saving, with all respect, that in many ways I have only praise for the manner in which the Government have attempted to deal with the recommendations of these Industrial Commissions, especially in regard to the Whitley Report. Your Lordships are aware that the Whitley Report, speaking broadly, proposes that there should be councils of employers and employed which should advise on all the difficulties arising in the course of industrial employment—councils in the shops councils in the districts, councils in the country at large, for each trade. It may be that in its details the proposal may be difficult to work; but, broadly, I believe the principle to be absolutely sound. It is said naturally on behalf of some employers that to take workmen into your confidence in the management of your business is to give away your trade secrets. Well, they must be prepared to give away something if they intend to command the confidence of their workmen. In these days and under modern conditions such a course is essential. The employers must be prepared to accept the advice and the help of their workmen, and to treat them not merely as human machines but as partners.

Lastly, we must show, of course, that we have the interests of the working-class at heart. Many of these matters are already under the consideration and the action of the Government. My noble friend, when he speaks, will no doubt tell us more on these heads. Something ought to be done to get rid of the intolerable delays which take place in the settlement of difficulties between employers and employed in controlled and Government establishments. Something ought to be done in order to meet the grievances of the skilled workers, who complain that their wages are lower than those of the unskilled workers. I need not trouble your Lordships with the reasons why this has grown up. It is quite understandable. No one is exactly to blame, but by a curious set of circumstances it has so fallen out that in a great many trades, under the artificial conditions in which we are compelled to work, the unskilled workers are sometimes paid higher wages than the skilled workers. That is a subject which requires treatment, and there are other matters which I need not go into. There are, however, one or two big matters. There is education. I am not suggesting—I do not know whether I shall command the assent of educationists in what I am going to say—I am not suggesting that education necessarily should be pushed forward now. It is not urgent, in the sense that it cannot wait a year or so; but there is a question which cannot wait at all, and that is housing. I urge the Government not to neglect the housing difficulty. I speak, I may say so with great humility, with some authority on this subject, because I have the honour to belong to a Committee which is at this moment engaged in making recommendations to the Government on the question of housing, and I can assure your Lordships that it is a very formidable question indeed. It divides itself into three. There is the permanent housing policy of this country. That, of course, is not urgent. There is the housing which requires to be taken in hand immediately upon the conclusion of the war. That has very formidable dimensions and is urgent. The measures necessary for dealing with that ought to be undertaken without delay. Lastly, there is a super-urgent department of the housing question I mean the conditions of housing under the stress of the difficulties of munition labour, which are so bad that they require to be dealt with immediately. I speak particularly of the great difficulties at Barrow. I am very much afraid that little has been done to remedy the state of things at Barrow, although the Report describing the conditions I ought almost to use the word "horrors "—of the situation at Barrow has been in the hands of the Government for months. I hope they will be able to tell us, both in respect of this very urgent question of housing at Barrow and also of the housing policy which is to be undertaken immediately on the conclusion of war; that the Government have clear ideas and are determined to press the matter forward without delay.

I hope I am not troubling your Lordships with too great detail, but I should like to say one or two words more. I hope that no one will think, either here or elsewhere, that in saying that the poor ought to be guided by a sense of duty. I mean to distinguish them in that respect from the rich. I do not belong to a Party which ever believed in the gospel of wealth. I know there are new Parties now. I am content with the old Parties; and the Party in which I and many of my noble friends who sit around me have been bred, was a Party which had no respect of persons as between rich and poor. We wanted justice for all classes. And the great Prime Ministers who have led the Conservative Party and other great Conservative statesmen have been forward in that respect and Liberal statesmen, of course, too—I think of Lord Shaftesbury, and Mr. Distaeli, and another Prime Minister whom I knew more intimately than Lord Beaconsfield, and who certainly had no respect of persons as between rich and poor, and who himself was one of the great pioneers in housing reform.

My Lords, we belong, many of us, to the old squires of England, who lived among our people, looked after them, and were friends with them. There was no division of classes, no two nations, as between us and the people who worked for us, and who I believe have been and are still fond of us. But, undoubtedly, when you look outside the ranks of the squires the landed interest—and look at the industrial conditions of England, a different set of things prevails. A certain harsh industrialism of which I have spoken has been responsible for what we have seen, and certain feebleness and insincerity in the Governments who have had to deal with the working-class questions.

I desire to close as I began. I do not wish to have the air of patronising the working-classes. Indeed, the power is rapidly slipping out of our hands, we who sit here. The working-classes have to work out their own salvation. They will make many mistakes. Very probably they will adversely affect the property of many of your Lordships. All these things are small matters. I earnestly hope that they will believe in us. I am quite sure that in the long run their good sense will prevail. But, whatever happens, we intend to trust them, my Lords; and I believe that they will return the trust. I beg to move.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, we shall all agree that the noble Marquess has done well in calling the attention of the House to a subject of such momentous importance, not only to the conduct of the war but to the restoration of national life and industry when the war is over. The Reports of the Commissions of Inquiry to which he has called our attention, are documents of the greatest possible importance, on the whole able, impartial, discriminating, throwing illumination upon the whole industrial situation. The noble Marquess has covered the ground with great fulness and sincerity, and in some respects I must needs follow the way he has led.

I think it would be a misfortune if we were to speak of unrest as a peculiar quality or attribute of labour at the present time. The working-classes are only sharing that unrest which is universal, and which is due not only to the strain of the war but to the shock which it has delivered everywhere to established customs and beliefs. So far as the dislocation of life caused by the war and its exigencies are concerned they have undoubtedly more directly affected the working-classes than others; but while I agree with the noble Marquess in saying that the elements of unrest in the world of labour are formidable, it seems to me that what is surprising is not that there is so much disquieting unrest at the present time, but that there has been so little.

Consider the position in which the majority of our workers have been placed. They have been in many ways severely tried. They have found the high wages, which were only due to their increased efforts, more or less neutralised by high prices, which they have believed—and certainly at the beginning of the war with only too much justice—to be largely due to profiteering at the expense of the community. They have been harassed and harried, in a way which it is difficult for us to understand, by confusion in the orders for recruiting and medical examination. They have resented the system of leaving certificates, by which it was open to the employer to dismiss the man and not open to the man to leave the employer. They have, above all, been annoyed and irritated by the constant confusion between Government Departments, and by the consequent delays in the settlement of many important and pressing questions. Indeed, the Reports of the Commissioners reveal this to have been so fruitful a cause of irritation and unrest that it may, perhaps, be pardonable for an outsider to ask whether, even now, it would not be possible for the members of the Ministry to meet together more frequently than they appear to do for common counsel. So far as one can judge, at the present time any Departmental measure has either to take its chance in the queue which awaits entry to the doors of Downing-street, or else to be pressed through by each individual Minister without much regard to what is being done in an Office over which he does not preside. It is quite certain—I know it from frequent conversations both with masters and with men—that it is difficult to exaggerate the annoyance, apart altogether from that lack of confidence of which the noble Marquess has spoken, which has resulted from the impression that neither masters nor men knew exactly where they stood, owing to the conflict of authorities in the Government.

Moreover, as I think the noble Marquess pointed out, many of the skilled workmen, owing to the arrangements for the dilution of labour, have seen unskilled men and women, sometimes trained by themselves, earning wages far larger than their own; and beyond this, the working-classes have submitted to a suspension of regulations which, whatever we may think about them were prized and valued by them as the result and record of great struggles of which they were proud. Above all, like many of us, they have been tired and worn out through the long strain of the war, and not unnaturally their nerves are on edge.

Yet in spite of this let us not forget the record of service which at this time they have rendered to the country. It is only what would be expected, that men to whom the country had given a goodly heritage, of advantage and education, should have been ready to come to her aid in the time of her need; but what perhaps could hardly have been expected is that vast numbers of men to whom this country had given apparently nothing but an obscure place in a vast industrial machine and an overcrowded house in some slum or grimy street, should have been at the outbreak of the war among the very first to come forward for the help of a country to which they owed apparently so little. And those who have joined since the Military Service Acts were passed are the men who at this moment, as many of us have seen and know by personal experience in France, are showing just as much as those who went out freely at the beginning of the war the unfailing qualities of cheerfulness and readiness to meet any difficulty, bear any sacrifice, and meet any demand.

