Sitting of 22 November 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Public Petitions Committee,
Fourth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Pacific Cable Bill, without Amendment.
Telegraph (Construction) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Alexander John McDonnell Pilkington, of 14, Herbert Place, in the city of Dublin, with Dorothy Pilkington, his wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes" [Pilkington's Divorce Bill [Lords].

PILKINGTON'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time.
EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th September, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

EMPLOYMENT OF MILITARY DURING RAILWAY STRIKE.
Address for Return showing the correspondence between the Home Office and local authorities relating to the employment of the Military during the Railway Strike in August, 1911.—[Mr. Keir Hardie.]
Return presented relative thereto [Address 22nd November; Mr. Keir Hardie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Italy and Turkey.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether under any existing treaties the consent of England is required before Turkey can cede Tripoli to Italy?
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer returned to his identical question of yesterday, and circulated with the Votes.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he knew beforehand of the intended invasion by Italy of Tripoli; and if he consented to it?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative. It has already been stated, in answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 2nd instant, that the first communication of any intention to occupy Tripoli that His Majesty's Government received was the declaration of war on September 30th. We at once expressed the intention of issuing a declaration of neutrality.

  Annexation of the Congo.
  Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked when His Majesty's Government will be prepared to give formal recognition of the annexation of the Congo by Belgium?
  Mr. ACLAND: As has been previously stated in this House, His Majesty's Government will not recognise the annexation until they are able to lay before the House evidence to show that the actual state of things in the Congo with regard to the condition of the natives and with regard to trade is such as to have brought the conditions there within, at any rate, reasonable measure of fulfilling treaty obligations. We shall, therefore, in any case, wait until the whole of the three zones into which the country was divided have been opened to trade.
  Sir G. PARKER: When do the Government expect to publish the Report of Consuls, and is it the intention of the Foreign

  1173
  Secretary to deal with the question on Monday next?
  Mr. ACLAND: I cannot reply to the second question. I have not consulted my right hon. Friend as to the subjects he will deal with in his speech. A Blue Book has been laid, and ought to be in the hands of Members in a day or two.
  Mr. FALLE: Will the House have an opportunity of giving an opinion on the Convention before it is accepted?
  Mr. ACLAND: I cannot answer that question. It clearly does not arise.

  Naval Strength.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Atlantic Fleet is an independent command or whether this force is under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet; and, if the latter is the case, on how many occasions has the Atlantic Fleet been combined with the Home Fleet for exercises since the arrangement came into force?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The Atlantic Fleet is an independent command, and only comes under the orders of the Commander-in Chief of the Home Fleet when the Admiralty so directs. During the present year, the Atlantic Fleet has taken part in combined exercises with the Home Fleet in January and at Midsummer.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the German high sea fleet now comprises seventeen battleships as compared with only sixteen in the active divisions of the British Home Fleet; whether seven years ago we had in home waters twice as many fully commissioned battleships as Germany; and whether the changes thus indicated are to be regarded as an expression of Admiralty policy as regards the naval defence of these islands?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The comparison as regards the battleships comprised in the fleets in home waters maintained in commission with full crews is as follows:—

  1904.

  Germany

  11

  Great Britain

  Home Fleet

  8

  Channel Squadron

  8

  1911.

  Germany

  17

  Great Britain

  Home Fleet, 1st and 2nd Divns.

  16

  Atlantic Fleet

  6

  1174
  With reference to the last part of the question, the naval defence of these islands does not depend solely upon the number of battleships in commission with full crews.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Atlantic Fleet will always be ready for service in the North Sea?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Atlantic Fleet is maintained in divisions under the conditions which the hon. Gentleman specifies in his question.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not the fact that they are not available for some considerable time, whereas the German High Sea Fleet is available at a moment's notice?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. Arrangements which are made will enable the Atlantic Fleet to be available at any time when it is necessary to reinforce the Home Fleet.
  Sir G. PARKER: Are we to understand that "first and second divisions" means the Home Fleet, including the Channel Fleet?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. There are sixteen battleships in the first and second divisions of the Home Fleet, and there are six battleships in the Atlantic Fleet. All these vessels are maintained in full commission with full crews.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not the fact that the Atlantic Fleet is sometimes as far away as Gibraltar?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is sometimes as far away as Gibraltar. Those times are chosen with reference to the general situation.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many battleships were maintained in full commission in 1904, and how many in the present year?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is—

  33 in 1904,

  28 in the present year.

  Of these the number in home waters was—

  16 in 1904,

  22 in 1911.

  Royal Dockyards.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the wages paid to joiners at present engaged in work at the naval base at Rosyth are 8d. per hour for a ten-hours day, whereas in Dunfermline the number of hours worked per day

  1175
  is nine; and whether, as the conditions obtaining in Dunfermline were recognised as the conditions under which the contract would be carried out, he will make inquiries with a view to seeing that fair treatment is given to the workmen in question?
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert): Carpenters and joiners employed on the Rosyth contract are paid at the rate of 8d. per hour, which is the Dunfermline rate. The same hours are worked by all the men on this contract. It would be impracticable, where a large number of men is employed, for different classes of workmen to work different hours.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of Admiralty, whether, seeing that the arrangement made for taking on labour at the dockyards does not in any way limit the discretion of the yard officials in asking for men whose services they are anxious to secure, he will explain in what way the Exchanges assist the yard officials; whether he can give the number of men taken on at the respective yards since the new arrangements came into force; what proportion of these entries were men previously dismissed on reduction; and how many were asked for by the yard officials?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): With regard to the first part of the question, I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies given to him by the President of the Board of Trade on 30th October and by myself on 26th and 31st October, and to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on 15th November. I may further explain that under the new arrangement dockyard officers are relieved of the duty of keeping records of candidates for entry. With regard to the second part of the question, the numbers are:—

  Portsmouth

  …

  …

  283

  Chatham

  …

  …

  211

  Devonport

  …

  …

  650

  Sheerness

  …

  …

  52

  Pembroke Dock

  …

  …

  2

  These numbers include men entered for temporary service, but are exclusive of apprentices. The particulars asked for in the last two paragraphs of the question could not be furnished without the expenditure of considerable time and labour, and the withdrawal of officials from important duties.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How long has this Order been in force?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think from September, but if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the answers I gave him he will be fully acquainted with the facts.

  British East Africa (Mr. Cole's Acquittal).
  Mr. W. PEELasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government proposes to move the Government of British East Africa to deport the members of the jury which acquitted Mr. G. Cole?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No, Sir.
  Mr. PEEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman deport this gentleman who was acquitted and leave the jury who acquitted him to go scot-free?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no knowledge why Mr. Cole was acquitted. If the jury system in East Africa does not secure the administration of equal justice other steps will be taken.
  Mr. PEEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to re-try all jury cases in which he is dissatisfied with the verdict?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Was the jury sworn?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not know how the jury was empanelled.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    STAFF APPOINTMENTS,
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in making appointments to the clerical staff necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the National Insurance Bill, he will offer appointments in the first instance, to volunteers or selections from the Civil Service; and whether he will make arrangements as soon as practicable to throw open these appointments to competition in preference to recruiting them by means of patronage?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Under Clause 41 of the Bill it is for the Insurance Commissioners to appoint their staff and I cannot give any guarantee as to the details of the arrangements before the Commissioners are themselves actually appointed.
    Lord BALCARRES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members of Parliament are already being pressed to use their influence in connection with the making of appointments? If the Government would make an announcement on the subject forthwith that the claims of everybody would be considered, the appointments might be all the better.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am well aware that Members of Parliament have received a great many communications. I have received a considerable number myself, but a number of days ago the announcement was made that no application would be even recorded until the Bill was passed.
    Mr. PEEL: Does it follow from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government will have no control over the appointments by the Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think my answer was perfectly explicit.
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Members of this House will have any influence whatever in obtaining posts for applicants under the National Insurance Bill if it becomes an Act; and, if not, will he take any means to announce to possible applicants that they need not apply to Members of the House?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have every sympathy with the object that prompts my hon. Friend's question, but, as I have just explained to the hon. Member for Taunton, it will be for the Insurance Commissioners, who do not yet exist, to make these appointments. At present it is obviously useless to apply either to hon. Members or to anyone else.
    Mr. HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any Members of this House will obtain posts under the Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know of anyone.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Will the Government consent to these posts being filled by an impartial Committee, so as to insure the appointment of those best qualified, and not merely those whose qualification is that they are supporters of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I agree with the hon. Member that support by Members of the Government or Members of this House is not in itself a qualification and ought not to be considered.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: What are to be the powers of the Treasury?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The appointments will be made by the Commissioners.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Surely these appointments are subject to the approval of the Treasury?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not recollect any provision to that effect.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This discussion should have taken place in Committee on the Bill.
    Mr. LANSBURY: It was guillotined.

    MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.
    Mr. CROOKSasked whether medical men sitting as members of the local health committees will be allowed to practice under the National Insurance Bill, namely, receive fees for service on attendance upon sick persons?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Membership of a local health committee, which is a purely honorary position, will not debar a doctor either from private practice or from attending patients under the insurance scheme.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers it wise procedure that medical men should fix their own rate of pay?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; but I do not think they have that right.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it true that the health committees will have power to decide as to what persons shall be treated under the Bill?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A health committee will not be composed entirely of doctors.

    INVALIDED SEAMEN.
    Mr. YERBURGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the exact manner, under Clause 36 of the National Insurance Bill, in which seamen invalided out of the service will receive medical and sanatorium benefits on discharge; whether seamen who contract tuberculosis during service will receive full sanatorium benefits; and in what manner provision is to be made for the building of sanatoria?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The "exact manner" in which these persons will receive their benefits will be governed by regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners after consultation with the

    1179
    Admiralty and Army Council. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the question I will refer the hon. Member to Clause 47 of the Bill

    PLURALITY OF EMPLOYERS.
    Mr. MORTONasked whether, in accordance with the Eighth Schedule of the National Insurance Bill, a workman, who is regularly employed by different employers in each week, will have to pay separate contributions of 2½d. each; and whether the same conditions will be imposed on each of the employers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): Under the 8th Schedule to the National Insurance Bill, as amended by Standing Committee, a workman will be required to pay 1d. for each engagement under a separate employer if the period of employment does not exceed one day; 2d. if the period of employment exceeds one day, and 2½d. if the period of employment exceeds two days but is not more than a week. Similar contributions will be required from the employer. I may, however, draw my hon. Friend's attention to Clause 75 of the Bill as amended in Committee. Under this Clause an employer may make an arrangement in respect of labour engaged by him through a Labour Exchange to treat for the purposes of his contribution the intermittent employment of the same workman as continuous employment. Under the same Clause a workman may treat as continuous his intermittent employment by the same or different employers who have availed themselves of this Clause.

    ARREARS DUE BY CRIMINALS.
    Mr. LYELLasked whether, under the provisions of the National Insurance Bill, an insured person who had been sentenced to a term of five years' penal servitude would, on release, be liable to pay any portion of the arrears which had accrued?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Interruption of employment owing to imprisonment will not be treated differently from interruption of employment due to any other cause.
    Mr. LYELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the total loss incurred by an insured person previous to release does not involve a very substantial addition to the penalty?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: He is no worse off than anyone else who has omitted to pay his contribution.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Even if he has to pay both the employer's and the employé's contribution?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If there is no employer, obviously the insured person cannot get the employer's contribution paid for him.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is he better off than any other member of the community?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly not. He is neither better nor worse off.
    Mr. LYELL: May I ask whether the insurance fund during the five years has not been freed from all liability?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, I think that is so.

    MERTHYR TYDFIL SOCIETIES.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by a meeting of insurance agents within the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil protesting against assurance companies and collecting societies being allowed to form approved societies under the National Insurance Bill, unless there is provision made for compelling such companies and societies to observe trade union conditions as though they were contractors to whom the fair wages resolution would apply; and whether, between now and the Report stage of the Bill, he will consider whether he can insert a Clause to this effect?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My right hon. Friend is unable to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member; the object that he seeks to attain hardly falls within the proper scope of an Insurance Bill.

    DEATH BENEFITS.
    Major WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made an agreement with representatives of industrial assurance societies to exclude death benefits from the scope of the National Insurance Bill; and, if so, if he will state the date when the agreement was made and the terms of such agreement?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My right hon. Friend gave this pledge in a letter addressed to a correspondent on the 1st December, 1910, and published in the

    1181
    Press at the time. Its terms were as follows:—
    "The proposed benefits do not include the provision of a funeral benefit or any immediate money payment on the death of a contributor or his relatives.… The whole of this field will still be left open to existing agencies."

    PETITIONS AGAINST BILL.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the doubt which exists as to the desire of the people of the United Kingdom to see the Insurance Bill passed into law, he will arrange for petition papers to be placed in every post office in the United Kingdom on which signatures can be placed either for or against the Bill by persons affected?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. PEEL: Will the poll of the people already taken in South Somersetshire be taken as a test?

    BORROWING ON RESERVE VALUES.
    Mr. AMERYasked under what provision of the National Insurance Bill approved societies can be prevented from borrowing money on the security of such portion of the reserve values as may be credited to them but not entrusted to them for investment?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Clause 28, Sub-section (4).

    COLLECTORS FOR DOCTORS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the case of those persons now employed by doctors as collectors who will be deprived of their employment if the National Insurance Bill is passed by Parliament; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take steps to secure compensation for them?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to him on Monday.

    COST OF ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the three halfpence per person per week paid by the State for the first sixteen years under the National Insurance Bill will pay the whole or more than the whole expense of the administration of the First Part of the Bill; and, if more than the whole of the expense of the administration, how much will be left of the State contribution to be applied towards sickness, medical, and sanatorium benefit?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The State's contribution is two-ninths of the benefits and cost of administration in the case of men and one-fourth in the case of women. The estimated amount of the administrative expenses of societies which are chargeable against contributions is about one-eleventh of the total cost of benefits and administration. Administrative expenses incurred by the Government are to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

    CROFTERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in a great many cases, the crofter, whose total income is estimated to not exceed 1s. 6d. per day, but who has no employer, will have to pay the whole of the contribution to the National Insurance fund; if not, where is the contribution to come from; and whether he is aware that the crofter cannot afford to find even 4d. a week?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Crofters will not be compelled to insure; those who cannot afford to pay 7d. every week may yet gain the full benefit of all that they contribute, together with the State contribution of two-ninths of the cost of administration and benefits, if they join the deposit insurance; Sub-section (9) of Clause 58 gives the local health committees in Scotland power to vary the benefits which they will receive.
    Mr. MORTON: May he vary the contribution?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That question is covered by my answer. He can contribute a smaller amount.

    ASSURANCE COMPANIES' BENEFITS.
    Sir H. CARLILEasked whether assurance and other companies who may establish branches, as approved societies under the National Insurance Bill, will be permitted to give benefits not provided by the Bill from their outside accumulated funds, in order to use them as decoys for the purpose of obtaining members from friendly societies and trade unions who are prevented by Clause 55 from giving like benefits?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No profit can be made out of a branch established as an approved society, and companies will have no inducement to spend money in the manner suggested, from which they can get no adequate return.

    Laud Valuation.
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what are the total expenses connected with the preparation, printing, issue, and service of the documents known as Form IV. to occupying owners, and of Form VIII., which have recently been declared illegal by the Court of Appeal; how many of such forms have been issued or printed; what is his estimate for the issue and preparation of altered and improved Forms VI. and Forms VIII. in substitution of the documents condemned, and of the approximate amount of legal expenses incurred by the Treasury in defending these forms; and whether he will take steps in future to obtain competent legal advice upon the legality of forms so issued, in view of the fact that the Master of the Rolls described Form VIII as waste paper?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No separate record has been kept of the expense of issuing the particular forms referred to. Twelve million two hundred and sixty thousand Forms IV. and 850,000 Forms VIII. have been printed, but I am unable to give the precise number of such forms that have actually been issued. No estimate has been framed for the issue and preparation of improved forms in substitution of any that were issued in circumstances that have been held to make them invalid. Competent legal advice would be taken in connection with any new issue. The approximate amount of legal expenses incurred by the Treasury in legal proceedings connected with the forms referred to in the question is £1,100.
    Mr. PEEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the expense of the preparation and issue of these forms has been many times more than the product of the land taxes?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information.
    Mr. PEEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me to what use all these forms were put before they became all these tons of waste paper?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not prepared to admit that they are all tons of waste paper.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state in how many cases legal proceedings have been taken by the Government in
    1184
    respect of Form IV., and what is the total expenditure incurred by the State in connection with such proceedings; in how many cases the Government have been successful; and whether it is their intention to refund the expenses to which individuals have been put in defending themselves against inquiries made on forms now declared illegal?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No legal proceedings have been taken by the Government in respect of Form IV.; the second, third, and fourth parts of the question do not therefore arise.
    Mr. CASSEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he would take into consideration whether the Treasury would pay the costs of this test case?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That question does not arise out of the answer.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether 2d. commission was paid on each of the eleven million copies distributed in Great Britain of Form IV. (Land Valuation), now declared to be invalid and unauthorised; what expense had been previously incurred in connection with the preparation, printing, paper, ink, parcelling, addressing, and forwarding of these forms in addition to the above commission of more than £91,000; and to whom this commission was paid?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The remuneration paid to the officers by whom Forms IV. were distributed, who in England were for the most part Assessors of Taxes and in Scotland Surveyors of Taxes or Land Valuation Assessors, varied with the amount and character of the work that they were required to perform and included all office expenses. In addition an expenditure of £8,000 was incurred on printing and paper.
    Sir H. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the other details asked for on the question with reference to the expense of preparing the form and the payment of 2d. per copy for distribution?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot give any more information than I have given now.
    Several HON. MEMBERSrose.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members will see that there are 120 questions on the Paper.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether the late inspector of gas to the corporation of Sevenoaks has been offered and accepted an appointment as land valuation officer at High Wycombe; and what examination, if any, he had to pass before being appointed to said post?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have been unable to verify the suggestion of the hon. Member that an inspector of gas has been offered an appointment as land valuation officer.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask, arising out of that—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given a most explicit answer to the question. If the hon. Member requires any additional information, all he has got to do is to put a question down.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the decision of the High Court in connection with the two forms known as Forms IV. and VIII., he is in a position to state the methods that will be adopted in Ireland for ascertaining from owners, on whom the forms have not yet been served and returned, the preliminary information that will be necessary to enable the land valuation authorities to serve a provisional valuation of total and site value in respect of each Irish hereditament?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The recent decision of the Court of Appeal does not affect Form IV. as issued in Ireland; as regards Form VIII. the question of its revision is under consideration.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is Form IV. issued in Ireland then?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes; I gave the figures the other day.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total costs of the issue of Forms IV. and VIII. has been; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation making their return duly filled up by those to whom they are sent compulsory?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As regards the first part of the question, no separate record has been kept of the cost incurred in connection with the particular forms mentioned. I am not yet in a position to make any statement as regards the action to be taken as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal.

    Revenue Staff (Conditions of Service).
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the discontent existing among clerks to surveyors of taxes in regard to inadequacy of pay, absence of proper provision for old age and infirmity, and unsatisfactory arrangements as to sick leave, he will reconsider his decision to make no further concessions?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to reconsider his decision.

    Registered Clubs.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the numbers of members of registered clubs in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively; and what number of clubs are registered in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The latest volume of licensing statistics shows that on the 1st January, 1910, there were 7,294 registered clubs in England, and 242 in Wales, making a total of 7,536. There is no information available as to the numbers of the members of the clubs. As regards Scotland and Ireland, the matter is one for the Scottish and Irish offices respectively; but I may say that I understand that there are no collected figures for those countries similar to those for England and Wales.

    Swine Fever.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether His Majesty's Government will carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on swine fever and of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, that the cost of administration of the swine fever orders should be borne by the Exchequer?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): As I explained to the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire on Monday, the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation which was embodied in the Report of the Departmental Committee refers only to the expenses incurred by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The payment out of the Exchequer of administrative expenses incurred by local authorities in the discharge of their statutory duties would

    1187
    obviously be attended with many difficulties, and no proposals of this character are included in the Committee's Report.
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether Section 6 of the Swine Fever Order of 1911 secures the sufficient disinfection of persons who handle swine in markets, fairs, and sale yards; and, if not, whether he will so amend the order that this precaution may be taken?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The order does not provide for the disinfection of persons who handle swine, other than castrators, and it would be very difficult to devise or enforce effective provisions for the purpose. I shall, however, be glad to give the matter further consideration when the final Report of the Departmental Committee is received.

    Live Stock Importation (United States).
    Mr. COURTHOPEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has yet received any information to the effect that the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington have decided not to admit the importation of live stock from Great Britain into the United States of America until the origin of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have been satisfactorily traced; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have received no official communication on the subject, but I have reason to think from information which has reached me during the past few days that some misunderstanding as to the position has arisen, and I am in communication with the representatives of the United States Government on the subject.

    Bee Disease.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, since it was stated in the last Report of his Intelligence Department that the Board possesses no power to take any action in connection with the bee disease, he will take the necessary steps to acquire by legislation powers similar to those conferred upon the Department of Agriculture in Ireland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand the hon. Member to refer to the passage in the Report which concerns the Isle of Wight Bee Disease. The Bee Pest Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908, does not
    1188
    confer any powers for dealing with outbreaks of that disease, and our information with regard to it is far from complete. I am, however, considering what steps it may be desirable or possible to take with regard to the control of bee diseases generally, and I propose during the recess to communicate with the leading authorities on the subject.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this disease has now spread to the North of Scotland, and that the Board of Agriculture have not made the slightest attempt to stop it.

    Animal Diseases (Continent).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if, in giving the statement in the Board's journal on Animal Diseases on the Continent, such terms as Höfe, Foyers, Etables, Cours, Communes, alpages-paturages, etc., can be Anglicised so that the information given in this statement may be more readily understood by those not well versed in the technical phraseology in use on the Continent?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will consider what can be done to meet the hon. Member's suggestion, with which I am in sympathy. It is not always possible, however, to give a precise English equivalent for these technical terms, and a translation which is only approximately correct is liable to be misleading.

    Foot-and-Month Disease.
    Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board pay full compensation for animals slaughtered under an order of the Board when an an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurs; and, if not, what value is given?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Section 15 (2) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, provides that the Board shall pay compensation for animals slaughtered in connection with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease as follows: (1) Where the animal slaughtered was affected with foot-and-mouth disease the compensation is to be the value of the animal immediately before it became so affected; (2) in every other case the compensation is to be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered.

    Sea Fishery Development.
    Major WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether he

    1189
    will now state if the recommendation sent in by the Board to the Development Commissioners with regard to fishery development covers the claim of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Development Commissioners for a grant for scientific work, or whether the recommendation was for a grant for policing purposes mainly or solely; and (2) whether the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland have been promised the sum of £50,000 for fishery development; whether no decision has been reached as regards the similar application of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee, despite the fact that the application of the latter body was forwarded to the Treasury before the Irish claim; and if he will state the reasons which have led to a delay of more than fifteen months in the settlement of this question?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The recommendations of the Board referred both to policing and to research work. If the negotiations of the Board with the Development Commission are successful, I hope to be able to secure substantial assistance for the research work of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee. I am not aware what grant, if any, for fishery development has been made from the Development Fund to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland. I hope to be in a position to to make a further statement with regard to the subject matter of these two questions shortly.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately what sum he hopes to hand over to these Commissioners?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; I could not state the exact sum at this stage.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of the date?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Negotiations are proceeding, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

    Small Holdings.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked on whom the expense falls in those cases where the local authorities have not included in the rent for small holdings the annual instalments for the repayment of the purchase moneys; how many local authorities have so acted; and what per-
    1190
    centage these local authorities bear to the whole of the local authorities who have purchased land for small holdings?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the instalments of sinking fund are not included in the rent they would be chargeable on the rates. Three county councils out of the fifty-five who have purchased land for small holdings have adopted this course.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Which are the county councils who bought land and paid for it out of the rates, instead of out of the small holders' pockets?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are only three on the list as to which we have any definite information. I should be glad if the hon. Member will give me notice.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in approving schemes in future, see that the instalments for purchasing land are not placed upon the county rate?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    Diseases of Animals Act.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked approximately the cost to the Board of Agriculture of administering the various Acts with reference to the diseases of animals; and what saving would be effected in the event of a separate and independent Board being set up for Scotland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The aggregate cost of the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act in Great Britain, excluding the compensation paid for animals slaughtered and miscellaneous expenses such as disinfection, etc., is estimated at, say, £51,000 during the present financial year. The staff is at present interchangeable as between England and Scotland as necessity arises, but the salaries and expenses of the officers permanently stationed in Scotland amount to £3,750, and this may be taken to be the amount by which the Board's Vote would be reduced, so far as administrative expenses are concerned, if this part of the work of the Board were transferred to a separate Scottish Department.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for West Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine) has just said that the Board of Agriculture is not doing its duty in Scotland?
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked whether, in the event of a separate Board of Agriculture being set up for Scotland with full power to administer the various Acts referring to diseases of animals, there will be a Scottish representative in the Government to answer specially questions referring to the administration of such Board?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, if the plague of foot-and-mouth disease or rinderpest broke out in Scotland, the whole energy of his Department would be set apart to stamp out the disease, and that the cost would be borne entirely by the Board over which he presides without any reference to locality?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Does that mean an affirmative now or an affirmative in the future?

Business of the House.
Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to proceed further with the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill; and, if so, when?
Mr. PEELasked whether it is intended to proceed further with the Shops Bill this Session?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I hope to make a statement next week as to the business to be taken during the remainder of the Session.
Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Noble Lord has emphatically stated in the country that the Government have dropped the Trade Unions Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am obliged for the information.

BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
Mr. AMERY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given private notice, namely, whether in view of the fact that the next meeting of the International Commission under the Brussels Sugar Convention will be held at Brussels on 8th December, he will afford the House any opportunity of discussing the statement made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is possible that an opportunity may be afforded in the Debate on Foreign Affairs next Monday, but if the time available does not suffice for that purpose the question may be raised at any time on the Adjournment of the House, if the hon. Gentleman gives notice to the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the subject is much too important to be dealt with in half-an-hour's discussion on the Adjournment? Will he not undertake to

1209
give us an adequate opportunity of considering the determination of the Government before that determination is irrevocably carried out?
The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman in his responsible position asks for such an opportunity, of course I will consider it with a view to granting it.

PARLIAMENT ACT.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  Viscount WOLMER: May I ask you, Sir, a question of which I have given you notice, namely, whether the National Insurance Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The National Insurance Bill, as it now stands, is not, in my opinion, a Money Bill within the definition of Section 1 of the Parliament Act. I guard myself, because the House of Commons has not yet parted with the Bill.

RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THEIR EMPLOYÉS.

  PROPOSED CONFERENCE.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I rise to move the following Resolution:—
  "That this House regrets that the directors of the railway companies have refused to meet the representatives of the men, in order to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Railway Conciliation Agreement of 1907, declares such refusal to be contrary to the public interest, and to have no justification, and asks the Government to bring both sides into conference without delay."
  In doing so it is necessary to make it perfectly clear to the House that the Resolution raises only a narrow and very specific point. It will be necessary very likely at some future time, not very remote, to discuss the question of railwaymen's wages and the very much larger question of the relation between the State and railway management in the form of railway nationalisation. I think that recent events have made both of these things inevitable. But neither of them can be settled to-day or next month, and what this House has to do now is to consider the crisis which next month may involve the country in a dispute as objectionable and as dangerous as the dispute which broke out last August.
  1210
  Therefore, I have confined my Motion to the one point of asking the Government to procure a meeting between the railway directors and the railway servants, at the same time expressing regret that the railway directors have up to now refused the overtures the Government have made to them. I hope in what I have to say I shall raise no feeling that will make that meeting either impossible or difficult; and more particularly as I understand I am to be followed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for one of the Divisions of Essex (Colonel Lockwood). I am thus full of hope, not only because of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's genial personality—[An HON. MEMBER: "He will not follow."] Oh, I am mistaken. I was informed that I was to be followed by the right hon. and gallant Member. I am very sorry, because as a railway director, and as a frequent spokesman in this House for the railway companies I feel perfectly certain that had the matter been left in his hands it would have been possible to come to an arrangement which would have been satisfactory and honourable to both sides. More particularly so, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has from time to time assisted us, and asked our assistance for his own work in imposing trade unionism upon the Government; and also in imposing upon the taxpayers of this country a 30s. weekly wage minimum. I think that such a record is a very proper one on the part of a railway director who is going to meet trade union representatives, and I was rather pleasing myself with the idea that the right hon. Gentleman was really going to be the spokesman of the directors to-day.
  This House must first of all be reminded of the events which led up to the present situation. I will not detail them, because they must be present in the minds of every hon. Member. There was the disturbance and unrest of 1907, followed by the Conciliation Agreement, an agreement which was imposed upon the men by their leaders. It was never pretended by anybody at that time that the railway workers of this country were favourable to that agreement, which was come to in their name. Loyally they agreed to carry it out. But no sooner was the agreement carried out, no sooner did the men meet the employers, than by a series of jugglings and readjustments the benefits given to the men by the awards were reduced, taken away, diminished, until before 1910 had ended, the whole staff of