If this is true of the workmen who have joined the Army, it is equally true of the vast majority of the workmen who are toiling now in our factories throughout the country. We hear from time to time amazing statistics as to the output of energy in the factories of this country in the service of the war. We must never forget when we hear these amazing statistics, that they can only be possible because of the unceasing and cheerful submission to conditions of toil and labour which are being at this present moment undergone by the men and women of this country. Therefore, I should like to say at the very outset that what I think we ought to have in mind is not that there should have been times of awkwardness and difficulty during this period of strain, but that on the whole the working classes should have shown themselves so surprisingly united and loyal in their support of the country.

But, my Lords, these difficulties of which I have been speaking, these causes of unrest, are more or less temporary. They have been largely remedied by the action of the Government, I have no doubt they will be remedied still further. There remain—this is, perhaps the point of greatest importance—there remain the deep and permanent causes of unrest which the war and its strain have only accentuated. When the measure of restraint which, owing to the necessities of the war, has been accepted by the working-classes is over, these permanent causes will emerge with redoubled strength. Moreover, when the war is over there will be, and there will rightly be, on the part of the workers as of all classes, a demand that pre-war conditions shall not be restored, but that a new departure shall be made. He would be indeed, a foolish person who attempted to answer with any confidence the question, What are the real thoughts that are passing through the minds of the great majority of our working classes at the Front? But certainly one answer would be that, putting it bluntly, having borne the greater part of the strain and sacrifices of the war, they are determined when they return to see that the conditions and rewards of their labour shall be adequate to the sacrifices which they have seen and made.

The fundamental causes of the unrest, of course, are many. I would ask leave to speak only of two, and in so doing to put, if I can, the case for the workers in this country. It is a great misfortune to us in this House that there is no one directly representative of our workers who can rise in his place and address us, but I should like, if I may, to speak on their behalf, not in the spirit of an advocate, but of one who has sincere sympathy with what I believe to be just and reasonable demands The first cause obviously is the unequal distribution of the rewards of industry. There is no man who can think with any satisfaction of the ultimate result of the great expansion of industry in the nineteenth century, of the contrast between the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few and the position of the vast majority of intelligent working men but little raised above the margin of poverty.

It is perfectly true that there has been a considerable increase at least in nominal wages, but for the last fifteen years the rise in prices has made the rise of real wages much smaller than many of us suppose. Take a single illustration. Before the war very careful and accurate inquiries were made in five typical industrial towns. I think they were Northampton. Warrington, Stanley, Heading and York, and it was found that in two out of the five towns more then one-third of the adult working population were receiving less than 24s. per week, and 27 per cent. of the children were being brought up in families which could not possibly command the very low standard which was adopted as necessary for healthy existence. And think of the environment in which, after this immense accumulation of wealth, most of these intelligent men are forced to live and work. I will quote the words of the Commissioners for Wales— The towns and villages are ugly and overcrowded. Houses are scarce and rents are increasing; the surroundings are insanitary and depressing. The scenery is disfigured by unsightly refuse tips, the atmosphere polluted by coal dust and the rivers spoilt by liquid refuse from works and factories. This is not an inadequate description of many industrial centres in Yorkshire and Lancashire. These things are the legacy of five generations of the present industrial system. Can we wonder that men dislike and resent them?

The second main cause of unrest of which I wish particularly to speak is the dehumanisation of industry. In the vast expansion of the nineteenth century the human element seems to have been lost. We all, of course, know the causes—the introduction of machinery, the elimination of the individual master and firm, and the growth of great combinations and limited companies. The results are patent. The working man feels that there is no place for his personality in the system under which he works. He feels that, in spite of all the improvements due to trade union activities, he is but a cog in a great machine and has to submit to conditions over which he has no control, and is liable to be scrapped like the machinery which he tends. He feels that there is no room for the exercise of his own responsibility. Very often, especially among the younger men, a strike is simply the blind assertion of personality against conditions which clog and hamper it. This is a position which is resented all the more because of the contrast which it affords between the man's political power and his industrial dependency. He demands a place and a status for his own personality in industry which in some measure corresponds with the status he has in the government of the country. I believe that this is at the present time the main cause of unrest. Naturally men are keen about their wages, but certainly among the more leading and thoughtful of the leaders it is this question which is most in their minds. I must once again quote from the Report of the South Wales Commissioners— The main cause of unrest lies deeper than any merely material consideration. This problem is fundamentally a human and not an economic problem. Let me also quote the words of one of the leaders of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. He said— It can be asserted with authority that the demand after the war will be for a real measure of workshop control. The demand of labour is for something more than material. If there is something of the ethical in the demand, then surely the gods are on its side. Finally we have the words which were spoken by Mr. Gosling, President of the Trade Union Congress, in September, 1916— Would it not be possible for the employers of this country, on the conclusion of peace, to put their business on a new tooting by admitting the workmen to some participation not in profits, but in control? In the daily management of the employment on which we spend our working lives, in the atmosphere and in the conditions under which we have to work, in the hours of beginning and ending work, in the remuneration end even in the manners and practices of the foremen With whom we have to be in contact, we feel that we as workmen have; a right to a voice even to an equal voice with the management itself. I think there are few of us who would not feel that this is a reasonable request. It is a commonplace that industrial peace and prosperity depend upon the great agents of Capital and Labour not being arrayed against one another as antagonists, but joined together as partners. It is something of a mockery to speak of partnership when the whole great element of labour is denied any real and controlling voice in the settlement of the conditions tinder which it works.

We know that there have long been, in many trades, more or less successful Conciliation Boards and Committees, on which the representatives of the two parties met. The difficulty has been that, they come into play only when a dispute is in prospect or has become acute. What is wanted now is the continuous association of Capital and Labour in the conduct of the business. I cannot do better than quote the words of a remarkable manifesto issued by the National Associated Building Trades Council— Many a forward move on the part of labour towards improved conditions is opposed almost as a matter of duty by the employers' association. And, conversely, many improvements in the direction of increased production and efficiency are countered by the restricted regulations of the trade unions. The two sides rarely meet except to make demands on one another or to compromise conflicting claims, and negotiations are inevitably carried on as between two hostile parties. The hope of the future undoubtedly lies in the intimate and continuous association of management and labour not for the negative purpose of adjusting differences, but for the positive purpose of promoting the progressive improvement of their industrial service. I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess has said—that the time has come, if I may say so without any kind of presumption, knowing that there are probably in the House some great leaders of industry, when employers must recognise that if they are to have harmony they must take their workmen more fully into their confidence as to the whole of the conditions under which their business or trade is carried on. Many of them are, ready to do so. These are the words of one who is entitled to speak with authority, Sir Hugh Bell— I have long felt that the franker and more complete the disclosure by the employer, the better it would be for all concerned. It can do nothing but good that these agents in production should meet together to consider the innovations in machinery and management which competition renders necessary; that the master should be able to know what difficulties and objections the men are likely to feel, and endeavour to remove them, and that the men should understand the purpose in regard to the whole industry of the innovations which are proposed; that they should discuss together, before controversy becomes acute, questions of rates for piece-work and the like; and above all, that every effort should be made to enable the workmen and their representatives to understand the bearing of their particular job in the shop to the whole industry with which they are concerned. If the demand for gradual control is reasonable. I would venture to say that the satisfaction of it is also necessary. We are all aware that everything will depend industrially after the war upon the increased output of national industry. That an immense increase in the output of industry is possible in this country has been made abundantly plain by the circumstances of the war itself. It is, indeed, almost amazing to realise that, in spite of the hold laid by the Government upon the industries of the country for the production of munitions of war, our export trade, oven allowing for high prices, is as great as it was ten or twelve years ago. Yet we know perfectly well the difficulties which will at once emerge when any demand for increased output is made. It will be met by the old frontier position of trade union policy—the artificial restriction of production. We know, of course, that that is a strange fallacy; that wages are not paid out of any mysterious fund, or out of capital, but only out of the reward of the goods and services which are rendered. But it will take some time to convince the working-classes that this is a fallacy; and there is no way of securing increased production, upon which everything depends after the war, except by enabling the workers to see and to realise that if they put forward additional efforts of production they will have not only their just share of the reward, but a voice in the control of the conditions which will be necessary. They are not going to submit to scientific management imported from America or elsewhere. They regard that, in their own language, as "Prussianising," which they mean to resist. It is, I think, true of all our workers, as Charlotte Brontë said of the Yorkshire people, that "they are as yielding to persuasion as they are stubborn against compulsion," and some means must be devised by which the leaders and representatives of our workers can be made to see from within the industries themselves the need for increased production and the possibility of its being carried on without injustice to the working-classes.