  1211
  railway employés of this country had made up their minds that the railway companies were not honourably and fairly carrying out the obligations imposed upon them by the agreement. I have not the least doubt but that the railway companies have got their reply. As a matter of fact they have their reply. Whatever their reply is it cannot challenge as a statement of absolute fact what I am saying now in respect of the men. Rightly or wrongly, the men have come to the conclusion that the Conciliation Boards, established by agreement in 1907, were not doing fairly by them. They had no hope at all from them. The result was, instead of stating grievances that were, what one might call practical, instead of laying down programmes that could be carried into effect immediately, the men, in their state of hopeless despair, fell back upon a kind of legal moral issue. They substituted legal moral claims for programmes, with the result that something which was not exactly a spirit of revolt began to be prevalent—a spirit which is behind revolutions rather than gradual and slight changes.
  The unrest which flourished during July and August had a characteristic which was far more than that of a mere passing agitation. It had the characteristic of a fundamental upstirring, of fundamental discontent with everything in general, which could only let itself go in ways which are only too familiar with the public. But lest hon. Gentlemen opposite imagine that by saying that I am confessing that that state of mind was confined to the men, let me also say that the classes with whom they are more intimately associated than we are, were in precisely the same state of mind. There was nothing more revolutionary than the extraordinary talk that one heard in respectable company in railway carriages coming into the City in the morning. We had better disabuse our minds of the notion that the feeling was confined to one class. All classes, rich and poor together, the capitalist class and the labouring class in those extraordinary months of last summer were seized with a sort of revolutionary spirit, which the right hon. Gentleman, the then Home Secretary, expressed very admirably, by sending troops from Aldershot all over the country to maintain civil order. The result of that was the railway strike. That railway strike, after a day or two, was settled at
  1212
  midnight one Saturday, one part of the settlement being the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the 1907 agreement.
  4.0 P.M.
  That brings me to a point which I think it advisable to raise straight away. There have been varied reports published regarding the attitude that the men agreed to take up in respect of that Commission. It has been stated that before the Commission was appointed and before they knew who was to sit upon it, they had bound themselves absolutely to accept its decisions. Again desiring to be quite fair, whilst, of course, at the same time taking the men's side, as I do, I think there is some evidence in favour of that view. But I think the evidence is inadequate. The statement was, first of all, published in the men's official organ, the "Railway Review," and it apparently admitted that the men's leaders had agreed to accept the Report. That statement was made by the Noble Lord, one of the Members of this House who sits opposite, who is connected with the railways. I would ask hon. Members to get a copy of the "Railway Review." If they do they will find that that statement was simply embodied amongst the news. It was the sort of paragraph that is lifted out of one newspaper into another without acquiescence and without comment, simply lifted out and reproduced for what it is worth. The "Railway Review" never lent its weight never gave its backing, to the assumption that the men had agreed beforehand to accept this Report. There is another piece of evidence. Mr. Bellamy, the president of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants and the chairman of the joint executives that met to conduct the negotiations, was reported in "The Times" as having stated as a witness before the Commission that he was going to accept the Report. The curious thing is that in the official record of his evidence no such statement appears. That record, as published, is an uncorrected record. Apparently there has been some little misunderstanding. Finally, and most seriously, there is the statement issued by the Board of Trade itself. That, undoubtedly, is a most serious part of the case against the men. I should like to say what my view is of that. I think most hon. Members in this House know I was present during the whole of the negotiations that took place at the Board of Trade. I desire to say nothing that I should not say, but what really happened was this. After a very long and

  1213
  exceedingly tiring and wearying day a settlement was arrived at. That settlement was signed, sealed and delivered just about midnight, and everybody was exceedingly pleased, and hon. Members I am sure can very well imagine that everybody was only too delighted to give his mind relaxation the moment a definite settlement was come to, and apparently after the signing of the settlement the Board of Trade produced a document, and although I was present I never heard it and never knew it was done, which it read but did not put before the men. I want to be quite clear about this. I am giving my own version.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Who read it?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I do not know. I do not know whether it was read, although I was present, but it was read to the men according to the information given, and in this document there appears a form of words which undoubtedly commits the men to acceptance of the proposals. But I feel perfectly certain that everybody in this House, under the circumstances, will not insist that the letter of that statement, which was read to tired men scattered all over the room, should bind them absolutely in such circumstances. I do not think it is fair. They put no names to it, and if hon. Members will look at the document for themselves they will find that the signatures are above that statement, and I contend that that statement was nothing but a sort of unofficial addendum to the official agreement. I do not want to press it too far, but I do think to simply use that as an argument to show that the men did absolutely bind themselves to accept this Report without question and without discussion is really driving the semblance of a bargain far too far. I can say, so far as I am concerned, that if I had known that that statement was read and if I had the information that it was going to be placed before the men, I certainly would have advised them not to accept it in its then form, because it stands to reason that men occupying the delicate and responsible position that the men's representatives did that Saturday night never would, and never could and never hoped to, have subscribed to such a statement as that. I, therefore, come back to the statement made in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was telling us upon what condition the Commission was going to be elected. Will the House allow me to remind it of what was said by the
  1214
  Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th August. These are his words:—
  "But I am still very sanguine that when the men come to realise the full character of the proposal of the Government, that it is intended to give them every fair play and every opportunity, and that it is not at all a mere attempt to lure out of their hands the great weapon of striking, but that it is merely an attempt for the moment to see whether we cannot arrive at the facts which must alone be a basis of safe negotiation, to arrive at that promptly, to arrive at it without loss of time and in such a way that if the men are not satisfied with the recommendations of the Committee they could still fall back upon the very powerful weapon in their hands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th August, cols. 2186–7.]
  These were the words used by the Chancellor on the Thursday, and with that general idea in mind the men went into negotations, and with that general idea in mind they came out of the negotiations. I therefore think it is unfair to hold the men bound absolutely by a statement which was published, I have not the least doubt, in the best of faith and with the best of intentions by the Board of Trade. I find the extract I read from the right hon. Gentleman's speech ended too abruptly, and that he continued it in these words:—
  "And they are not bound by the recommendations."
  My extract was taken from the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think in this case, at any rate, it would be unfair to put the point too far. I am willing to admit this, I have always said it, and I am going to say at again in this House—I am perfectly willing to admit that there was a sort of understanding that when the Report was issued it would be the basis for complete settlement; that there might be small alterations; that there might be some amendments in the agreement superimposed upon it, but that so far as it went it would lay the general foundation which, in its general aspects and general attitude, was to settle what the foundation of the agreement was to be. I think that understanding was a real one, and to that idea the men will stick in the whole of their negotiation.
  Under that impression certainly the four executives of the railway men wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, in which they said:—
  "While the proposals of the Royal Commission are disappointing to the men, we nevertheless feel the scheme suggested does provide for a basis of agreement between the railway companies and their employés."
  That was in the official letter written to the Prime Minister, and, acting upon that letter, the Prime Minister asked the directors to meet the men and the directors refused, and, as the result of that refusal, I have put my Motion on the Paper and this Debate is taking place. Now I hope the

  1215
  result of this Debate is going to be peace. I hope we are not going to go on, if I may say so, in the very foolish way in which things have been conducted between the directors and the men in the last few years. When the directors tell us that they are anxious to carry out the Report, may I ask them what parts of the Report they are anxious to carry out, because we are anxious to carry out the Report in its entirety. What does the Report say? There are certain parts of the Report which are very uncertain—its scope, for instance. What is the width of the field which the Report actually covers? The Commissioners themselves were evidently aware that it was indefinite and that powers should be given to the Board of Trade to decide what grade should come inside the Report. With all respect to the Board of Trade, I think that could be much better settled by the directors and the representatives of the trade union co-operating to carry out that part of the Report. The Board of Trade is an exceedingly valuable instrument in industrial disputes, and is becoming more and more valuable, but I think this House should be very jealous lest the Board of Trade should have little pettifogging duties imposed upon it, because the more tiny the class of duty imposed upon the Board of Trade, the more difficult is it for the Board of Trade to keep that sense of dignity and respect which it must have if it is to be an efficient go-between between capital on the one hand and labour on the other. If the Board of Trade is to settle whether this grade comes in and that grade goes out, then the Board of Trade is going to be covered up in an amount of pettifogging details and duties, and will lose the influence it has so steadily gained in the last ten years.
  Then there are some points, I fear, of misunderstanding. We must remember the whole thing was hurried. The men's evidence could not be given after proper consideration. The companies' evidence was given under exactly the same disadvantageous circumstances, and the Commissioners themselves were unable to spend very much time in careful consideration of what evidence was to come before them. The House demanded in the last days of the Summer Session that this Commission should not only set to work at once, but that it should produce its Report without delay, and the result is that there are some misunderstandings and there are some ambiguous statements. I will give
  1216
  an example of some of the recommendations of the Commission. They recommend that before a petition should be dealt with that 25 per cent. of the members of the grade affected should sign it, which is, I am perfectly certain, a condition that the directors themselves do not want to enforce, and that the trade unions are very anxious not to enforce. That is a case in point. Surely the best way to settle that is for the two parties to meet at the Board of Trade or elsewhere and go over such points as these, and come together in a friendly understanding. That is not all the Commission does. In the very first Clause in this scheme, on page 15 of the Report, we find the expression:—
  "Unless otherwise mutually arranged, the procedure laid down in paragraphs 2–8 shall be adopted."
  There you have a clear anticipation of mutual arrangement. How is a mutual arrangement to be come to unless by the method suggested in the Resolution I am now moving. But the Report goes further, and on page 8, the 24th paragraph, is as follows:—
  "It would serve no purpose to discuss the probability as to what might have happened if the relations between the companies and the trade unions had admitted, before or at the time of the launching of the national programme of an interchange of ideas as to its feasibility, but the conclusion might reasonably be drawn that such an interchange of opinions at that stage would have been attended with valuable results."
  That is a very clear expression which must be accepted by the directors if they are to justify their claims as being the only parties who are going to accept this Report; but that is not all, because on page 11 at the top of paragraph 53—I will read the latter part of the paragraph which is the only essential part—it says:
  "The witness who appeared before us on behalf of the Great Western Railway, gave an illustration of the valuable results which attended his collaboration with the trade union official who had conducted a case of the men before the arbitrator. In that instance, many vexed points of interpretation were settled quite satisfactorily, and in our opinion a more general adoption of this method of negotiation would be helpful to both parties."
  There are other statements scattered through the Report, and in addition to definite statements, there is a spirit in the Report which the directors ought to carry out just as loyally and favourably as they say they propose to carry out the letter. My fifth reason is this: The Commissioners pointed out in the paragraph which I first read that in their opinion things would have been very much better if the 1907 agreement had been preceded by a conference between the men and the directors. Are we going to have a Royal Commission sitting and taking evidence in 1915 and

  1217
  reporting upon a conciliation scheme of 1911 or 1912, and beginning the report explaining why it has failed by the reflection that if the directors and men had met in December, 1911, the conciliation scheme of 1912 would have been more successfully carried out? The situation to-day is just what it was in 1907, and I feel perfectly certain that if hon. Members with the least knowledge of human nature would only remember what happened in 1907, they would see not only that the agreement that was then come to was foredoomed to failure, but also that the policy which was embodied in that agreement was also foredoomed to failure.
  What was the plan? Three or four representatives of trade unions, who are good honest reasonable men, sit in one room, and then we have three or four representatives of the railway companies sitting in another room, and the suggestion is made that they should sit together, but the directors say "No, we will negotiate, but there must be an office boy who will carry the papers between us." That was exactly what happened, only they did not ask for an office boy, but for a Board of Trade clerk or a Minister. What does it matter who did the messenger boy's job. There they sat and they discussed matters separately, and when a comma, had to be altered the messenger had to go to the railway directors in the other room and say, "The men in the other room want this comma altered," and the railway directors had to consider it. Then they sent the Report back, and that is how it went on, clause after clause and section after section. The whole thing was a miserable piece of nursery dignity which reflected not only on the business capacity of those concerned, but upon ordinary simple common sense. The 1907 spirit, so long as it lasts, will maintain unrest, unsettlement, suspicion and disturbance upon our railway system. But that is not all. Look what happens afterwards! You get your men organised in unions. You may like them or you may dislike them. They write letters to railway directors, and they write official letters. Why, these railway directors are such dignified beings that they cannot even send a printed reply by way of acknowledgment to these letters. What do you expect men will do under those circumstances? Do you expect the men are going quietly to submit to this sort of thing, and do you expect that their speeches are always going to be calm and rational statements under those circumstances? I do not think they are. I hope
  1218
  we have not sunk to that state of submission. These two things together, the mere fact of the conditions under which the 1907 Agreement was come to, and the refusal to acknowledge—
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is not correct.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: That will be dealt with later on. It was the non-acknowledgment. The refusal to acknowledge implies a positive action. The hon. Baronet is right if he wants to tell us that the railway directors had not the courtesy to do negative things in a positive way.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not mean that at all. What I want to say is that any railway director will answer any communication coming from a railway man, but he will not answer a communication coming from others who have nothing to do with the matter.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am exceedingly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for verifying my argument, and not only for verifying it, but also for illustrating the spirit. Of course, a railway director replies to individual men, and when the individual men ask for things and press for things which are not convenient to be given, the railway superintendents then victimise them. Why can not we let all that be bygones. At any rate, that is the object of the Resolution I have put down on the Paper, which I hope will be accepted generally on both sides of the House. I want to refer to another important matter in connection with railways. The Government itself must make up its mind where it stands. It is a very praiseworthy aim of the Government to try to be neutral on such occasions as happened in August, but the Government cannot be neutral because that is absolutely impossible. At the present moment if a dispute takes place on the railways, it can be settled in favour of the men only on one condition, and one condition only, and that is that they are able to paralyse the traffic. That is the only method. It is no use being mealy-mouthed about it, because that is the fact. If the men can be goaded up to that point of resistance at which they put their hands in their pockets and walk away from their work, and if the directors can keep the railway service going without those men in precisely the same way and in the same state of efficiency as with the men, then, of course, the men are bound to be beaten. That is the whole situation,