Therefore the real centre of the situation is that the time has come for a new stage in the industrial development of the country. I believe that most of our best employers recognise it and are willing to take the first steps. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with quotations, but perhaps I might use the words of Mr. H. L. Hichens, the Chairman of Cammell Laird & Company There should be the closest relations between the organisations of employers and employed. It is not enough that their representatives should meet to settle disputes after they have arisen. They should have meetings at regular interval to discuss together all questions of trade policy and learn to understand each other's point of view. Here are some striking words by an official of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers— A new line must be struck, a new and real measure of construction decided upon acceptable to both sides. Will Labour table its proposals I think not. Will Capital make itself responsible for the new proposals? I think not either. Here the State must step in. The State must call the parties together and submit a programme. The scheme, when tabled, should aim at setting up a chain of responsible authority in each trade from the works hop, the district, the industry, and the nation. That is the proposal: and that is what the State has done. I should like to endorse everything that was said by the noble Marquess about the value and the timeliness of the Report of the Whitley Committee. Its merit is precisely not that it is original, but that it focusses and presents to both sides the results of an immense amount of agreement, both of the masters and men, throughout the whole country, and nothing could be more satisfactory than the reception which that Report has received. I believe that it reached the Commissioners almost at the end of their inquiry, but they were able to make many inquiries about the bearing of its proposals upon industrial unrest: and I think I am right in saving that every single Report endorses the recommendations of the Whitley Committee, and states that they have received a cordial measure of support both from masters and from men. Their evidence may be summarised, I think, in the Report of the Commission in the North-Western area We have had an opportunity of putting before important deputations of employers and men these proposals and asking their opinion upon them. Although they all express a natural desire to consider them more fully, yet the principle at the bottom of them was received with cordial approval. This principle is exactly what is needed in this area to allay many causes of industrial unrest. I would like to ask the Government whether they can give us any information as to the steps which have been taken to bring these proposals effectively before the organisations of employers and employed, and whether any progress has been made. I venture to think that it is not a matter upon which there can be very much loss of time, and that for two main reasons. The first is that I hope—we all hope— that very soon we shall be in the middle of the problems which will arise on the demobilisation of the Army. Plainly any mistakes that are made then will be disastrous for the hope of industrial peace or prosperity in the future. Every effort must be made to secure employment for the men returning and also to secure those who cannot immediately find employment against the risks of unemployment. It would be reassuring if the Government could tell us what is being done at the present time to prepare for that situation. I know they have their scheme. It may not be convenient at this moment to speak about it in detail. So far as I know, the Advisory Committees which they have appointed to regulate this matter are working—certainly in Yorkshire—with great success; but it would be a satisfaction to know that everything was in readiness for this problem. But then the representatives of these Advisory Committees, who will. I suppose, control the Employment Exchanges and deal with this pressing problem, would be immensely strengthened if they knew that they had behind them joint councils of each of the trades concerned. That would be specially important in regard to the problem of finding employment for what, I suppose, would be about 60,000 women who will be displaced when the Army returns.

The second reason why it is not desirable that there should be any loss of time is that very soon we must be in the midst of that most thorny question to which the noble Marquess alluded—the restoration of the trades union regulations. It bristles with difficulty. On the one hand, it is difficult to know what these regulations precisely are. I fancy many of them have hardly ever been written down. It would be exceedingly difficult to get evidence as to what has been suspended and as to what is to be revived. Many of them would be plainly inconsistent with the necessity of increased production when the war is over. And yet the Government are under the most solemn pledge to restore them, and the only way out of the difficulty obviously is that any modification of those former regulations should take place by consent of the trade unions themselves. I see no way in which that consent can be obtained, without giving rise to great suspicion and misunderstanding, except through the action of just such joint national industrial councils as the Whitley Report has recommended.

I do not pretend that these proposals will satisfy everybody. The mortgage of suspicion and distrust which has pressed heavily upon the field of our national industry has not been paid off. The proposals will receive, I dare say—I know, in fact—the hostility of some of those younger men to whom the noble Marquess has alluded, whose dream is the securing for the working-class the complete control of the industry in which they are engaged. Even they, I hope, will be able to accept the measure of control which these proposals will give them as a step in the right direction. For that very reason I suppose they will be opposed by some of the employers, who will use the old argument of the "thin end of the wedge," and say, "We must resist these proposals because they will lead further than we care to follow." But I venture to ask your Lordships to consider whether it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that in the coming day our workers may have a very much larger share in the actual control of their industry than they have previously had. Is there any one who thinks that the old system which marked the nineteenth century, of regulating great industries on the basis merely of the private profit of the firm or the company, can be sustained? It is becoming increasingly inconsistent with the mere necessities of trade itself; it is becoming increasingly inconsistent with the democratic principles which fill the minds of our working people.

Certainly I do not believe that the private profit system will give place now to any system of profit-sharing. I cannot help, my Lords, regretting that there is one, absent from us to-day who would certainly have spoken, with his usual invincible idealism, had he been here—I mean one whose memory we treasure with affection and respect, the late Earl Grey. But the whole body of trade union opinion is resolutely, and, so far as I can see, inexorably opposed to any system of profit-sharing. Nor do I think that private profit will give place to a system of State Socialism. That is a theory which has received very shrewd blows during the last three years, and can only be described. I think, as a very sick system indeed. But probably, so far as we can foresee, the line of industrial development will be the increase of organisation on the side of the employers, balanced by increased organisation on the side of the employed, with the State holding a watching brief on behalf of the community and intervening when the interest of the community demands. If that be so, it does not seem to me to require a great deal of prophecy that, as between those two great organisations, the organisation of the workers will assume in course of time an ever-increasing preponderance. If so, it is of the greatest importance that the workers should be educated betimes in all that concerns the real management of great businesses; and if they can be associated now, through these joint councils ranging from the workshop up to the national trade, with the employers it is the best possible guarantee that if ever they acquire a greater proportion of control it will be exercised with wisdom and intelligence, and for the good, and not the detriment, of the country.

But it is, I think, worth saying that if this is to be the effect of these joint councils they must begin, not from above but from below; not at the top but at the bottom. The pivot of success will be the workshops committee. The Report of the Commission in the North-Western area puts the point clearly— The man at the bench is not greatly interested in district councils, and national industrial councils are as far removed from his ambition as the House of Lords: but the shop of works committee is another thing altogether; and this, we think, should be put right in front when any endeavour is made to explain the scheme to the working man, The noble Marquess referred to what is one of the great difficulties of the present situation, the cleavage between the old trade unions and the younger men, who are more ambitions and feel that the labour officials are somewhat out of date. But the very best way of utilising the zeal and tempering the indiscretion and ignorance of the younger men, who are almost always the men who are working in the shop, is to give them in the shop committees some insight into the conduct of the business and some closer association with the employers or their representatives. Certainly, it looks as if that were the best way in which to meet the present situation. The British working man, as I heard one of them say the other day is no revolutionary. To use an American phrase with the instinct of his nation he intends, like the rest of us, to spell "revolution" without the "r." And if he can see that the industrial system, which he has only too much reason to dislike and to resent is going to be extended in a way which will give him some greater measure of control, he will be willing. I believe, to accept this. Plainly, the first steps must come from the masters; and, if it is not presumptuous to say so, I hope that those steps will be taken, not grudgingly, but in a spirit of confidence. The risks are very great. No one knows better than I do the risks which are involved. But what is the alternative risk? It is the risk of ending the war with the outbreak of another period of embittered industrial strife. The only hope for the future, as far as one can see, is the increase of knowledge and the sense of responsibility among our workers; and the surest way of spreading knowledge is to give experience, and the surest way of educating the sense of responsibility is to give trust. Therefore I venture to think that the best way at present of meeting the industrial unrest is to sec how much is reasonable in the demand of our workers for a greater measure of control.

May I close with one other word. I have read scores of memoranda about the industrial outlook, and I have had many conferences both with employers and with employed; but I do not know of a single Report or of a single conference which has not begun and ended on the same note. What matters is not a new scheme, but a new spirit. It is not difficult to know what that spirit must be. It is the spirit which the war has most wonderfully elicited—the spirit by which the master motive of industry will not be either the making of profits or the earning of wages, but the service of the community. But it is almost pathetic to see how seldom men are able to say whence this spirit will come or where it will acquire the strength which it needs. It will have to be very strong to meet the forces arrayed against it. The old forces of selfishness will be redoubled in their intensity when the reaction after the war has come. It will require a strength greater than mere desire; it will require the strength of conscience and conviction, and, as I believe, of loyalty to that august sanction and that constraining appeal which is involved in the word Christian. I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time, but I was anxious that this discussion should not be closed without some attempt on the part of this House to recognise those elements in the labour unrest which are both reasonable and just.