  1219
  and that is as plain a fact as that two and two in mathematics make four. If the Government say that if the men paralyse the traffic the suffering and the injustices done to society are so great that we cannot allow it, what are they doing? They may be fulfilling a very necessary function, but in the fulfilment of it they are taking sides with the directors, and that is inevitable. That was shown by the fact that when the railway directors left the Board of Trade in August, with a promise of soldiers in their pockets, they did not leave with long faces, but they left with smiling faces, and they did not keep it dark. On the contrary, they published it through the news agency.
  I hope the Government will not misunderstand the point which I am making. I am not saying to the Government that they ought to stand by and allow the paralysis to take place, but I am saying to the Government that if they are not going to stand by and allow the paralysis to take place they must come in before war is declared. If the Government is going to be neutral it must take action now, and not wait until the ballots from the men are counted and the executives have declared in favour of a strike. That is my point, and I cannot help feeling that the Government Will appreciate its force. On the other hand, the Government might say to the directors, "We will run the traffic." Yes, that would please us better, but that would be taking sides against the directors. I am not going to say that they should, but I am describing the effect. That is the situation the Government will find itself in if it waits until war is declared before taking action. The whole point of my argument is that I want to press upon the Government—agreeing that they cannot stand by, that they cannot allow the traffic to be paralysed, or allow things to come to the verge of national starvation—that the responsibility is upon them to see that the employers and the men meet together to settle their differences in ways that other trades settle their differences with the success that has been conspicuous ever since that method has been adopted. The foundation of the Government's position imposes a responsibility upon society which society has never yet accepted, and I think it leads to railway nationalisation. I think it is bound to come to that. I believe a good many hon. Members apposite are sharing the same opinion, but we are here discussing this definite point, and I am not going
  1220
  to wander away to the larger point. I think this House ought to very honestly face the situation, and I think that is the contention at any rate of some of the railway directors. I am very happy to know it is not the contention of all railway directors, not of the new enlightened men but of the old and somewhat out-of-date men both in method and spirit. I know that you can have railway peace without trade unions and without recognition of trade unions. I admit you can have it without these things. You can have peace with sweated wages. You can have peace with unjust conditions, and you can have peace with the degradation of labour to which the railway companies have contributed more during the last ten or twelve years than any other industry in the country. If the railway directors want that kind of peace they must put up with such serious breaches of it every now and again as that which took place in August last, and with still more serious breaches than that. Those who seek peace and good understanding would not take that course. If we felt that that was the settled policy of the railway companies, then we should not be quite so active and anxious to come to an agreement and arrange terms honourable to both parties. The only condition of peace that gives any kind of security for progressive work and for a real good feeling is to recognise the unions. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the North-Eastern?"] That is a perfectly simple problem. If you get one railway system in the whole country with common members belonging to a common union why it would be sheer insanity for anyone to imagine that this little oasis in a desert of disturbance is going to be perfectly calm and never show a ripple of disturbance. [Laughter.] I am very sorry that the evidence given to the Royal Commission has not been published or hon. Members opposite would not laugh at my statement. The statement I have made is practically the statement which Mr. Butterworth made on behalf of the North-Eastern Railway Company. The men on the North-Eastern Railway belonging to the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants going upon common stations where they meet their fellows belonging to other railway companies who have not the same advantages cannot possibly hold themselves out. The Noble Lord opposite is a very good example. I am quite sure the Noble Lord will admit the justice and accuracy of my illustration. How often has the Noble Lord, without any personal

  1221
  grievance at all, but fired by the enthusiasm burning in the breast of his party at the time, if I may say so, rather misbehaved himself? The Noble Lord, under those circumstances, is a very appropriate example of the North-Eastern Railway Company. The Noble Lord has wonderful facilities for special recognition.
  The claim is always made that the membership of the trade unions is a very infinitesimal proportion of the whole of the railway staff. Well, it is, but not nearly so infinitesimal as some hon. Gentlemen imagine. Statements have been made that it is over 70 per cent., but it is at least 50 per cent.; it is less in some railways, but it is practically everybody eligible in others, and, taking it all round, I should think you get between 40 and 60 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "More."] Well, as I say, it varies a great deal. The statement I saw the other day was that it was at least 50 per cent. My hon. Friend can easily correct my mistake. Is not that always the case? Take political parties. Take the Conservative party in this country. Its organised force is an infinitesimal part of the great body of the electors who turn up and vote for it at the poll. The Liberal party is in the same condition, and so are we. All these active movements, movements not active merely when there is some big question raised, when everybody has his hat off and is cheering, and when there is a great wave of excitement, but movements carried on day after day, dull days as well as exciting days, pushing the desire for progressive change—the organisation that watches and examines and files away information, and keeps in touch with the men—must always be a small nucleus of the great mass whose interest they look after. That is exactly the position of the trade unions. Get your trade unions into conflict with capital, and then what happens? You find the large part of the non-unionists either at once joins the union or comes out along with the union men, and those who remain in are always willing to receive the charity of the public behind their backs, but expect to get the advantages of wages gained by their trade union fellows as soon as peace is declared. Therefore, if the railway directors want to keep in sympathetic touch with that living, thinking, active nucleus of the men that produces the programmes, that voices the feelings of the men, and that speaks for the men, they ought to do just what the engineering people have done, what the iron people have done, what all the other
  1222
  large employers of labour in the country have done, and accept the trade union as a rough-and-ready, and, in times of difficulty, an active voice and representation of the will and feeling of the men.
  That is practically my case. We have got to create machinery which will enable men first to discuss their grievances. It must also enable the men to get their grievances redressed, and it must be of such a nature as to see that the redress of grievances upon paper—awards, for instance—are effectively carried out. Finally, if it is going to be as respected as I, at any rate, should like it to be, it must be kept going, like goodwill, by common sympathy and by a conviction on both sides that the other side is playing the game straight and fair and above-board. It is just there the Government comes in. I am perfectly sure if the railway directors once met their men they would never be happy without meeting them. There will always be trouble now and again. The Noble Lord, I am sure, will occasionally give trouble. There will always, every now and again, be little points that cannot be agreed upon. The Board of Trade can very easily settle that by a proper adjustment of the chairman's panel. The important thing is to get the two sides face to face, talking together, the employers compelling the men to face the employers' difficulties, and the men compelling the employers to face the men's difficulties; and, by that facing together of the common difficulties and by that compelling each side to see the difficulties of the other and the will of the other, you will get conditions as good as peace as you can have in this rough workaday world, as in other trades. Let me be quite clear. I do not withdraw what I said about the Report. That ought to be accepted as the basis of negotiations. That ought to lay the foundation of whatever fabric is going to produce that peace in the railway service.
  The Prime Minister and the Government, if they care, can, I think, do that. The little pressure that is required, the little sort of ordering, if I may say so, that is necessary just to bring the conference into being, can quite properly be uttered and issued by the Government, and if it has any intention of doing anything at any time this is the time, because, if this time goes by, I do not know what is going to follow, end when another opportunity under similar favourable circumstances will occur. We want to give this Report a fair chance. We want to launch it fairly, and we do

  1223
  not want, therefore, to start it under the 1907 conditions. If the Government will accept my Resolution, I think—I believe—there will be peace. May I appeal to those who are speaking for the railway directors also to consider whether the time has not come to accept the proposal now, and whether, after all, the public interest and the public utility would not be very much better served by that method than by any other? At any rate, whatever the Government may do, and whatever the railway directors may do, the duty of this House is perfectly apparent. This House is charged with the custodianship of the public interest—that public interest which is always sacrificed when there is war between capital and labour, that public interest which is bound to suffer on whichever side the right is when there is a strike, as we know only too well. When there is a dispute, and when there is unrest, that public interest is bound to suffer, and this House is the custodian of that public interest. This House, feeling that responsibility, and desiring to lay broadly and squarely the foundations of industrial peace, whatever the Government may do and whatever the railway directors may do, ought to pass, with an overwhelming vote and with a decisive majority, the Motion which I have great pleasure in moving.
  Mr. PARKER: I rise to formally second the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. CAVE: I was hoping we should at once hear what were the views on this question of the Front Bench opposite, but, as that is not to be so, I think it would be convenient if I put shortly before the House the views of one who, though not a railway director, and, unfortunately, not even the holder of railway shares in his own right, yet does take a view more favourable to the directors than that put forward in this Resolution. I hope I shall be able to do so without heat and without saying one word to wound the feeilngs, I do not say of hon. Members opposite, but of railway men, who are, after all, to be considered in this matter. Will the House look for a moment at what are the terms of this Resolution. We are asked to express our regret that the directors refused to meet the representatives of the men in order to discuss this Report, and we are asked to say that refusal is contrary to the public interest and has no justification. I want to consider what is the meaning and what are the real grounds for such a resolution. I will not follow
  1224
  the hon. Member, and I will not go back to 1907, except to say that at the time of the compromise of 1907 the directors thought—I will say no more than that—the directors understood that for at all events seven years they were to hear no more of the demand for recognition. I know the men say they did not so understand it, and for present purposes I will accept the view that there was a misunderstanding. I only mention the matter in order to show that necessarily the directors in 1911 must have been on their guard, if they went into negotiations, and must have intended to have something which was a real and final settlement. Then came the unrest of 1911. I venture to say the hon. Gentleman has given a rather farcical account of the state of public opinion and feeling at the date of the unrest. According to him the revolutionary feeling of even season ticket-holders was so great that troops were sent in order to suppress their ebullitions and not those of the strikers.
  I am not asking what was the real grievance of the men in 1911. I do not propose to consider the important points which arose between the unions and the directors. What I have to say will be directed to a totally different point. What happened? The men gave twenty-four hours' notice of their demand for better conditions, and then ordered a strike. The Government thereupon intervened with a view to stopping it. I have no doubt there was for a moment very grave national peril—and real peril of a strike on a large scale, and the Government brought both sides together for the purpose of effecting a settlement of the dispute. There were negotiations, and on the evening of 19th August an official statement was issued by the Board of Trade to the effect that, after prolonged discussion, "the following settlement had been unanimously arrived at"; not, mark you, as a basis of negotiation but a settlement of the dispute. There was added, in the same official statement, the sentence that "assurances have been given by both parties that they will accept the findings of the Commission." I think we know something more about that than we have heard from the hon. Member for Leicester. I shall be corrected if I am wrong. I understand the hon. Member was in the room as a perfectly friendly spectator on the part of the unions, but not as a negotiator, and, naturally, therefore, he may not have known all the facts. If I am correctly informed, this statement

  1225
  was read out, line by line, and was agreed to line by line, by the negotiators. Certain corrections were made, but no objection was raised to and no correction was made in this particular sentence. When the statement had been gone through line by line, the whole thing was read out again. Again no objection was taken, and then it was sent to the Press; therefore, if any statement ever represented the real effect of what happened at a meeting, this statement did so, and I cannot think how it can be repudiated now.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I say at once I do not agree with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to what occurred.
  Mr. CAVE: I hope, if I am wrong, I shall be corrected by the representative of the Government who was present on the occasion. But my statement of the case does not rest there. It does not even nearly rest there. This statement was published in full in the newspapers on Monday morning. It was published in an organ which is well known as the organ of the trade unions. I do not state that for the purpose of saying that mere publication bound anybody, but it is a fact that from that moment until after the award had been made, nobody, so far as I know, repudiated the statement. There is much more than that. The negotiators on behalf of the trade unions were Mr. Bellamy, Mr. Fox, and the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). About Mr. Bellamy I say nothing, as there is a dispute as to what he said. Mr. Fox, speaking only a few days ago, after this question had arisen, said that while he did not admit that the men formally agreed to be bound by the statement, yet, as business men, they understood that, having allowed the Commission to sit, they were morally bound to accept its findings. Those are the words of the second negotiator. The third negotiator was the hon. Member for Derby. He made a certain statement in his evidence before the Commission, and I have no doubt that proofs of that evidence were sent to him to correct. The statement, as it appears in his evidence, tallies word for word with the account published in the "Manchester Guardian" on the following morning. This is what he said:—
  "Part of the settlement last Saturday was that, the railway companies were prepared to fully abide by the findings of the Commission even to the extent of recognition, and we, on the other hand, say the same."
  1226
  There is Negotiator No. 3. In terms he said he considered the men were prepared to accept the award. Mr. Charles, a member of the Executive of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, also gave evidence, and a question was put to him as follows:—
  "Is it the fact that whatever recommendation this Commission may make, it is to be accepted by both the companies and the men?—A.: That is what our representatives tell us was the understanding under which they signed the agreement, and if that was not the understanding the strike would not have finished when it did."
  The hon. Member for Leicester said the evidence was inadequate, but it is all one way, and, to any reasonable body of men, I think this statement must carry the conviction that at the time when the Commission was first appointed everybody understood that they agreed to abide by the award when the award was made. Let me add one other reference. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in an answer to this House the other day in reference to this very statement, said, with great determination, that he had nothing whatever to add to it, and I think we all understood that to be a confirmation by him of the statement as being in all respects a correct statement of what occurred. So much for the agreement under which the Commission was appointed. It reported in due course. I am not going to follow the hon. Member opposite into a general discussion on the findings of that Report. That is not the matter before us at the present moment. But let me just say this, that while the Commission has reported, in effect, against recognition in the sense in which it was asked for, namely, that from the very beginning of a dispute the men should be entitled to be represented by the officials of the trade unions, they did recommend that, on the Sectional Board which is to settle disputes, the men should be entitled to appoint as their own secretary or their own advocate anybody they pleased, whether from inside or outside. The effect of that will be that where the majority of the men are members of a union or wish to be represented by the officials of that union they will be enabled to do so, so that while we have not got universal recognition we have this result, that where the majority of the men desire it they can have what is equivalent to a very effective recognition indeed in settling any particular question. That is all I want to say about the Report. May I just add a reference to paragraph 53 in the Report of the

  1227
  Commission, referring to the Great Western Railway Company—a paragraph in which it is stated that negotiations with union officials had in a certain case led to good results. But that was a case where the union officials represented the majority of the men concerned. That is the difficulty which lies at the bottom of the whole matter. I suppose that not more than one-third of the railway men are members of a trade union, and it is not right or fair to insist that those who are not unionists shall be represented by the union officials. When the Report was made, what happened? After a little consideration the representatives of the trade unions came to the conclusion that they did not like it, and they took a step which, to my mind, was a very serious one indeed. They sent the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a letter covering a resolution, which stated that the societies could not accept the Report in its present form, and that
  "unless the scheme can be amended so as to become acceptable to the men we represent, we shall have no alternative but to reject it in its entirety."
  5.0 P.M.
  In other words this means, "We have submitted the dispute to a Commission. We do not like the award of that Commission, and we consequently do not accept any part of it." I think that, in this matter, as in others, there ought to be fair play. I say that so far from there being no justification for the line taken on behalf of the directors they have a sufficient justification in the facts which I have stated. They take, as I understand, this view:—"We are business men; we have to manage our railways. We thought, rightly or wrongly, that we could not yield the full demands of the men, but, very reluctantly, we consented to refer the matter to a Royal Commission. That Royal Commission has reported in a certain way; not altogether in our favour, certainly not; but whatever its Report is we agreed to accept it, and we will do so. We will loyally carry it out." But the other party to the arbitration say—"No, we will not carry it out. We want a further discussion upon it, and we want to treat it only as a basis for further negotiations." Thereby the whole case is altered. You cannot expect men who have been so treated to go again into a discussion with people who, having referred the matter to arbitration, refuse to abide by the award of the Commission.
  1228
  Discussion under these conditions is of no use at all. You might have another Commission tomorrow, and you might have another finding, and that might be thrown over the day after. That is not the way in which business is done.
  I do not go into the invective of the hon. Member for Leicester, because I do not think directors care about strong language on one side or the other. I believe they are business men, desiring to do their duty as directors of these railways, and to manage their lines for the benefit of the public and the shareholders. I think they are right in saying that this is not a businesslike way of dealing with the matter. Having got the award they mean to carry it out, and they ought not to be called upon by anybody to re-open the matter. If it is said, "Oh, we only want to discuss the interpretation of the award"; if it is said "We accept the award and we want to talk over with you what it means," that of course will be a wholly new attitude, because the Resolution says, that unless the award is altered, they will not accept it at all. Under the award it is provided that any question as to what it means must be settled by the Board of Trade, a perfectly impartial body, certainly not unduly favourable to the directors. They are ready to accept that. When disputes arise, as no doubt they will arise, they will come before the sectional board in a concrete form. That is generally the best way to settle these questions. The Board will consist of members from both sides and a perfectly impartial chairman. The directors say, "Raise your points before the Sectional Board; appoint, if the men please, an official of the union to represent their view, then we not only will, but we must, discuss the matter with him and hear what he says on your side, and then we shall get not only a discussion but a decision."
  That is the only point I wish to bring before the House. It is for that reason, if for no other, that we ought not to accept a Motion of this kind. I quite agree with what was said the other day by the hon. Member for Derby, that, if as a result of this discussion there is a great strike, it will be nothing less than a national crime, but I want him and the House to consider who will be responsible for that crime. If I am right in the view I have put forward, that the men—I will not say the men, because I know it is not the men as a body, but the