LORD ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, I had not intended to speak this afternoon, and I am only induced to say a few words by one particular part of the speech of the noble Marquess opposite. If I may say so, I thought the statement of the noble Marquess was a most admirable setting forth of the facts of the case as they are to-day. The most rev. Prelate who has just sat down has suggested many remedies. I dare say they are all excellent; and it would be very pleasant to see them tried. But what most of us want is to take remedies that can be used now so as to unite the people more than ever in the pursuit of the war. The remark of the noble Marquess which has brought me to my feet was his statement that in these Reports on industrial unrest there was one thing which appeared in every one—" the people are angry and suspicious about the excess profits that have been made out of the war." I believe that this is at the bottom of at least one half of the unrest. There is, unfortunately, always unrest in this country between Capital and Labour; but of the special unrest which we see to-day I believe that half, if not more, is due to the, cause to which I have just referred.

I read as far as I can the socialist papers—with which I do not at all agree—and also socialist speeches about the war, and I see that practically everywhere the "peace at-any-price" section of the people, who are trying to stop this war, are saying that it is a capitalist war that capitalists started it, and that capitalists are gaining by it. It has been my intention for some time past to endeavour to initiate a debate in this House on this very subject; and now that the noble Marquess has raised it, I will take this opportunity of saying a few words. As regards capitalists—I refer to men who have invested money; whom you would call capitalists pure and simple.

I have considerable opportunities of knowing that the statement that they are gaining as a whole by this war is absolutely untrue. I am connected with a number of investment companies in the City of London which among them have many hundreds of investments, so that they may be taken as a perfectly fair gauge of the investor as a whole. Every investment company in the City of London which has no particular form of investment—such as ship-owning pure and simple—I think may be said to have lost by the war; they have lost not only in their capital valuation but also very greatly in their income. Those are the typical capitalists who are accused of benefiting by the war. Those investment companies own a great variety of investments, and here and there they have one which has greatly benefitted by the war. By taking those gains, however, and setting them against the losses which have been brought about by the war, it can be proved up to the hilt, by an examination of the investments, that the capitalists who are accused of gaining by the war are, in fact, very heavy sufferers.

What I want to put to the Government is this. It is a pity that the truth about capitalists is not set forth by persons in authority. There is not a doubt, however, that there are classes in England who have gained enormously by the war, and those are the classes which, as a whole, the workman sees at his door. For instance, speaking broadly, every merchant who manages his affairs with ordinary care ought to have gained by the war, because he holds stocks—in almost any business you must hold a stock and whether it be food, or clothes, or boots, or whatever it is, prices have risen continuously for three years, and almost very man who holds a stock must have gained very largely. The working ing man sees, say, the grocer, and he says, "That man had a stock of things. I know the price at which they must have been bought three years ago. I know what they are being sold for now. He must have gained enormously." Then take the case of the farmers. The profits of the farmers in this country in the last three years have been very large indeed, though they vary in different parts of the country. I see that a noble Lord shakes his head. I am a farmer too, and I know that the profits of farmers have been large. If you go to any banker in almost any part of England and ask him about the farmers, he will tell you that the, farmers, who three years ago were owing money all round to the banks, have now big balances to their credit. There is no doubt that the farmers have done extremely well. These are the people whom the working man sees near him when he talks about capitalists. He does not know anything about the rich man in London who has lost heavily by the war; he sees only the little man at his own door who he knows has gained by the war."

Some men have made great fortunes in the war, in spite of the taxes, In my opinion the legislation which at the beginning of the war took only 60 per cent. of the excess profits was unfortunate. That percentage has since been put up, as your Lordships know. What I suggest to the Government, simply from a desire to unite the country in the prosecution of the war, is that they should take the whole of the excess profits. I agreed with the noble Marquess, as I think did everybody in the House, when he said that he would be very sorry indeed if he were a great gainer in this war.

My Lords, I venture to think nobody ought to be a very great gainer, and that profiteering ought to be stopped. I believe the Government ought to stop it to-day. We have not got to the end of taxation yet. There are lots of people who think that when the war is ended the taxes are going down. The idea is preposterous. The taxes will have to be put up. They will have to be put up a great deal. You know that there is a movement on foot among labour—a very widely-supported movement for what they call the conscription of wealth as well as the conscription of men. In my judgment that movement is very unwise, but you want to answer it. You want to deal with it. It is impossible for anybody to talk of what is going to happen at the end of the war with regard to taxation, because we are a very long way from being there yet, and nobody knows what the figures are going to be. But, much as I should deplore it, I am not at all sure that, at the end of the war, we shall not find a tax on capital and a heavy tax on wealth of all kinds, as well as a tax on income, to be a necessity. It is a thing that many financial men who hate the idea are considering and talking about to-day, and we may have to face it. Therefore I would ask the Government whether they do not think it would unite the country and do something to remove the idea of profiteering if they were to make a very bold declaration and say now that no man should gain by the war—that in future, if a man has made £100 additional out of the war, they will take not 60 or 80 per cent. but the whole; and that in the cases where great fortunes have been built up out of the war, as they have been in many cases, notably by shipowners, before a, general capital tax on other people is levied, the whole of that wealth that has been made by profiteering, and directly by profiteering, shall be taken for the benefit of the State. My Lords, I believe you are going to come to that. I believe you are certainly coming to it but it would be of great benefit to all of us if the Government would lay down this, and establish it, and give it as their view, and, if necessary have a Committee to go into profiteering, finding out who and what classes have made the money, and stop it.

We do not often here talk of finance, and that is why I have refrained hitherto from putting down a Question to raise this matter. But I remember that when I first came into this House an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer sat opposite—Earl St. Aldwyn—who, although this House had no power to deal with the Budget, used to discuss it here just as if he were in the House of Commons. Consider the number of your Lordships who are great authorities upon finance, and known to be so. I think it is a great pity that, whether we have the power of dealing with the Budget or not, we do not exercise our influence and discuss these things. I will sit down by saying again, as I have said before, that I agree with almost every word uttered by the noble Marquess, and that I only wish he would put in a concrete form the suggestion which be threw out and raise the matter in debate in this House. I believe a great many members of the House would support him.

LORD BERESFORD

My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this question. For some time I have been associated with three of the great trade unions—namely, the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union, the British Workers' Union, and the Federated Trades Union. The Sailors' and Firemen's Union I joined to take up their case with regard to the demands for the punishment of the Germans after the war. The Federated Trades Union I joined because they took up the case with regard to the pay of the lower ranks of both Services; and the British Workers' Union I joined because I thought their ideas were thoroughly patriotic. It has been a very great advantage to me to join these unions. I have obtained an immense mass of information with regard to the views, not only of the working men, but of their leaders; and I must say, with regard to the leaders, that their views are most states men like and far-reaching, and views that both now and hereafter I am certain will benefit our country enormously. They are thoroughly patriotic. They have, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury said, realised that there is considerable unrest in the country now, but they are far more anxious about the future than about the present.

With regard to the unrest now, most of it has no doubt been produced by the idea among the Working men—which idea is very true in many cases—that there are certain people who have made immense fortunes out of the war; but they do not so much base their argument upon that as they do upon what they describe as profiteering out of the war. My noble friend Lord Devonport brought forward a case in this House—a case which has been quoted over and over again amongst the Labour leaders. It was the case of the beans. I believe I am right in saying that the original cargo, costing £24, went up to £80. Anyhow, he stopped it and got the price down to £34, I think, afterwards. In all these cases—similar cases have been quoted, principally with regard to cargoes bought over and over again at enhanced prices and sold at enhanced prices—the real point that has upset Labour, and is causing unrest now, is based upon profiteering. Of course, Labour is anxious about the food. I agree with what the most rev. Prelate said. To me it is perfectly wonderful how extraordinarily well Labour has behaved during the war, and how little unrest there has really been. So far as the Sailors' and Firemen's Union is concerned, there has been no unrest at all, although we owe everything to them. Other unions have made themselves disagreeable, but the Sailors' and Firemen's not once. The only time that the leaders interfered was when some owners wanted to get a ship out quickly and offered nearly double wages to the seamen and firemen. The leaders stepped in and said, "No; it would cause unrest among the whole industry; you must go to sea at the same wages."

Profiteering, as I say, is the principal cause of unrest. Then there is the question of food. Food, no doubt, is going to be short, and I believe we shall have a serious position in regard to food in the spring unless the Government adopt some form of rationing. It is difficult, but if you can ration sugar, why not other things? The most rev. Prelate truly said that most of the people, and particularly munition workers, are war-weary. They have been working their level best, night and day, to try and support their comrades with munitions and other things. You will have difficulty if the price of food goes up, but you will have much more difficulty if the people cannot get food, and that is a question of distribution. I remember asking my noble friend Lord Devonport—I think last year—whether the question of distribution was all right. If a man goes home war-weary and sees his five or six children, and his wife says, "We cannot get this or that," you will have serious trouble in the country. That ought to be attended to at once by the Government. With regard to the power of trade unions, nobody could ever say anything against the trade unions when they were originally formed. The working men of the country did not get their fair output. As far as I can see, now, the trade unions are going to be perfectly fair, and not to be disagreeable in any way. When I am on the, platform with Labour leaders, such as Mr. Havelock Wilson and Mr. Tillett, I hear them tell mass meetings of miners and other workers: "We have fought Capital for forty years. We have now come to the conclusion that we have never seen Capital and Labour so close together, and if Capital and Labour will meet and discuss matters, and have such bodies as the Whitley Commission suggest, we shall avoid strikes for the future." I say that is a most hopeful statement. These are the, men who control the workers; they are leaders, not only in name, but in fact. If the course which I understand is going to be adopted by the Government with regard to the Whitley Commission is followed, we may look forward to the cessation of strikes and difficulties between Capital and Labour.

What is also exercising the minds of these Labour leaders is a question of which your Lordships will recognise the importance—the question of the future. We must remember that after the war we shall have, roughly, 8,000,000 people who have been receiving wages from the State. Unless we organise very carefully for these 8,000,000 people we shall have appalling trouble after the war. Before they come home I hope the Government will have a full tabulated plan as to what is to be done with them, and where they are to go. We must have no question of workhouse or charity or benevolent institutions to look after them. These people deserve to get all they can from the State. It is the State's business, and it will be full of difficulty. Unless thorough organisation in all its details is carried out before this avalanche of men comes upon us, we shall have great difficulty. We do not want to see, and we must not see, in this country a repetition of the old Crimean days when soldiers and workers had to go to the workhouse after the war. The people will not stand it, and I am certain that no member of your Lordships' House would stand it. That must never occur again These men have fought for us. Many of their comrades have died for us; many of them have been wounded for us; and whether they have been working in munition factories, or in the trenches, or at sea, they have to be properly treated by the State when they come home.

I should like to suggest to your Lordships that the Labour Exchanges, which will be of immense use to the Government when these people come home, should be placed under the control of Joint Committees. It is not my idea. It was given me by one of the Labour lenders, and I think it a very excellent idea that the Exchanges should be put under Joint Committees of employers and trades union officials. There is no question that pre-war conditions are impossible. Nobody can think of them. The employers and employer will balance their difficulties, which have been increased by the Government telling the trade unions that the conditions after the war will be precisely the same as before. We all hope that they will not be the same. As the most rev. Prelate so truly said, this must be settled by agreement. If you make a contract with the trade unions, you cannot break it unless they agree. When you come to the old question of the employers cutting the rates and the trade unions limiting the output, I do not think I am unfair in saying that it was the employers' fault at first. It was a question of how much a man turned out. He turned out, say, twelve articles, for which he received 2s. each. If he turned out eighteen the employer said, "I will not give you 2s. each for the eighteen." The consequence was that the trade unions said the man should never make more than twelve, and thus they limited the output. Surely the employers and employed will be able to come together for their own mutual advantage and the advantage of the State. You must have high wages for a country to be contented, happy, and prosperous, but you cannot have high wages if, on the other side, you limit the output. Surely some sort of common sense arrangement can be made between these two great bodies.

Almost daily I meet these trades union leaders. They have absolutely patriotic ideas, and no sentiment whatever against the employers, though they have a strong sentiment for their own class with which I perfectly agree. Labour is not a coming power; it is a power that has come, and all that public men can do now is to endeavour to guide Labour into the channel which is best for the country and for Labour. I am astonished to find these Labour leaders holding statesmanlike, moderate, and patriotic views, when one remembers the tremendous position of power they occupy at this moment. Looking at it from that point of view, I have ventured to tell your Lordships what I find when working with these trades union leaders. I hope the Government will enlighten us, not only as to the present question of profiteering, which is the real cause of unrest now, but will also tell us that they are looking to the future so that we may prevent any unrest or any sentiment of irritation which would be a calamity to our country.

VISCOUNT MILNER

My Lords, the subject which the noble Marquess has introduced to-night is one of the highest national interest. It goes to the very root of the whole national position. Nothing but the fact that, with insignificant exceptions, there was an unprecedented unanimity among all classes of the community in the greatest trial and in the face of the greatest danger which this country has ever had to meet, nothing but that unanimity could have enabled us to achieve what we have achieved; and as long as national unity is not broken, nothing can ever bring us down Therefore the consideration of any of those causes of unrest which might affect the national unity to a serious extent must always be the foremost of all war considerations, not even to mention the great problems which await us after the war, and upon which the most rev. Prelate has dwelt with so much sagacity and eloquence.

The last thing which I possibly could do with any justification would be to complain in any way of the course the debate has taken, or of the tone of the speeches which have been addressed to us. In one way, indeed, they put me in rather an unusual difficulty for a Government speaker. In a sense there is nothing to reply to. I am not prepared to dispute, and I do not think any of your Lordships will differ materially from, the point of view which has been taken, more or less unanimously, by all the speakers in this debate. To deal with the profound and deep-lying questions to which many of the speeches have referred I should only be repeating what has been said by others, and I think I had better content myself with a more modest role.

I do not propose to go into those broad questions of principle which have been raised. What I think your Lordships will expect from me is that I should try, to the best of my limited powers, to give you some account of what is actually being done by the Government at the present time to meet those special causes of industrial unrest to which attention has been called by the Commissioners whose Reports have been quoted freely to-night. And let me say here that I think these Reports are some of the most valuable documents we have received in recent times with regard to social conditions existing throughout the country. I do not wish to be too long, but I should like to go into this matter a little in detail, and above all historically.

The Commission to inquire into the subject of industrial unrest was appointed on the 12th of June. The Reports of the eight sub-Commissions were presented on the 17th of July, together with a very useful summary calling attention to the principal points in them, especially to the points which they had in common, compiled by my colleague Mr. Barnes. There are, of course, a great many minor recommendations referring to local questions, but he drew up a table of fourteen principal recommendations culled from the Reports of the Commissioners. Home of these recommendations were not so much suggestions of practical reforms, or definite action which the Government could take, as the enunciation of general principles, excellent principles, which I should be the last to question. I will quote one or two of them. There was a recommendation that Labour should take part in the affairs of the community as partners rather than servants, and that there should be a closer contact between employer and employed. I think we should all agree to both these principles; and they have been over and over again affirmed in the speeches to-night. But mere affirmation of these principles does not constitute action. It does not take you very far. There are several other of these recommendations which can be summed up in the words "a demand for greater publicity"—a fuller statement on the part of the Government of what was actually being done with regard to various specified subjects. As far as that goes, all the information which the Commissioners specially asked for has now been given. A great amount of information has been given by the. Government as to what is actually being done and what is being aimed at, and if anything more is required I will try and supplement it now.

Deducting those recommendations which simply enunciate general principles, and those which consist in a demand for information, which has been supplied, there remain eight principal points which are brought out in the Memorandum to which I have just referred summarising the results of the Commission. These eight points are of very different degrees of importance; some of them far-reaching and fundamental; others, though important, partial or rather local. All of them, however, are of sufficient magnitude to call for action. Particular evils were pointed out for which remedies were required. Of these eight points, five are of a more limited and at the same time more definite character than the others. There are three other points, the discussion of which I propose to reserve to the end, which are of far-reaching and fundamental importance.