  1229
  unions who claim to represent their members—are taking the grave step of repudiating their own agreement, and in order to get the award forcibly altered, are bringing upon us once more the unrest of last summer, I think the public will take a view very different from that they do usually take in disputes about wages. When the men want their wages raised you commonly find the public have a feeling that they hope the men will get some kind of an advance; I confess that I often have a feeling of that kind myself. But If a dispute arises in this way, if the men, having gone to arbitration and not having got altogether their way, then throw over the award, I am sure public feeling will be on the other side, and that the blame for this national crime, if you like to call it so, certainly it will be a national disaster, will not be upon the directors of the companies, but on the unions.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down began his speech by an expression, I will not say of surprise, but of criticism at any rate, of the Government for not having at once intervened in this Debate. I certainly thought it right myself, and I believe I shall be borne out by the general opinion of the House, that on a Motion of this kind, for which the Government have no responsibility, but which invites them in its concluding words to take a particular course, it was eminently desirable that before a representative of the Government said anything, we should have an opportunity of hearing the case presented both from the one side and the other. It has been so presented, and I may say, without any flattery or exaggeration, with moderation of language and cogency of argument, both by the hon. Member for Leicester and by the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. Let me say at once, repeating what has been said on previous occasions, that in matters of this kind it is the duty of the Executive Government, from whichever party for the time being it may be derived, to adapt an attitude, not indeed of indifference, but of complete impartiality. So far as these railway troubles are concerned, His Majesty's present Government, at every stage, have endeavoured to the best of their ability to maintain such an attitude. I say it cannot be an attitude of indifference because when, as is the case here, we are dealing with possibilities which might involve the suspension of a service which is necessary to the pros-1230
  perity, to the health, and even to the life of the community, it is the duty of the Government to look behind and beyond the particular interests which the disputants may be engaged in for the time being.
  It is from that point of view, and that only, that we have ever, at any stage, offered our intervention or interposed. I understand the purpose of this Motion to be, that through some action on the part of the Government the two sides, if I may so describe them, the directors of the railway companies on the one part and their employés on the other, should meet to discuss the best method of putting the Report of the Royal Commission into effect, and how that should be done. I am bound to say that the Motion as framed contains language which, as it stands, will make such an effort on the part of the Government altogether impossible. The Motion, after expressing regret that the directors have refused to meet their representatives, goes on to declare "such refusal to be contrary to the public interest and to have no justification." I must tell the House frankly, at once, that is language to which the Government cannot subscribe. I am not going for a moment into the merits or demerits of the various points of controversy between the railway companies and their servants, which were referred to the arbitrament of the Royal Commission last August. But when the House of Commons is asked to declare that the refusal of the directors of the companies to discuss the Report with the men has no justification, and is contrary to the public interest, one cannot avoid going into the question, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, and pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman, as to what were the terms on which the Royal Commission was appointed. I listened, of course, with respect to what the hon. Member for Leicester said on that subject, and I will not only assume, but I will accept and take for granted, that everything he said is perfectly accurate.
  The question really is this: When you are asked to criticise and censure the conduct of the directors of railway companies, whatever may have been the intention or understanding, were they not entitled to assume, as in fact they did assume, that if they entered into this agreement—an agreement by which I am bound to say they have loyally stood—to accept the findings of the Commission, in the selection of whose members they had no voice and who, we have no reason to suppose, would be

  1231
  predisposed to take their view of the matter, if they agreed in advance to accept the findings of that Commission, were they not entitled to assume that the other party to the dispute would undertake a similar and reciprocal obligation? That they did so assume is beyond all controversy. The official minute, recorded at the time at the Board of Trade by the representatives of the Government who were present, shows that that was their understanding of what took place. That minute was published in the Press, and discussed and canvassed throughout the length and breadth of the country. So far as I am aware, nothing that the hon. Member has said alters what I am going to say upon that point. So far as I am aware when the Commission assembled, and during the progress of its proceedings, no protest, remonstrance, correction, or qualification of any kind was put forward to suggest that that was not the view taken. I am not blaming anybody, but I do say, and I am bound to say, because I think it is a matter of justice and commonsense, the directors of the railway companies were entitled to assume, and to act upon the assumption, that it was an integral part of the agreement by which the strike was settled that the findings of the Commission, whatever they might be, adverse or favourable to one party or to the other, would be accepted by both sides as a basis for future agreement. The hon. Member for Leicester, whatever he has said as to possible misunderstanding, I do not think is making any contrary contention.
  Certainly, so far as the Government is concerned, it could not consent to a Resolution of this kind unless these words of reflection and censure upon the directors of the railway companies were omitted, and unless it was clearly understood, both upon the one side and upon the other, that the good offices of the Government would be invoked and would be given on the assumption that the Report in substance was to be accepted as the basis of everything that was to follow. That, I understand, my hon. Friend would accede to.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDindicated assent.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That makes a substantial advance in the position. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down quoted the terms of the Resolution sent to me on behalf of the executives of the various unions of railway servants
  1232
  after the Report was published. I agree that in that resolution, in the terms in which it was framed, there did not appear to be a favourable basis for further discussion. But it was enclosed in a covering letter, which I believe was made public, which certainly ought to have been published, and which I and my colleagues interpreted as meaning that the executives of these bodies, clearly declared that they were prepared to accept the Report of the Commission as the basis, in substance and principle, of any subsequent dicussion that might take place. There is no doubt about it, and that I understood to be the intention of the executive. It was for that reason that I took the opportunity of asking the representatives, the chairman and the general managers of the companies who were signatories to the Agreement of 1907 to meet me and some of my colleagues in Downing Street, and submitted to them in a free and friendly discussion the possibility, not of going behind the Report, not of ripping it up on the points which the men conceived to be unfavourable to them, while the railway companies were to accept all the points which were unpalatable to them—that would have been a most monstrous position, and one to which I should never lend the faintest countenance but, taking the Report as accepted by both sides in principle and in substance as the basis on which their future relations were to be maintained, allowing frank and free interchange of opinion between the selected representatives of one side and the other in the presence of representatives of the Government and the Board of Trade, so that, if possible, friction in the working out of the recommendations of the Report might be avoided and points—and there are necessarily many points in which you have to dovetail the recommendations of this Report into the Agreement of 1907, to reconcile and to harmonise and adapt the one with the other, points also which are not mere points of interpretation, such as were very properly left by the Report to the Board of Trade, but points of substance and detail, carrying out the principle laid down in the Report might very fairly and properly be canvassed and settled by free conference between the representatives of both sides.
  I cannot help thinking that when, in the first place, you have got rid of any suggestion of reflection or censure upon the directors—because I entirely assent to the

  1233
  view that they were entitled to assume, as they did, that the findings of this Report would be accepted on both sides—when you have got probable acceptance, on the part of the representatives of the men, of the Report as in substance and in basis, and in every respect except adjustment of detail—the ground of future relations between the two parties I cannot help thinking that in consonance with the traditions of our industrial life and the practices of all other industries, it would be in no way inconsistent with the self-respect of the railway directors themselves if they were to meet now under the auspices of some further discussion and conference of that strictly limited kind I have suggested. I do not withdraw a word I have said in condemnation of the suggestion that at any stage of the matter the directors have acted unreasonably. On the contrary, I think, in entering into the agreement in August, in reinstating, as they did, the persons who had been on strike, in the considerable concessions which they have made since in regard to matters of wages and so forth, I feel bound to make that acknowledgment on the part of the Government, and, I believe, on the part of the public, the directors of railway companies have shown a patriotic spirit, and a spirit which redounds to their credit both as citizens and as men of business. Having said that, which I do in the fullest and freest manner, speaking from a perfectly impartial standpoint, and taking, as I think I have shown, no side, one way or the other, now that the men have taken the Report which I thought at one time they were indisposed to do, as being in principle and in substance the basis for regulating future relations between themselves and their employers, the directors might be well advised, under the chairmanship of the Board of Trade, to come into conference with the men as the best way of carrying out the recommendations.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the House will understand how difficult I find it to rise after the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, for the last part of his speech contained an announcement which was entirely new and entirely unexpected, and I do not know in the least how to deal with it. I should, however, like to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman, and if he answers it in the way I hope he will be able to answer it I shall sit down, because I shall have nothing more to say. The question I put is this. In recommend-
  1234
  ing the directors to agree to what is, in practice, the demands of the men—that is, to give recognition—to meet them in this discussion, has he already the consent of the directors whom he has met, and do they represent the railway body? The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer, and I am afraid I must go on.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I never suggested anything of the kind. There is no question of recognition. Recognition is determined by the Report itself. There is no question of recognition at all.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Very well, I do not wish to make any assertion. Undoubtedly the question of recognition was one of the things which, rightly or wrongly—and I take no side about it—the railway directors attached most importance to. I saw a number of them yesterday, and some of them told me in the plainest possible way that they did regard the reopening of this question in any way with the representatives of the unions as granting recognition. The question I am going to put to the right hon. Gentleman I reduce to a smaller limit. I leave out recognition, and I say, "Has he got the consent of the railway directors to the course he recommends the House of Commons to take before recommending to the House of Commons?"
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have not the consent of either the directors or the employés. I speak on behalf of the Government. We are perfectly impartial.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the House will see that the question I put is not an unreasonable one. The whole position, I take it, is this. Hon. Gentlemen who represent the men in this dispute have spoken all through as if in August pressure had been put upon them to bring the dispute to a settlement. That is not all. Everybody knows that pressure of the most extreme kind was brought to bear on the railway directors to induce them to consent to that settlement. I go further and say that, whether they are right or wrong, just as the men considered that if the strike had gone on they would have won, so the majority of the railway directors are strongly of opinion that they would have won, tout that it was in the public interest, and that alone has induced them to consent to the bargain. See the position to which we are brought. The Government use this strong pressure upon the railway directors to enter into a bargain one part of which was understood by

  1235
  them to be that if they agreed to it it would be final and would be accepted by both sides. Not only was it understood by them to be final, but the right hon. Gentleman, in every word of his speech, showed that he recognised that it was final. Is the Government treating these railway directors fairly when, after diplomatic negotiations, he got them to consent to the agreement, but now comes, ten days or so after the Notice had been on the Paper, and puts pressure upon them through the House of Commons to consent to another arrangement without first bringing diplomatic action to bear upon them, and trying to get them to consent to it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I invited the directors to meet me, and I saw them, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked to them for two hours. That was before this Motion ever appeared on the Paper.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Very well then. I do not understand it, I must say, because I thought it my duty to see some of the directors so lately as yesterday. They told me nothing about this, and the sole reason why I saw them was in the fear that it might be necessary for me to take some part in the discussion, and with the desire to know what the facts were. They not only told me nothing about this, but, as I have already told the House, they intimated in the clearest possible way that they would resent such action as the Government has now taken, being taken to force them to consent to this arrangement.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not forcing them.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is the position as they regard it. I consider that this is from every point of view a most serious development. It is, I think, most serious that after an arrangement has been made which, by universal consent, everybody thought to be final, the trade unionists have refused to abide by it. I think it a much more serious thing that the Government, after having brought every possible pressure to bear upon one side of the dispute should now take what undoubtedly is sides in the dispute at this moment. I say this with a full sense of my responsibility in using those words. If the railway directors would consent to the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I for one should be glad. But that is not
  1236
  the question. The question is, is the Government treating them fairly in trying to bring the pressure of the opinion of the House of Commons to bear upon them when they use no such pressure in inducing them to make the original agreement. That is all I am going to say on that aspect of it, but I should like to say a word upon the other aspect of the question. I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) to speak in the hope that the Government would speak first, and I did that for this reason, that the very last thing that I, as representing my Friends on this side, desire is that we or any Member of our party should be regarded as the spokesmen of the directors in this dispute. We are nothing of the kind. The assertion was made in a Committee upstairs, at which I was present, about ten days ago, that we were all opposed to trade unions. I at once repudiated that statement there, and I repudiate now with the utmost possible emphasis. Trade unions were formed to endeavour by means of combination of the men to get better conditions of labour, and to whatever extent they can succeed in getting these better conditions by these means they have the sympathy of every man who sits beside me. But I am bound to say something more. It is not a question of whether we like it or dislike it. In my opinion—though, of course, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will scoff—just in proportion as the trade unions have become political organisations they have lost efficiency for the purpose for which they exist. That stands to reason, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House will see that I have something to say in its favour. If a trade union is to be carried on to the best advantage for the purpose of improving the condition of the men, the leaders of that union must understand the conditions of the trade just as well as the employers who are engaged in the trade. To do the right thing at the right time, to make demands at the right time, and to refrain from making demands, is one of the most difficult things in the world and requires all the time and talent of the best men trade unionists can produce, but if they become politicians, we all know what the result of that will be. It absorbs their time. They cannot give attention to their local bodies, and that is, in my belief, how they have so often got out of hand with them, and why they refuse to follow the lead given by their leaders. That is what strikes me now. We all

  1237
  know the ability of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). It never was better displayed than to-day. There never was so bad a case, and there never was a man who knew better that it was a bad case.
  What does it all mean? Not only did gentlemen whose opinions have already been given by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) make statements which could not be contradicted, but it is clearly shown that until the award came out the railway unions did consider that they would be bound by it. But there is something else. I think it is common knowledge that the Labour leaders in this House did not play a very prominent part in the arrangements come to. I remember being told a story by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man, and it is the source of the story only that justifies me in giving it. It was of a man who was found following a band of ruffians at the time of the Paris Commune. A friend met him and asked, "Why are you following these people?" and he replied, "I must follow them, I am their leader." [Cheers.] I can understand the interest taken in that story by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. That was precisely the attitude of the hon. Member for Leicester. I will give a second illustration. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) is one of the prominent leaders of the men in this dispute. In addition to the words used by him which have been quoted by my hon. Friend, I find that in August, speaking in this House, he said:—
  "As far as the men are concerned, and so far as we as representatives of the men are concerned, having signed that document, having pledged our men, and having taken the responsibility of saying that we accept this as a settlement…. we must show that we will compel our men, as far as possible, to recognise our decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd August, 1911, col. 2302.]
  That is the way they compel the men to recognise the decision. I am not going to add anything. I say again, personally, that I should rejoice in any means which seems to me to remove the possibility of what is a great national calamity. I say also that if the Government, by the same diplomatic means which they used in settling the strike before, had obtained the consent of the directors to the change in their policy which they announce now, I should have welcomed it, but it seems to me that their action is not encouraging to any body of people in this country, to whatever side they belong, to have complete confidence in the impartiality of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) admitted when he rose that he did not know the facts. It is because I am satisfied he did not know the facts that I am going to remind him at this stage that a large number of the quotations which he read, and which are after all the substance of the case made from the other side of the House, can be not only contradicted, but can be shown to be certainly contrary to all that took place in connection with that particular subject. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston stated the case fairly from his particular standpoint, and he was very careful to say that he was not desirous of going back to the agreement of 1907, or even to anything in connection with the August dispute. But I do not think it is possible properly and fairly to understand the case to-day unless we do take into some consideration at least the circumstances that were responsible for the conciliation scheme. In the first place, is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the conciliation scheme was first brought into operation—a scheme which for the first time was to bind hundreds of thousands of railway men—a scheme which was to govern for seven years their conditions of service—the representatives of the men never saw the scheme until the day of the settlement, and that the representatives of the railway companies, as was admitted before the Royal Commission, had spent weeks and months in treating as to that particular scheme? When you also remember that, so far as the representatives of the men and the companies were concerned, they never met face to face, and as the hon. Member for Leicester said, never had an opportunity of coming together, surely we are justified in saying that, apart from blaming the railway companies or the men, the very fact that so many misunderstandings have since arisen is the primary cause of the failure of that scheme. That was brought about because the railway companies then, as to-day, refused to recognise the accredited representatives of the men. I frankly admit that if it is true—here I am making a statement not only for myself, but on behalf of all those who signed the agreement in August last—if it is true, as has been alleged from the other side and endorsed by the Prime Minister himself, that the signatories of that agreement bound themselves to accept the findings of the Royal Commission, then I unhesitatingly say that we have not only acted dishonourably by repudiating the Commission

  1239
  now, but that we have no right to ask the House to seriously consider the Motion. I make that statement as one of the signatories of the settlement, as one who was present at everything that took place, as one who was never out of the room until the original document was signed on the Saturday night.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kingston says that both sides agreed to accept the findings of the Royal Commission, and that the statement was read out more than once and repeated line by line. I simply say that no man who was present in the room, whether Government official, member of the Government, or representative of the railway companies, dare suggest that the document was ever read out line by line. Not only was there never a discussion on it, but I solemnly state as a Member of the House, jealous of my own personal honour and proud of the fact of my being a leader of the men, that not only was there never a discussion, but the question was never asked from our side. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are justified in asking, "How does it come about that you never denied the statement that appeared in the Press on Monday morning?" The hon. Gentleman further asked, "How is it that no leader of the men repudiated the suggestion until the findings of the Commission have proved to be unsatisfactory?" I think the House is entitled to have some answer and some explanation on that particular point. It is because I am anxious to give that explanation that I ask the House to attach some importance to the statement I am going to make now, as they did to the statement made by the hon. Member. So far as my recollection goes, what took place was that during the discussion between the companies and ourselves, in addition to what was found in the written settlement, certain statements were made by the railway companies' representatives, and in reporting to the executive committee we naturally emphasised to the executive, not only the fact that certain things were in the settlement, but that in addition to that the spirit in which the railway companies' directors met us on that occasion justified us in saying that the settlement would be loyally carried out.
  In giving that Report, we further said that in our opinion—it was a personal statement of the executive committee—I made the statement myself—that there
  1240
  would be no difficulty in the railway company's representatives putting in writing what they had already promised. The men then decided that we should go back to the company's representatives and ask them to put in writing what we had told them they had stated to us. When we went back to the room Mr. Claughton and Sir Guy Granet immediately agreed. They said, "Yes, we certainly have no objection to put in writing what we have said to you." Then they issued that memorandum of which the House is well aware to this effect: "The railway companies further agree to accept the findings of the Royal Commission, even if such recommendations be contrary to their view or representation." That statement was written by Mr. Claughton in the name of himself and Sir Guy Granet. We took it back to the men, and so far as the men and the executive committee are concerned, so far as we six are concerned, who were the people there, I say here and now there was never a word of discussion. We were never asked the question, and consequently could not give an answer. And now what is the point with regard to the Monday morning? I never saw a Press report on the Monday morning. It must be easily understood, and will be appreciated by every Member in this House who considers for a moment the pace at which we were working, that in hundreds and thousands of places there were men out, and there were disputes as to what the settlement really meant, and the Board of Trade can say that practically all Monday we were occupied at the Board of Trade getting certain matters cleared off.
  As a fact, not one of those signatories to that statement ever once saw that particular phrase. That does not explain all. There was a reference to my evidence before the Commission when I said in answer to a question, "We, on the other hand, say the same." If the hon. Member had read on he would clearly have seen that I said, "We, on the other hand, say that the companies were bound by the settlement." Here is an extract from the first, public speech that I delivered. It is from the "Derby Telegraph," and was printed at the headquarters of the Midland Railway Company, and I am justified in asking hon. Members opposite to recognise that if they attach any importance whatever to the fact that no one representing the men contradicted what appeared in "The Times," why was it that in a large centre

  1241
  like Derby, which is the headquarters of the Midland Railway Company, where this speech was delivered, that the railway companies, when they gave evidence later on before the Commission, did not contradict the statement that I made? The speech was delivered on Sunday, 10th September, and this is what I said, as quoted in the "Derby Telegraph" of 11th September:—
  "Passing on. Mr. Thomas said there appeared to be considerable difference of opinion as to what was done in connection with the recent settlement. It was generally assumed that the men's representatives pledged themselves to accept the findings of the Railway Commission, whether they were in favour of recognition or not; but he could assure them that that was an entire fallacy from beginning to end. He could only imagine that the mistake arose from the fact that in addition to the settlement, Sir Guy Granet and Mr. Claughton made several other statements. The men's representatives said it would be better to have those statements in writing, and the result was that a memorandum was drawn up, and signed by the two gentlemen named, to the effect that the recommendations of the Royal Commission would be loyally received by the railway companies, even if they differed with the contention of the companies on the question of representation. If a settlement was effected all trace of ill-will which might have arisen during the strike would certainly be effaced. There was nothing in the settlement to say that the men's representatives accepted the findings of the Royal Commission, because they made it perfectly clear, so far as the joint executives were concerned, that they were determined to have official recognition."
  Surely if you are justified in attaching importance to the fact that we, as representatives of the men, did not contradict what appeared in the Press, which I have frankly stated I did not see, for the reasons I have also explained, are we not justified in saying when Sir Guy Granet himself appeared before the Royal Commission, following me and following that speech, that he himself ought to have contradicted it, and if he did not contradict it are we not justified in saying that he accepted our position? In any case that is my answer to the statement that we were bound by the Commission. But we have been dealing, unfortunately, with what was written, what one side did say and what they did not. I frankly say that when you come to the moral aspect of the question an entirely different issue is raised, but I think the House will agree that when we are accused of breaking our word and not standing by something which we have said, we are justified in repudiating in the strongest possible manner such accusations. It is because I feel that there has been too much capital made of what actually took place as to whether the men did, or did not accept, that I am now desirous of coming to what I think is the most important part of our business this evening, in trying to ascertain
  1242
  whether even at this stage it is true that the men have repudiated the Report.
  I took part in the drafting of this letter to the Prime Minister, and I say that those words were deliberately put in. They were put in for the sole purpose of giving the Government and the railway companies an opportunity of seeing that so far as we were concerned the real object of the meeting and the real desire of meeting the railway companies on our part was not to discuss a new scheme. We never suggested and do not suggest to-day that we want to discuss a new scheme. We say in that letter to the Premier that you are doing so. We desire to point out that the position is a most critical one. Large numbers of the members are demanding to cease work which we are anxious to avoid. Whilst the proposals of the Royal Commission are disappointing to the men, we nevertheless feel that the scheme suggested does provide a basis of agreement between the railway companies asd their employés. In fact, we venture to suggest that with modifications, which could be recommended for acceptance to our members, there is a possibility of the scheme being adopted. Let us see whether there is any justification for having such a sneer as that which we have just seen. You are not dealing with a few men. You are dealing with 350,000 men, men who feel far more keenly than Members of this House their grievances. A hundred thousand of them, in spite of the recent concessions, are to-day getting less than £1 per week. In three years the Board of Trade Returns showed that the wages to the average worker are to-day 1d. a week less than in 1907, when this agreement was put into operation.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Before the concession.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Yes. Are not the concessions the strongest justification of the strike, and the strongest proof that the men have real cause to revoke? Then I come back to the sneer of the hon. Baronet. It may be an easy matter to get a few men to agree, and to say to a dozen men "you ought to do this or that," but I should like the hon. Baronet to go to the hundred thousand men who are struggling to live to-day, and to tell them that they have got to accept these conditions.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not sneer.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If it was not a sneer I will let the House judge. Let me

  1243
  try again to put the position as fairly as it appeals to me as representing the men. There was a suggestion that the real object of the union is simply to cause strife and dissension as between the men and their employers. It is frequently stated by gentlemen who even sat on those benches before the Commission that their real objection to recognising the union was because of their responsibilities to the travelling public, and that as a consequence of the recognition of the union the lives of the travelling public would be endangered. There is one simple answer to that. Who are the first people killed in a railway disaster? Are they not the employés? Does not that prove conclusively that we are not unmindful of our responsibilities to these men? Is the House aware that on the only railway company which recognises the union to-day, and with which the Noble Lord is connected—the North-Eastern—the percentage of accidents both for men and passengers is lower than the average of all the other railways put together. Is not that a sufficient answer to the sneers that are repeatedly put forward that the union did not recognise its responsibilities to the public? The suggestion is made that the union unnecessarily interferes with the business of the railway companies. Last year the men's society took action in the law courts against railway companies on thirty-five occasions, and in twenty-seven out of the thirty-five they succeeded against the railway companies in getting the men acquitted. These are the kind of cases which justify us in saying that so far as the men are concerned they are not only justified in combining, but that it is their only safeguard.
  6.0 P.M.
  Now, with regard to the suggested agreement, the men feel to-day naturally disappointed with the result of the Commission. We felt, and we still feel, that the railway men of this country ought not to be denied the same right of representation as is conceded to every other class of worker in this country. We say that the evidence goes to prove conclusively that there is no reason or justification why railway companies should not act as other large employers of labour do But at this stage I am not going to press upon this House the question of recognition. I tell the House frankly, here and now, that there is not only a grave danger, but there is a strong possibility, of a strike within
  1244
  the next few weeks. I am anxious to avoid a strike. No one who has read my speeches, no one who has seen what action I have taken during the past few weeks, can accuse me of trying to bring about a dispute. On the other hand, I have thrown my whole weight, my whole position has been cast in the balance as it were, even against tremendous odds, against tremendous opposition, of trying to persuade the men that we must find a way out of the difficulty. I say to the House, here and now, that there is only one way out of the difficulty. A strike is inevitable, a strike must take place, with all its consequences, and all that it means—and I know something of what it means — I say that a strike must take place, and will take place, unless there is a meeting between the railway companies' representatives and the representatives of those responsible for the men's union. The suggestion has been made—it was made to the Premier—and will he allow me to say, with the greatest possible respect, that I do not think he appreciates how ridiculous was the reply of the railway companies—that the points of difference could be adjusted between the parties. The real difficulty in the 1907 scheme was the absence of uniformity. Every Member on both sides of the House will agree that because one company was interpreting the scheme one way and another company another, and one set of men interpreted it one way and another set another, therefore the whole scheme was a failure. If we want a lasting peace, if this Royal Commission award is to be the basis of a permanent peace, then I hope it will not be merely a scheme that will give us peace for the next three years, but a scheme that will give us permanent peace. If we are to accomplish that object, then let us start by understanding each other. Let us start by really knowing what the scheme means, all that the scheme intends, and how best to work it. Surely no hon. Member would suggest that there can be any better way of getting that uniformity, of getting that understanding and of arriving at that basis, than that of both sides meeting together, and the object of the Resolution is to bring both parties together. I hope the House will pardon me if I feel strongly about my case. I know the men feel keenly. If we can bring about this meeting, I feel sure we will arrive at a basis which I trust will not only provide a working arrangement merely for the next three years, but permanently, and that it will be said that, in

  1245
  spite of difficulties, and in spite of opposition, the findings of the Commission have resulted in a lasting peace for the railway people of the country.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: We have listened with great sympathy to the closing words of the hon. Member, and I am sure he will feel that we on this side respond warmly to the hope he has expressed in regard to a settlement of this question, but his observations apply to the general question of our industrial and commercial system, which does not appear to me to be relevant to the present discussion. There is no want of sympathy, at all events, with trade unions, which, I can assure him, on this side of the House, have warm supporters. We must have elective bodies which can meet in a reasonable way. There is something to be said about the distinction between a national strike and the strike of a particular body of workers, and I do not clearly understand the real position of hon. Members below the Gangway or the position of the Government in regard to the Report of the Commission. I do not know whether hon. Members below the Gangway do accept the Report, or do not accept it. It is very important. Do they accept paragraph 70 of the Report dealing with recognition, as applied to the settlement of the matter? I do not ask that question in any controversial spirit, but it must be obvious to the House that the proposal for a further conference will not be of the smallest use unless it is stated beforehand on what conditions it is proposed to go into that conference.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The answer to that point is this: if the railway companies will say that they agree to a meeting on certain grounds then the air will be cleared, and we will understand before we meet what we are meeting for.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The reasonable thing is to say whether the Report is accepted or not, in order that you may be sure whether the conference is necessary or not. In the same way I do not understand the position of the Prime Minister. He said the Report must be accepted in principle and' in substance, with the adjustment of details. I think he said by way of interruption to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law), that recognition was settled by the Report. If that be the position then the conference is either mischievous or superfluous. The difficulty I am in is that the Commission has decided
  1246
  this question of recognition, and in regard to that a conference will be either superfluous or mischievous. If everybody is agreed that the question is settled in the Report there is no need for a further conference of this kind. If the Prime Minister and Members below the Gangway are perfectly agreed that Clause 70 of the Report is to stand without alteration, as a settlement, what is the use of having a conference? You are already agreed that there is no dispute. As I understand, both the hon. Member who has just sat down and the hon. Member for Leicester spoke at considerable length against the Report on the very point of recognition. That does not indicate that they have accepted it. What is the use of going into conference merely for the directors to say, "We accept paragraph 70 of the Report," and the trade unions to say, "We reject paragraph 70, and will not have it." What is-the purpose of merely going into a room and reiterating the original position. What we want to know is whether they accept paragraph 70, or do they not? I do not understand the position or course which the Prime Minister proposes to take in regard to the Resolution before the House. He said he could not accept it in the form in which it is at present framed. Will the right hon. Gentleman move an Amendment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: An Amendment will be moved.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: By whom?
  The PRIME MINISTER: By someone.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: That is treating us rather oddly. We are engaged in a serious discussion and I would like to hear what the Government are going to do and what the Amendment is to be.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I quoted very clearly the words in the Resolution to which we took exception, "declares such refusal to be contrary to the public interest, and to have no justification."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: That leaves in the words "this House regrets," which might be implied to be an expression of censure-that the directors have not taken a particular course of action.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Leader of the Opposition said exactly the same thing.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Prime Minister said he would not have a word of censure