Let me take the minor points first. I say minor because, though all very important, they are minor compared with those which I propose to deal with later. It was pointed out, firstly, that the £1 maximum under the Workmen's Compensation Act should be raised. That limitation was insisted upon as a matter which had given rise in many quarters to great dissatisfaction. That point has been directly met by the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act. I come to the second point. This is another recommendation of the Commission— That a system should be inaugurated whereby skilled supervisors and others on daily rates should receive a bonus. That is a point which I think the noble Marquess especially referred to; at all events, I am certain it has been referred to once or twice in the course of this discussion. It is a very great and widespread grievance because, owing to the high wages which in many eases the, so-called dilutees and unskilled workers were getting at piece-rate, it was found that in many of the industries under the Ministry of Munitions the workmen of higher skill, who had often been the instructors of these very dilutees, were actually receiving lower wages than the newcomers and men of inferior skill, for the reason that they were not on piecework but on time-work. This led to about as much discontent as any single industrial grievance arising out of the circumstances of the war. This, again, has been met to a very large extent by a big and sweeping measure which has recently been adopted by the Ministry of Munitions. I am referring to what is known as the Skilled Time Workers, Engineers, and Moulders Order, which was brought out in the course of the month of October, I think on the 13th. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with the details of the document, which I have here, and some of which is rather technical, but what it amounts to is practically this. This very large class of workmen throughout all the industries under the Ministry of Munitions have received a 12½ per cent. bonus on earnings all round. This is a concession of very wide-reaching effect. The men affected number between 200,000 and 300,000, and the cost of this single change amounts to between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, and there may be consequential changes in other industries not directly under the Ministry of Munitions which may bring the number of workers affected up to nearly 400,000, and cost the State something like £8,000,000 a year. It is not the figure so much that I emphasise as the fact that the Government have taken this step on their own initiative. Certainly it was suggested to them, but they have not taken it under pressure. They have taken it because they believe it to be just, and whether or not this settles the question, or whether we shall have further difficulties arising of the same kind, I believe that this is a bold and comprehensive step, a step which rests upon a principle, and that it will certainly be, conducive to a better understanding, and may do something to remove that spirit of distrust to which the noble Marquess referred, and for which I am bound to admit that there has been a good deal of cause in the past in the muddling of Departments. Though there are many difficulties of detail which may arise out of it, I hope it may have far-reaching consequences for good.

Then there is the recommendation that "Pensions Committees should have a larger discretion in the treatment of men discharged from the Army." Under the Royal Warrant of March 29—a date which was prior to this recommendation of the Commission, but the operations of which had hardly begun to make themselves generally felt at the time the Commissions were working—there is a much wider discretion; and I may say that, as a consequence, not only of the new Warrant but of the constantly increasing liberality of interpretation which is given to the Warrant, there has been a great reduction in the number of claims for compensation which have been rejected. Up to the date of that Warrant the number of rejections averaged 2,084 a month. Since then they have been 97 a month. Not only that, but in the more liberal spirit in which the matter is now being dealt with there is a greater tendency to grant pensions as against mere gratuities. Again, the local Pensions Committees have now been given a greater amount of freedom in dealing with cases, and can do a good many things of their own initiative which they could only do originally with the consent of the Central Authority. That, again, is a point on which I think possibly you cannot say the recommendations of the Commissions of Inquiry have actually been carried out, but changes have been made independently of the Commissions which work in the direction in which their recommendations tend.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships at too great length, but there are still two points to which I should like to refer before I come to the bigger questions to which I have already alluded. There is, fourthly, the recommendation about agricultural wages. It was recommended by the Commission that wages should be raised to a minimum of 25s. in the South-Western counties. I need not detain your Lordships on that. You are aware that the Corn Production Act has already given effect to that recommendation. Then there is the recommendation that coloured labour should not be employed in the ports. Probably of all the points which I have discussed this is the one of the least scope. It is very important to a limited number of people in a few places, but it has nothing like the width or the size of the other matters. Nor am I, to be quite frank, as well posted as I might be, or as I ought to be, on the position of this matter. I have been furnished, as Government speakers always are on these occasions, with a Memorandum on the subject, but I have not completely grasped it, and I do not think that the Memorandum is altogether satisfactory. But I can say this, that the question is not a question of principle at all. There is an existing agreement between the Admiralty and the men with regard to this matter, and it is an agreement to which the Ministry of Shipping has steadily adhered. There are disputes as to the interpretation of the agreement—differences as to facts between the men and the shipowners; and these differences are at present the subject of an inquiry by a Committee presided over by a representative of the Ministry of Shipping. That is, as far as I know, how this particular matter stands. I say it is the smallest of the eight points with which I have to deal; it is also the one about which I am the least informed.

Now I come to the biggest matters, which are threefold. There is the question of food prices; there is the question of housing; and there is the question of the Industrial Councils, which I propose to reserve to the end. Of the three matters, I think the question of housing is that on which we have the least good case. Of course, there are two things which have to be kept separate. There is the great problem of housing after the war. That is one of the big branches of the vast subject of reconstruction. With regard to that. I think I can say that considerable progress is being made, and that certainly there is no want of hard work or thought being given to the subject. But then there is the question of what can only be in the nature of a temporary palliative. Of course, the housing question was urgent before the war, but it has become more urgent during the war. A very big programme is undoubtedly required, but that must be, as the noble Marquess perfectly well knows, an after-war programme, because at the present time you could not possibly get, the labour to do one-tenth of what is required, and after the war you would be glad of the opportunity of employing a great deal of labour in doing it. But as regards the measures which are required immediately in order to meet the gross congestion which exists in certain localities where munition workers have congregated and especially at Barrow, that matter stands on a perfectly different footing. There something must be done at once, and, if it is not being done as fast as it ought to be, somebody is to blame.

The noble Marquess has said a great deal about the necessity for frankness. I agree with him, and I am going to be perfectly frank about it. As soon as this state of affairs at Barrow was brought to the knowledge of the Government some months ago, an immediate decision was taken that there should be a considerable building scheme initiated, half of permanent buildings and half of semi-permanent buildings, to get over the immediate difficulty. That order was given, and it was understood that by Christmas, at any rate, most of the semi-permanent buildings would be raised. I am sorry to say that when my colleague Mr. Barnes went down himself to Barrow a short time ago to find out what was being done there, he found that there had been delays, Departmental difficulties of one kind or another, and that the work was behindhand; in fact, it had only just been begun. Of course, it is regrettable, and it it for the Government to find out who is to blame. At any rate, I am quite sure the result of that visit of inspection by one of the members of the War Cabinet is to give the thing a fresh start. And though some time has been lost, no more time is going to be lost over that, anyway. Generally speaking, I think that the provision of more and better housing accommodation, of however temporary a character, in those districts where there is large congestion owing to the introduction of munition work, is one of the very urgent matters, and one to which the Government will have to direct its attention perhaps even more strenuously than it has done in the past.

Now as regards food prices. I think while a great deal remains to be done, and always will—it is a matter of almost insuperable difficulty—that great credit is due to the Food Controller as well as to his predecessor for that which has already been accomplished. And no doubt when we got the Reports of the Commissioners, all unanimously emphasising the importance of this question and the great effect which high prices of food and the suspicion of profiteering were having in causing disturbance in the minds of the people throughout the country, those recommendations did give a great impetus to the efforts of the Government, and especially of the Food Controller's Department to put this matter right as far as it can be put right. Obviously high prices in time of war, when there is scarcity—and no one knows better than the noble Marquess opposite what the cause of the scarcity is—are inevitable. But they may reach a point which is really dangerous, and it was because we had the conviction that the price of the greatest necessities of life, such as bread and meat, had risen to an almost unendurable pitch that the Government a couple of months ago, on the advice of the Food Controller, took the very drastic step of fixing the price of the 4-lb. loaf at 9d., and of taking upon itself the whole pecuniary burden of that very drastic step. It remains to be seen what effect that will have. Of course, it has stopped the rise in the price of bread; and the measures taken by the Food Controller with regard to the wholesale price of meat—about which there has been so much controversy—have also had the effect of lowering the price of that commodity to the consumer. It remains to be seen how long these measures will suffice to stay the rise of other prices as well as those of the articles immediately affected. I do not venture to make predictions on a subject of this extraordinary difficulty. The controlling of prices in the way in which we are trying to control them is a thing which, perhaps, has never been attempted before by Governments, certainly not in modern times. But "necessity is the mother of invention." and we have to do the best we can.

LORD BERESFORD

Can the noble Viscount tell us anything about distribution? That is what is causing the trouble.