  1247
  in the Resolution. Supposing we move a Resolution expressing regret that the Government have taken the present course, is not that a Motion of censure?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend may withdraw the expression of regret.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I would like to know what the nature of the conference is going to be, in order to carry out the object the Government have in view.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I undoubtedly referred to the words asking the Government to use its good offices between the parties to bring them together, and I said the Government could not use its good offices except on the basis of the Report being accepted in principle, and I said that included recognition.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman put in words?
  The PRIME MINISTER: What I said was that the Government would not bind themselves unless that amendment is made in the Resolution.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Then I think it would be very appropriate to move a supplementary Amendment indicating the acceptance of the Report.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Will the Noble Lord look at paragraph 73 of the Report, and not 70, which he has quoted so often?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: What I meant was paragraph 70. In any case, what I mean is the settlement of this point of "recognition" in the Report. Nothing has been said to-night to indicate any other serious point of disagreement. What seems to me objectionable in the proposal for the conference, is that it looks like an attempt to get recognition at the very moment it has been settled by the Report. It is reasonable that a man should belong to a trade union, but the railway employé should be perfectly free to join a trade union or not, as he likes. What appears to be suggested, and what I think a great many people have suggested, is that the companies should give special recognition to the unions, and so encourage their employés to join the unions. That, I think, is not a thing that companies ought to be asked to do, and that they ought not to do. The men are the best judges in the matter. If they find the union is useful to them, why do they not come within it? It is for themselves to
  1248
  decide. Just as I would be most strongly opposed to anyone penalising those who belong to the union, so it is reasonable to say that the companies ought to be perfectly impartial and take no part in the question as to whether the men should belong to the unions or not. Still more ought the Government to refuse to put pressure on the companies in order to encourage men to take a particular course of which the men themselves are the best judges.
  That brings me to what I wanted to say as to the great distinction between a national strike and a particular strike. A particular strike is merely a form of collective bargaining and a thing which may be done under perfectly normal circumstances, whenever the men belonging to a union of men in a particular employment think it desirable. A national strike is quite a different thing. I do not say it might never be justified, but I think it is only justified under certain circumstances that would justify a rebellion. It is, in effect, a rebellion. It is directed not against particular employers, but against the whole country. The purpose of a national strike is not to directly affect particular employers, but directly to affect the community, and so force the community to bring pressure on the employers. It is quite a different thing from a normal strike. Let us look at what actually happened. The strike did not go on long enough to make the railways suffer very severely in their own business. That was not what made the crisis. The crisis was that perfectly innocent members of the community and of the poorer classes suffered acutely. A national strike, though called by the same name, is not the same thing as a strike in a particular employment. When the hon. Member for Leicester says that the Government cannot be neutral, of course they cannot in a national strike, because, in effect, the strike is against them; they are the attacked parties. If they think the claim of the strikers is reasonable they ought never to have got into that position, and under any other circumstances they are bound to resist. It is against them pressure is to be brought in order that they may use the power of the State on the people who are employers.
  I suggest that hon. Members ought to be very clear as to this, that a national strike, a general strike on railways, is not a thing to be engaged in on the same sort of grounds as an ordinary strike which is

  1249
  collective bargaining. No one dissents more strongly than I do from the language used on behalf of employers in an ordinary strike, suggesting that there is something disloyal or improper or anti-civic. It seems to me as absurd as to accuse me of disloyalty because I change from one tradesman with whom I deal to another. It is a matter of commercial relationship between the two parties, and both parties are entitled to make the best bargain they can; (but a national strike is a wholly different thing. It is only to be justified where the grievance is so great that you are justified in having recourse to what are essentially tactics of rebellion, which, no doubt, would be proper in cases of great magnitude and under circumstances which very rarely arise. I venture to submit to hon. Members opposite that they ought, in order to bring this discussion to a satisfactory close, make it clear, not only by general phrases like "desire of agreement," but in the terms of the Motion itself, that they accept the Report of the Commission, and next what the purpose of the conference is to be and what are the limits of its discussion, and finally they ought to make it clear that there is in their view no case for a national strike in respect of the differences that still exist between the companies and the men. Those are three propositions which I think most people would regard as reasonable outside these walls. I am quite sure, merely to have a new conference going over the ground again and to have both sides saying what they have said already, would be a really useless transaction. If the conference is to do any good it must have a fresh field of activity delineated before the members on either side go into it. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Hear, hear."] I am encouraged by those cheers from Members of the Government into thinking that they assent to that view.
  Let us be sure of it that hon. Members do not meet the difficulty arising from the impression that the men were bound by the Report of the Railway Commission by justifying their personal honour. I do not desire to make the smallest reflection on the personal honour of anyone; it is much too familiar language. When people go into negotiation and a misunderstanding afterwards arises it does not really matter whether people behave, except in their own consciences, honourably or not, but what matters is whether they act in such a way as to encourage people to negotiate with them again. If they conduct
  1250
  negotiations in such a way, whatever their scruples of honour may be, that people are disappointed with the result and find that they do not act in the way in which it was anticipated they would act, then it is unreasonable to expect people to negotiate afresh with them. If, as is not denied, the railway directors in good faith believed, and the Board of Trade in good faith believed, that both sides were bound by the Commission, it is really no use arguing that in the conscience of the hon. Member or anybody else, there was really no understanding of the kind. The point is that there was reasonable expectation, and that that expectation has been falsified.
  Unless hon. Members can agree as to new basis of conference, and unless they can make it clear that no further misunderstanding will arise, is there any use from the point of view of the railways of having new negotiations and a new conference. That is the point hon. Members opposite have to meet and, so far as I am able to see, which they have not succeeded in meeting. They have not shown that there is any thing in the present situation which can encourage a hope of final settlement by negotiation which did not equally exist in the month of August, although the agreement then arrived at has not resulted in a final settlement. I hope the Government will move their Amendment as soon as possible. I think it is treating the House rather badly that they have not already moved it. It makes discussion very difficult until the Amendment is moved, because it is difficult to understand what is going to come out of it. I think the proper course would be to put some further words to the Resolution, making the Resolution a pledge that the whole House accepts the basis of the Report as a settlement, and that there is no suggestion of going back on the Report, especially on the crucial matter of the recognition of the unions.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: I should like to address a few words to the House on this subject because I am supposed to know more or less about it. I would like, in the first instance, to ask hon. Members opposite who sit below the Gangway to confer a favour upon me and my brother chairmen by ceasing to talk as if they represented a majority of the railway employés of the Kingdom. They represent a distinct minority, and, in my opinion, to be accurate, I believe about

  1251
  42 per cent. Therefore, they both mislead this House and the country when they are continually talking about "the men." The expression which they should use is "the union men" as opposed to the others. I have far more right than hon. Gentlemen opposite to speak of the majority of free men who belong to the railway company. They do not belong to their unions; they do not wish to belong to their unions; I am sorry to say they are afraid of their unions; and, in the interests of liberty, I am proud to stand up in this House to speak for the majority of free railway men in the United Kingdom. I do not want to weary the House by going back far into the arrangement of 1907, but as it bears very distinctly on the proposal which the Prime Minister has recently made to us. I must offer one or two remarks in regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) and the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). They both stated that that scheme, to which I was one of the parties, had proved a failure, and had thus broken down. I distinctly traverse that statement. That scheme was never given by the union leaders a fair trial. Had it been given a fair trial, it would still now be in active operation, and I believe would confer those benefits on the railway men for which it was designed. There must always be two, if not more, parties to a bargain, and when we, the railway companies, in regard to two bargains which we have distinctly made with those representing the men, find that in each case we have been deceived in regard to the statements they held out in respect of observing those bargains, it is very natural indeed that we should think deeply and hesitate before entering into a third bargain.
  When the bargain was made in 1907 it was made by us as representing the railways with the distinct object of preserving a period of peace, and the men with whom we negotiated, not personally, but, as has been stated, through the medium of the President of the Board of Trade, gave us to understand that even they would be glad of a period of peace. And so distinctly was that principle of a period accepted that the men, in the first instance, suggested three years' duration. The companies, on the other hand, suggested ten years' duration, and, through the instrumentality of the President of the Board of Trade, we arrived at a term of seven
  1252
  years. Therefore, it was distinctly understood by the men's representatives, as well as by ours, when that agreement was entered into, that we would have a period of industrial peace which would be likely to be of benefit to the railways and to the country at large. The hon. Member for Leicester has said that the railway companies—and I think here he used far too strong as expression—"juggled" with the details of that measure, and, by juggling with them, made it come into operation very much later than it should have come. A new scheme like that—a perfectly new scheme affecting large bodies of men—has to be put into operation with very great care and circumspection. I admit there was considerable delay, but I will say unavoidable delay, in putting the conciliation boards into operation; but I honestly believe with the exception, and I will not mention names, of two companies, those conciliation boards were put into operation at the very earliest possible moment.
  What has happened in the meantime? Extreme men belonging to the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants from the first received that scheme with great disfavour, and through their organ, the "Railway Review," and through other agencies, from the very first day endeavoured to make it a failure. What did they do to begin with? They treated Mr. Richard Bell, whom I have not the pleasure of knowing, but whom I have always understood to be an honest and upright man—they treated him in the most scandalous manner, and finally they virtually, to use their term, were prepared to sack him, if the President of the Board of Trade had not kindly come to his rescue and so allowed him to retire with dignity by accepting a post under the Board of Trade. But the wave of malignity with which that man was pursued by some of the officials of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants for the part which he had taken in signing that agreement reflected very little credit upon them. When you get a large body of men who have been parties to an agreement, who do all that they can to prevent the proper working of that agreement, it is very likely that it will be a failure or, at any rate, a partial failure. I still contend that if that scheme had been allowed to go on we should not have been in the position we are now in of discussing some new proposal. We know perfectly well what led up to the appointment of the Royal Commission. I may say to the House, and through the House to the country, that I

  1253
  honestly believe—and the majority of the railway chairmen agree with my view—that had that strike been allowed to continue for another four days it would have been broken and the companies would have been triumphant. I will tell hon. Members why. A large number of the men came out through intimidation and terrorism on the part, not only of the railway unions, but of other unions; but so soon as these men were assured that the local authorities and the Government, in the course of their duty, not only would be prepared to, but did, afford them protection, they were coming back in hundreds to their work. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] Throughout the country.
  Mr. WARDLE: Will the Noble Lord give any proof that they came out through intimidation?
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: The ordinary sources of information in the Press and reports which I received from the railway officials of different companies. It has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister in the most handsome way that the railway companies behaved in a patriotic spirit in agreeing to stop the fight and to enter into negotiations with him. But after having been deceived in our anticipations in regard to our dealings with the unions in 1907, we have just experienced a repetition of the same thing at the present time. We know perfectly well that the men's representatives did agree to abide by the findings of the Royal Commission. I will ask hon. Members this question. In this House we may have amongst us one or two cranks, but taking us as a whole I think we may say that we are a level-headed businesslike body of men. Do hon. Members believe for one moment that the railway companies of the United Kingdom, through their representatives, would have entered into such a bargain and sold their liberty of action without being perfectly certain and secure that the decision of the Royal Commission was to be equally binding upon both parties? We should have been absolute fools to have done such a thing. We should have betrayed those whom we represent and forfeited the right to be responsible for their interests. We entered into it with the full belief that both sides would loyally abide by the recommendations of the Commission. As has been said by the First Lord of the Treasury, not one word of protest, not even a whisper of dissent was heard from the union quarters so long as the evidence was being given before the
  1254
  Commission. Now, hon. Members representing the railway unions have repudiated, or virtually repudiated, the Report of the Commission, and we are asked to meet them at a round-table conference to settle new matters of detail which they think can be satisfactorily arranged in such a fashion. We have fought, not through any narrow-mindedness, not because we are stand-off aristocrats, or for any nonsense of that kind; we have acted on principle throughout in declining to admit recognition of the unions. If we meet at a round-table conference like that suggested it will be recognition—the very one thing that they have been striving for, and nothing else. It will defeat the very objects for which we have been fighting, and with comparative success, for so many years past.
  I should like to say to the House why railway companies strongly object to the recognition of trade unions. It has been truly said, no doubt, that in most trades, or, at all events, in the majority of trades, the employers recognise the unions, and in many cases get on fairly well through their operation. But railways are different from every other trade in the United Kingdom. In the first place, we are responsible to the public for the discipline and administration of our railways, which are conducted not exclusively for the benefit, of the proprietors, but for the benefit of the community at large. We feel that if once recognition is granted to these unions the effect will be for them to drive all our men into their net, and in a short time the whole of the men, the majority of whom are not now union men, will become members of the unions. Why are we so different from other commercial bodies? A railway cannot be moved; a railway cannot be closed; a railway cannot lock out; whereas the unions can at any moment declare a strike. Therefore we are on unequal terms with the trade unions, and that is why we say we ought not to recognise them, and we ought not to be compelled to recognise them. There is another point. Ordinary employers who suffer from strikes are able at exceptional times, by having regard to the changes in trade, to raise their prices for this or that commodity and thus recoup themselves for losses they have sustained. But we are hide-bound. We are fixed by Acts of Parliament as regards both our maximum rates and our maximum fares. Therefore, if strikes occur, and we are subjected to all the inconveniences and loss resulting