VISCOUNT MILNER

I am coming to that in a moment. I hold in my hand some statistics which show that the drastic measures to which I have referred have certainly had a very considerable effect; whether it will be a lasting effect remains to be seen, but there are some encouraging features about this table. It is a table which gives the prices of all the principal articles of general consumption for every six months since the beginning of the war; and it also gives the figures for July, September, and October. The effect of this table is to show that there has been—as, of course, was inevitable—a steady rise in the prices of all these principal commodities since the war began. It was a considerable, but not such a very startling rise for 1915. In the course of 1916 the rise became much more marked; and for the first six months of 1917 it became really terrifying, no doubt largely in consequence of the submarine campaign. On July 1 the whole bulk of these articles, which includes practically everything of universal consumption—bread, meat, tea, sugar—everything which is indispensable to the life of the community of all classes, had shown a rise of 104 per cent. as compared with pre-war prices. On September 1 this was about the time when the Government were forced to interfere in the drastic manner to which I have referred prices had still risen a little further, to 105.6 per cent.: but by October 1, when those drastic steps had begun to have more effect, prices had begun to go back, and the increase over pre-war prices was 97.3 per cent. It is not a very big fall, but it is a decided one; and the interesting and important fact is that this last month was the first time when the prices of essential articles of food have, as a whole, shown a tendency to go back. Therefore, while I am very far from wishing to be too sanguine about the matter, I do think that we may succeed in holding prices; perhaps not in bringing them down very much, but we may be able to stop the excessive rise in price, if not of all articles, at any rate of the most vital and important.

The dearness of food is, of course, a very important factor in the unrest which exists, but I am firmly convinced that the belief that this is clue to some sort of manipulation, to injustice, to profiteering, is doing a great deal more harm than the dearness itself. It is because of my conviction on that point that I attach greater importance, even than I do to the millions that we have spent in checking the rise of prices, to the ceaseless, and in many respects the already very successful, efforts of my noble friend the Food Controller to put a stop to unjust and excessive profits being made out of the distribution of food. Nobody knows better than those of your Lordships who have studied these matters that it is an extraordinarily difficult thing to follow any great article of food from its introduction into the country in bulk until it gets, in the smallest quantities, to the little shop where people actually buy it, and to take measures to secure that none of those people through whose hands the commodity passes shall make more than a fair profit. That is a most difficult thing to do; but difficult as it is, that is the object which my noble friend has set himself to accomplish, and which certainly, as far as some of the most important articles are concerned, he has been successful in accomplishing. I am perfectly certain that, this being the object for which we are working, it is one which will have the sympathy of all your Lordships. I agree that the question of distribution, to which the noble and gallant Lord referred just now, is a matter of the greatest importance. I believe that we are succeeding in getting a more even distribution between different districts of the country than has hitherto been the case; and the steps which have been taken, for instance, with regard to sugar registration will, I think, be useful not only in ensuring a better distribution of that article—which in the past has been often very defective—but as a guide in the distribution of other commodities.

I come now to my last point, which I think, by universal consent, is the most important of all—namely, to that recommendation of the Commissioners which pointed to the establishment of Industrial Councils, about which so much has been said in this debate, especially by the most rev. Prelate. The history of that matter is as follows. The Whitley Report reached the Government as a Confidential Report some time in March, I think. As your Lordships know, it was the Report of a sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee on the relations of employers and employed. It was not fully considered by the Cabinet until June 7. When it did come before us, I do not believe I am giving away any Cabinet secret when I say that I think it met with unanimous approval, and that we studied it with very high hopes as to the wide-reaching and beneficent effects which might result from the adoption of the system which that Report recommended. But we felt also that it was a matter of such moment that we, ought not to take any decided steps with regard to it without giving the people most interested the fullest opportunity of studying the Report themselves and expressing their opinion upon it. Therefore it was decided at that time—on the 7th of June last—to circulate copies of that Report to all the principal trade unions and to the employers' associations throughout the country. It was also circulated to the Industrial Unrest Commissioners.

A few weeks later we came to the conclusion that, in consequence of this action, details of the Report must be known to so many people that it ought to be printed for general publication, and on the 19th of June this was done. As your Lordships are aware, the Report, when its main features became generally known, met with the most encouraging reception encouraging beyond the highest hopes of those who, like myself, had always been warmly in favour of it. Of the eight sub-Commissions of the Industrial Unrest Commission, seven pronounced emphatically in favour of its principles. The eighth did not mention it. It did not take any hostile view, but it did not refer to it. It took a long time, of course, for the opinions of the numerous trade unions and employers' associations, numbering more than a hundred altogether, to whom the Report had been submitted, to come in and be tabulated. When that was done, it turned out that the great majority of them were in favour of the principle of the Report, that very few indeed were absolutely adverse, and that several made various criticisms or reservations. Taken as a whole the replies, especially from the trade unions but also from the bulk of the employers' associations, were, I may say, overwhelmingly in favour of the adoption of something on the lines of the suggestion in the Report. At the same time, as your Lordships are aware, the matter attracted great attention in the Press; and public opinion, as far as could be judged from the Press, was on the whole extremely favourable.

As the result of these inquiries was entirely to confirm the original disposition of the Government, we no longer had any doubt as to the proper course to pursue. Therefore as soon as the effect of the replies had been tabulated and presented to the Cabinet by the Ministry of Labour, the Government finally expressed approval of the Report and gave instructions to the Ministry of Labour to take immediate action to try and carry out this scheme which the Report had initiated. That is now being done, and a new department of the Ministry of Labour has been constituted and is at work with a view to trying to get Industrial Councils established as quickly as possible in the various leading industries of the country. There is a natural starting point for their labours in three or four big unions, such as the building trade, the plasterers', painters', and pottery and china trades, which had already, before this suggestion in the Whitley Report was made public, been making preparations for the constitution of such councils within themselves. There is a natural starting-point, and I know it is the intention of the Ministry of Labour to proceed in the first instance by approaching employers and employed in certain selected industries which are already ripe for the introduction of this system, and to go on from them, if successful there, to the more difficult industries.

The real gist and meaning, and the possibly immense consequences, of this new departure have been dwelt upon so fully to-night, especially by the Archbishop of Fork, that I do not think I need detain your Lordships by repeating in less eloquent language what has been so well said. I should like to associate myself most strongly with what the most rev. Prelate said about the aspirations the real aspirations—of the working-classes, and with his hopes that on the lines on which we are now proceeding we may find a way of fulfilling those aspirations as far as they can be fulfilled. Nobody appreciates more than I do the immense difficulties of detail which beset us. It is all very well talking of these Industrial Councils and expatiating on all the good which undoubtedly may come out of them, but when you come to practical application I know that it will be a tremendously difficult task. At the same time, I agree that if the, spirit is right on both sides a great deal that appears at first sight almost impossible may be accomplished. I agree also that the extraordinary movement of spirit which has been one of the consequences of the war the scrapping of old prejudices, the ploughing-up, so to speak, of people's minds by the tremendous happenings Through which we have all passed—has given us new chances which we have never had before. Therefore, while I am too old and have had too many disappointments to take an altogether optimistic view, or certainly to speak in any confident tone, I do think I can say this—that this new departure is the most hopeful one that I can ever remember in the great field of social reform.

And now, my Lords, I trust that nothing that I have said may be regarded as an attempt to put a rose-coloured view on a situation which certainly is full of the gravest anxieties; or, still less, as an attempt to glorify the activities of the Government. The more I see of the situation, external and internal, and of the difficulties which confront us, the more deeply I am impressed by the consciousness that, however hard we may labour, if we put the last ounce of work into the performance of the duties before us, the work we do is nothing to the mountains that there are to climb, either in the war itself or in the peace after the war. If, nevertheless. I am not wholly discouraged, it is because of the abiding faith I have in the sound-heartedness of the mass of my countrymen, including the industrial classes of whom we have been specially speaking to-night.

There are many things that have happened during the war which have been most disquieting and alarming. There are symptoms to-day which are extremely anxious with regard to the condition and the attitude and feeling of the industrial population. There are plenty of mischief makers who use their troubles, their disputes, and their legitimate grievances with the deliberate object of exciting passions and of leading men to take steps which would hamper their country in the conduct of the war. It sometimes seems to many people when they read of these constant disputes and strikes and this industrial ferment as if a great national danger were being forgotten by the working-classes. It is just because it is very often forgotten that these disputes are carried so far and allowed to reach so dangerous a stage; but there is always, as it seems to me, a point beyond which the workers cannot be misled even by the most clever and well engineered artificial agitation. Sooner or later there comes a point at which the workers recognise that, whether they are right or wrong, if they carry a particular dispute beyond a certain stage they will be endangering the national safety, and they will be leaving in the lurch their fellows who are fighting for them—men of their own class who are fighting for them in the stormy waters of the North Sea or in the blood-stained trenches. When that moment comes, the agitator is thrown aside and the essential patriotism of the great masses of the English working people asserts itself, as it has asserted itself just now, in the case to which the noble Marquess referred, in South Wales. The masses of our fellow-countrymen are patriots at heart. The industrial classes are just as patriotic as any other class, and when the point is reached at which it becomes apparent to them that the continuance of an industrial dispute is going to imperil the safety of the country, then their prejudices, even their legitimate grievances, are thrown aside. They have done it every time, and I believe they will do it to the end of this struggle. These things are then forgotten, and the only thing they remember is that they are Englishmen, and that in a time of the greatest peril which England has ever known they are going to stand by their country.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury is greatly to be congratulated on the speech he made, and on the debate which he so skilfully inaugurated; and I want to thank my noble friend who has spoken for the Government for the very interesting speech to which we have just listened. I assure him that we thank him and appreciate the frankness of his utterance. We recognise the modesty of the claim he has made for the action of the Government, but such action as has been taken has been taken by this Government, and I believe, as I think he also believes, it will mark a turning-point in the history of social legislation or of Government action in connection with social legislation in this country. I need not tell him that the Government have behind them the whole of your Lordships' House in the policy which they have started. The wisest measure the Government could take for industrial calm and the increase of output would be to arrange to give a month's holiday on full pay successively to all the men who have been bearing this tremendous struggle of three and a-half years work in the factories and in the munition shops. I know that this would be very difficult to arrange, but I believe it would be one of the best investments the country had ever made.

My noble friend who has just spoken alluded to the agitations and the strikes which have caused us disquiet and alarm from time to time. I know from my own experience that one never can fairly pass judgment on any one of these occasions of disputes unless one knows all the circumstances of the case. Every one of these occasions is published in the newspapers and advertised far and wide throughout the length and breadth of the land. What is not advertised, what the newspapers never publish, are the cases of the millions of men who, week after week, month after month, and year after year, week days and Sundays, have gone on working from an undiluted sense of patriotism. They have gone on working with their families split up and separated, and, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury pointed out, sometimes living in circumstances that might almost be described as horrible, in places such as Barrow, where inadequate accommodation has been provided. Surely the most wonderful thing in all this war is the proof of the solidarity of our race and of our nation. We may have our disputes, but it does not matter whether a man is a Duke or a crossing-sweeper, if he is an Englishman he really looks at things from much the same point of view, and I believe the same to be true of the Scots. As compared with some other nations, the extraordinary homogeneity and unity of our nation is, I think, one of those things which ought to cause us to feel no fear for the future.

I approach this great enfranchisement which is going to take place knowing that mistakes will be made and things will be done of which I disapprove, but I have the most profound belief in the common sense and desire for justice of my fellow-countrymen and women; and the whole experience of this war has shown that we all really look, from our different aspects and trend of mind, in the same way at these great questions. What is the point which has emerged from this debate and the investigations of the Industrial Commissions? It is not true, as has been stated, that the trade unions are mainly out for the material question of wages. The real truth is that they are out for the status of the working man and the status of the union. They want the nation in all its parts what are called the governing classes—Parliament and employers to recognise the status of the working man and the status of the union, and no longer, like the economists of old, to consider Labour as a merchandisable commodity, There is an absolute determination that they shall have a voice in the control of the conditions under which they live and work. That is at the bottom of the labour unrest, and I believe that every single one of your Lordships is in full sympathy with that movement.

But we ought to remind the trade unions that if they are given the status for which they ask, and for which they are right in asking, it carries with it great responsibilities. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot have a status and at the same time remain irresponsible. Indeed, nothing would be more dangerous for this country than for any power to grow up which had no responsibilities attaching to it. There never can be more than one Government in this country. However important Labour may be, it will never be more than a part of the nation. It never can be the whole nation, and the whole nation can only be represented by the House of Commons and the Government supported by the House of Commons. When Labour returns a majority to the House of Commons it will have the responsibility of forming the Government, but whether Labour has formed a. Government or is organised outside there never can be in the national interest more than one Government in this country. The interests, of the whole must always be considered as more important than the interests of any part, however important.

At the present moment I think there are some grounds for anxiety. I speak un-instructedly, as I have no access now to official documents, but I think there is some reason for anxiety on the ground that the trade union organisation is weakening. I think that would be a great calamity. The real solution of this question is to be found in an increase of the strength of the trade union organisation: in the recognition and acceptance of their status and the assumption and acknowledgment by them of their responsibility. Nothing is more unfortunate than that the impression should have gone abroad that the Government I do not mean this Government only—have not dealt fairly and squarely with Labour since the war began. Labour has never done itself more harm than when it has appeared to repudiate honourable agreements made on its behalf by its leaders. No friend of trade unions can do otherwise than deplore that a bargain which has been made is broken because it is inconvenient. There is no merit in keeping a bargain when it suits you. The whole code of honour teaches us that the merit of keeping a bargain is in keeping it when it does not suit you; and nothing has really tended to weaken national confidence in the unions more than those occasions when it seemed as if the men, because it was inconvenient, departed from a bargain which had been made with full authority on their behalf. If that is so, however unfortunate it may be the Government should do nothing which may convey, deservedly or undeservedly, a corresponding impression. No Minister ought ever to make on behalf of the Government a pledge to Labour unless he knows he can fulfil it, and when once a pledge has been given on behalf of the Government that pledge ought to be fulfilled. It is impossible to expect trade unions to accept a higher standard in this matter than is set them by the Government. I am quite sure that my noble friend who has spoken for the Government will agree with me on this point, and I hope that the occasion will never arise again when it can be even plausibly stated that the trade unions have been deceived by the representatives of the Government. In this House Capital is very fully represented I think it is over-represented. I unite with Lord St. Davids, who wished that Labour was represented in this House.

LORD ST. DAVIDS

It was the Lord Archbishop.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Yes, the most rev. Prelate. But I think Lord St. Davids will agree with the sentiment.

LORD ST. DAVIDS

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

It makes our position in regard to the problems which are coming on peculiarly difficult. All I can say is that I believe there is no part of Parliament where the claims of Labour will be considered with more sympathy and more impartiality than in your Lordships' House. It is true that Capital is over represented in this House, and that there is also a large representation of the land, but it is also true that your Lordships recognise the unity of nationality which has been proved in this war, and will approach the consideration of the great claims of Labour in no carping spirit, in no spirit of distrust, but in a complete spirit of sympathy.

I have only one word more to say, and that is in connection with a remark which fell from my noble friend Lord St. Davids. He did not mean it, but I think he lent colour to the suggestion that has been made in many quarters by the Socialist Press, that the farmers of this country are profiteers. I believe that to be absolutely untrue.

LORD ST. DAVIDS

I did not use the word "profiteering" there. I said "made large profits."

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I have been in a position to know, and I do not deny that some individuals may have made large profits, but I say quite distinctly from my knowledge and experience that it is not true to say that the average farmer has made large profits. I absolutely deny that. Before the war be was making very moderate profits. On the average, since the war he has been making much better profits than he ever made before, but they cannot by any accurate use of language as I understand it, be described as very large. It is extraordinarily unjust for the Socialist writers and speakers in question to blame the farmer for the prices they have had to pay for food. The price of food has not been fixed by the British farmer. It has been the world price. It has been the natural and inevitable consequence, of the fiscal system which this country has deliberately adopted for many years past. There was a period when that policy had reduced prices to so low a level that the staple articles of food could not possibly be grown in this country at a profit, and during that period thousands of farmers were reduced to penury. Nobody helped them then; nobody pitied them then. These writers said, "Oh, this is the inevitable and natural consequence of the working of an admirable law of political economy." It is not just, it is not generous, it is mean in the extreme when the prices rule the other way, that these men who are hit by their own doctrine and by their own policy should turn round and blame the farmer. No. I think the fanner, under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, has done his best in this war, and he is the last man who is responsible for the results of the policy adopted in this country for the last fifty years.

VISCOUNT DEVONPORT

May I ask a question arising out of the statement made by the noble Viscount (Lord Milner) in the course of his speech dealing with the increased percentages of the cost of food over a period? I think he mentioned that the prices continued to rise until September of this year, when they approached somewhere about, 105 per cent. in excess over those for 1913. Then there came a diminution which brought them down to somewhere about 97 per cent. The question I want to ask is, Was that diminution effected by the artificial reduction in the price of the loaf?

VISCOUNT MILNER

Yes, it was.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.