  1255
  from them, we are absolutely debarred from recouping our losses by any addition to our rates and fares. I see the hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) smiling at me across the House. The hon. Member is one of those who have taken an active part in fettering the free action of railway companies in respect of rates. It is a very important question to bear in mind that we, if we had to recognise these unions, would be in an absolutely unequal position—in an inferior position—as compared with any other industry in the country.
  There is another reason why we should not recognise the unions. I do not want to say a word that will arouse any ill-feeling in a Debate which has been carried on with perfect good temper on both sides; but I cannot help alluding to the gross intimidation and outrages which have occurred, both in the recent railway strike and in other strikes within recent years. Of that there can be no possible doubt. When you let loose passions of that kind, when people feel deeply, when men feel that they have behind them to a certain extent the sanction of the law, it is exceedingly difficult to prevent them from indulging in excesses which in quieter times they themselves must regret. Therefore I plead in non-recognition for the liberties of our men, who wish to remain free from the unions, and who to my mind constitute the flower of the railway men of the United Kingdom. With regard to the proposal which has been made to us by the First Lord of the Treasury, and which has come upon me and other railway directors present in the nature of a surprise, it is one in regard to which it is impossible for us to-night to give assent, or to offer an opinion, because it affects not only ourselves but a large number of railways which are not represented in this House. It is absolutely essential that before we give any reply to the right hon. Gentleman we should have an opportunity of closely considering the question. Therefore I would with all deference suggest to the Prime Minister that this Debate might be adjourned until such time as we could give a reply to the proposals made to us.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The Noble Lord who has just spoken admitted in his opening remarks that the scheme of 1907 had broken down. It is true that he put the blame of the breakdown upon the unions, but it is of some importance that we should take note of the admission he has
  1256
  made that the scheme of 1907 has broken down, and that it is necessary that a new departure should be taken. He blames the unions, for whom he evidently entertains no very friendly feeling. I was interested to hear in the Noble Lord's speech a somewhat tardy recognition of the merits of Mr. Richard Bell. The Noble Lord, the chairman of the Great Eastern Railway Company, has been a very long time in recognising the merits of Mr. Bell. To-day we hear that he is an honest, upright man, with whom it is a pleasure to have dealings. But in these very negotiations in 1907 the Noble Lord, along with other directors, refused to meet this "honest, upright man," for what reason? Simply and solely because he stood there in his representative capacity representing the railway men. The Noble Lord boasts that he is level-headed and businesslike. I can tell him that the obstinate refusal of the railway directors in the country to meet the representatives of the trade unions has gone far to convince the public that the railway management is not in the hands of level-headed, businesslike men. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know the public feeling quite as well as hon. Members opposite, and I believe that to be the general feeling. We, who are neither trade unionists nor directors of great businesses, but simply members of the public, see in the coal trade, in the cotton trade, in the iron trade—the great masters of industry—welcoming trade unions, co-operating with trade unions, working with trade unions, and we do not understand why the directors of the railway companies decline to follow what seems to us this wise plan. The Noble Lord says that they are in a very special position, that they have to safeguard the interests of the public in some special way. Surely not more than the Government; and, after all, the Government Departments recognise trade unions, and have not found any impossibility in carrying on Government business while so doing.
  I may say that I came down to the House to-day with the full intention of going into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Leicester if he took a Division. But what appears to me to rule this Debate is that, while there have been considerable differences in speaking between both sides, there is far more of agreement on both sides of the House to-day than there is of difference. It is perfectly true that between the speeches of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) and the

  1257
  hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) on the one side, and the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) and the Noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Hamilton) on the other, there is a very wide gap when you are dealing with the past. Then it is a question of fact and of opinion in which very great differences have been revealed. I listened intently to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston. He made a very reasonable plea for those who he represented, the directors of the railway companies in this House. Admirably the case was presented. But it was an historic case. If it had a fault it was possibly due to the hon. and learned Gentleman's profession. He dwelt upon it, and even spoke of it, as if it were an arbitration. He treated the matter rather legally. I want to put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a most humane man, that there is something more than strict legal interpretations involved in the dispute which is at present going on between the railway directors and the railway workers of the country. I do not want to go very much into the past. I do not think it is the past that matters much to us to-day. It is the future that matters.
  We are face to face still with a tremendous crisis in the railway system of this country. I travel a great deal. I represent in this House perhaps a larger number of railway men than almost any other Member. I know the feeling of the railway men in the country. I know what the unrest has been during this period of the working of the Conciliation Scheme, as it was called in 1907. I know the feeling of distrust there is on the part of the men towards their employers. I say confidently that no industry can be well worked in the country, and can flourish, while there is such a feeling amongst the employers towards the men who are employed. I do not mean that there are not exceptions. But go where you like on the railway systems of the country, talk to the men in the stations, to the porter who carries your bag, discuss the matter with the officials in the railway stations—if you can get them to talk with you—one and all make complaint of the way in which they are treated by the men who employ them. My experience is considerable, and therefore I say that the old system—the system which the Noble Lord leads—has broken down. You have not got the same feeling in the trades where there is free intercourse between the employers and the
  1258
  representatives of the men. It is for that reason, and in their own interests, that the railway directors should make a change—a change which is distasteful to those who have been a long time at this work, and who think they understand it a great deal better than any of their men, and, of course, infinitely better than any outsider who is neither a railway worker nor a railway director.
  I say to them that the state of feeling revealed in the recent strike, a state of feeling which is known to every man who tries to inform himself of the wishes of the railway servant, is a proof that the old system has broken down, and that it is time that there was a change. Therefore I hail the declaration of the Leader of the Opposition that he would be glad if the railway directors would meet the representatives of the men, and I appeal to the Noble Lord and the other railway directors that they will heed the wise words of their new Leader, fall in with the suggestion he has made, and that they will consent to this meeting to which the Prime Minister has invited them. As I have said, I came down prepared to vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, but as I have listened to the Debate and realised that there was far more agreement than difference between us in regard to matters at present, I have risen for the purpose of moving an Amendment, as referred to by the Prime Minister, and that is to provide that those words criticising the past action of the directors should be omitted with a view to simply and solely pointing the Resolution to bringing about this meeting between the directors and the representatives of the men. I propose, therefore, to leave out the words after "1907"—
  "declares such refusal to be contrary to the public interest, and to have no justification, and asks the Government to bring both sides into conference without delay."
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The hon. Member has indicated that he proposes to move an Amendment. I think he should have indicated that at a much earlier period. I should have proposed an Amendment at a much earlier stage if I had been in order with a view to carrying out what the Prime Minister suggested.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: My Amendment has been handed in, and I think I am entitled to move it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If another Amendment is moved at an earlier stage, of course it takes precedence of the hon. Member.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. An Amendment has not been moved, and I am moving an Amendment at this moment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has not handed in his Amendment, it is not too late for him to do so.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I wish to propose an Amendment having regard to what the Prime Minister said.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has an Amendment which he proposes to move before that of the hon. Gentleman he is entitled to give his views, but he has not handed the words in.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The words which I propose, Mr. Speaker, are—
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Mr. Speaker, I had nearly finished, and I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if I might just conclude. [HON. MEMBEES: "NO, no."] I propose to move an Amendment, and the hon. and learned Gentleman can then rise and put his point.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, except to keep myself in order. But since he intimated his intention to move a Resolution at this stage, I should later be out of order if I had not claimed my right to move an Amendment at a former stage.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the better plan would be to allow the Member to finish his speech, and then the hon. and learned Gentleman can move his Amendment.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I have practically concluded my speech. I will give the words I was going to propose to leave out—"declares such refusal to be contrary to the public interest, and to have no justification." I desire that those words should be left out in order to avoid any recrimination as to what is now past, and, I hope, dead and buried. It is not the past: it is the future we are concerned with. I agree that in this meeting between the railway directors and the men there lie signs of hope for the future which will restore that peace to the railway industry that is so essential for the welfare of the people of this country. I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, if I am in order in doing so.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Resolution,
  1260
  after the word "That," to insert the words "the Report of the Royal Commission being accepted by both parties,"
  In respect to a great deal that has been said by hon. Members opposite I entirely agree. I think that on both sides of the House there is a very large measure of agreement, and I think, particularly after the statement made by the Prime Minister, it would be a great pity if we did not frame a Resolution which might be universally accepted. The alternative would be what has been suggested by the Noble Lord behind—that there might be an adjournment in order that the directors might consider the new position. The words that I propose—I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is here, because it is in reference to the statement he has made—would run this way:
  "That the Report of the Royal Commission, being accepted by both parties, this House requests the Government to use its good offices with a view to arranging that the directors of the railway companies shall meet the representatives of the men in order to discuss questions of detail arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission."
  The only words which I am at present proposing—and I am leaving out what I think will meet the views of both sides—are,
  "That the Report of the Royal Commission be accepted by both parties."
  I think, having regard to what has been stated, that it is very important that on the face of any Resolution that that may be made perfectly clear. I understand from what the Prime Minister said the directors went into this arbitration on the understanding that the determination should be final. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with what I have stated here, that the Report of this Commission, having been issued under these circumstances, should be accepted by both parties—and he further stated that you might start from that point—if there was misunderstanding in regard to questions of detail arising upon the Report he thought, I gather, that the two parties might meet. I think that is very important, and the reason is this: I think the weak point in the statement of the Prime Minister, in which personally I almost entirely agree, is supposing an arrangement is made by which the men and the directors meet again, how can he guarantee that the men will be any more bound at this stage than at the present

  1261
  stage? That is the point, I think, where the difficulty arises, and on which we might possibly adjourn for further consideration.
  The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to that, I should certainly not consent to use the good offices of the Government to bring about a meeting except upon the understanding, quite clearly expressed, that both sides will agree to be bound.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I think that is very important. I want to do everything I can to bring about a fair settlement; to avoid what one knows are the miseries of a great fight on a point of this kind. I think it is a great step in advance that the Prime Minister says that if the good offices of the Government are to be employed they will only be employed on the basis of an understanding that the settlement so arrived at shall really, in truth and in fact, be binding on both parties. I also understood, from what the Prime Minister said—and I think it is very important—as regards the question of what is called "the claim for recognition." I quite accept what the Prime Minister says upon that point. Having come so near together, I suggest that now the House might agree upon this extremely important point for the absolute and impartial treatment of both sides. I understand that if there is any further arrangements made they shall be loyally accepted by both parties. If under these terms, which I think are perfectly fair, we should avoid the risk of danger and difficulty of anything like a big railway strike, I think the House of Commons will have done an admirable piece of work this afternoon, under the guidance of all parties—because I wish to recognise what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby as well as what has been said by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read the Amendment again?
  Sir A. CRIPPS: "That the Report of the Royal Commission, being accepted by both parties, this House"—I could not move further than that—"request"—that is to take away the idea of the past—"the Government to use its good offices with a view to arranging that the directors of the railway companies shall meet the representatives of the men in order to discuss questions of detail arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission." I
  1262
  say "question of detail" might be altered or improved one way or another.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Why don't you say "questions"?
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me. Is it clearly understood that by representatives of the men trade union officials are meant?
  Sir A. CRIPPS: What I say in answer to that is that so far as I am concerned you must take the view upon that point which we find in the Report of the Royal Commission itself.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is very desirable that there should be agreement and not division on the subject. After all, the great object of this Debate, initiated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, was to make for peace on a durable basis; not for war. I think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman transforms the Motion to a degree quite unnecessary. The last words of the Motion as it stands are quite sufficient for the purpose,
  "Asks the Government to bring both sides into conference without delay."
  I do not know, but I should doubt very much whether my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester will object to that.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move the Amendment.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg to second this Amendment, and in doing so I do not wish to say a word that would irritate or aggravate in any way the position which now exists. It is, however, I venture to submit, imperative that some Amendment should be proposed to this Motion, not merely from the point of view of excluding from the terms of the Motion the last paragraph, which implies censure upon the directors of the railway companies, but also the indication of censure which occurs in the first lines. So long as the Motion stands in the form in which it is put forward, this House would be committing itself to an expression of regret that the directors had refused to meet the men in circumstances which never existed. Any Motion which contemplates that, if passed by this House, would be very wrong and unfair to the directors, and would not accord in any degree with the handsome tribute the Prime Minister has paid to them. It must

  1263
  be remembered that, in discussing this question to-day, we are discussing it on a basis entirely different to that which existed formerly. Until to-day the railway directors had been regarded as in the wrong. The representatives of the men until to-day have been insisting not merely that a conference should take place, but that the whole Report should be radically altered. That is abandoned to-day, and its abandonment makes for peace and is welcomed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. But I think it is important that the Amendment to the Motion should make it quite clear, not merely that the Government will not act unless it is satisfied the principle of the Report of the Royal Commission is accepted, but also that this House does not either by expression or implication qualify the language the Prime Minister used in reference to the directors. That is most important, for reasons to which I invite the attention of the House.
  I do not want to refer to the experience that led to the 1907 agreement being departed from before seven years. I do not want to refer in detail to the 1911 award being departed from suddenly, but what is important is that we should have from the representatives of the men, if they can speak for the men, the assurance that the men are more bound by what happens here to-day than they were bound by what happened before. It is important that the House should have some satisfactory assurance from those who purport to represent the section of the men alluded to as to that effect and that we should know we are not entering upon a fruitless discussion. It is important there should be a finality. It is unfair to the railway companies that anything other than finality should be invited by any Motion passed by this House. The reference to the Royal Commission was in a sense in the nature of arbitration. There was a dispute between two parties to be determined.
  In any dispute between two parties the thing aimed at is finality, and the railway companies in entering into the arrangement that led to the appointment of the Royal Commission desired finality, and they are not to-day getting the finality to which they are entitled. They were to abide by the Report of the Royal Commission in its entirety, and if the railway companies assent to meetings on points of details on questions arising out of that Report, they are going a great deal further
  1264
  than the obligation they first undertook. We say further, in regard to a Commission of this sort, that it is very important from the point of view of the future, if not of the present, that there should be finality and that employers as well as employed entering into a discussion upon industrial questions should accept the bargain and comply with the bargain, and not even the Government or this House should ask them to go any further. It does not make for permanent industrial peace, and for my part, if it were not for the conciliatory spirit the House has shown, I think it would be in the true spirit of industrial peace that this House should decline to enter further into the matter when the finding is loyally abided to by one of the parties to the contract. Being unwilling to depart from the conciliatory spirit shown in the House, and being desirous that the Amendment to the Motion should remove even any possible vestige of suspicion from the railway company directors, I beg to second the Amendment.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I always felt that if we were able to discuss this subject dispassionately we should inevitably come to some definite and friendly conclusion. I dislike speaking on this subject, because I am more attached to labour than any of my colleagues, but I am also a railway director, and I am suspect on that account. I frankly acknowledge I ask the assistance of trade unionists on many subjects, and will do so again. I hope this Debate to-day will clear away some of the heroics and fireworks and platform utterances outside. We all use them. I use them frequently, but instead of that I think we could afford to depend a good deal more on solid common sense, and I admit it is quite as solid on the part of our opponents as on our own. Our Debate this afternoon has been conducted in the spirit of amity and conciliation which is quite refreshing upon a subject like railway matters. Surely that is as it ought to be. Here we are, labour and capital, two of the great factors of the carrying trade of the United Kingdom, neither of which can move an inch without the other. Surely we ought to be able to devise some method of advance at the present time that will leave us friends and not enemies, and which will lead to a system of uniformity. I do not believe either party wants to be top dog on these occasions. I hope nobody does. I am sure I do not, and neither do my brother directors, and I quite gladly accord the same feeling to my opponents. There is

  1265
  no necessity for it. I should venture to sit down side by side with the hon. Member opposite, not like the lion and the lamb, but like two lambs, unless that the hon. Member should like to take the part of the hon. I prefer to be in agreement and to sit down side by side. I do not want to contend who got the best of it in the recent discussions, and I do not want to go into the discussion of what happened in 1907, or even so late as this year.
  I heard with pleasure the speech of the Prime Minister in the earlier part of the afternoon. He gave the railway directors credit for having very fair reason to believe that both parties would accept the findings of the Railway Commission. I assure him that was the case. I do not want to enter into any discussion now as to whether hon. Members opposite were pledged to it or not. I pass that part by.
  We are face to face now with another Resolution contained in the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps), and I think no man here having heard this Resolution, suddenly proposed at the last minute, could possibly say he could bind the railway companies or himself to accept such Resolution on the spur of the moment; and therefore, while I am, for every reason, most anxious to fall in with the views entertained by both sides of the House and to meet their wishes, I should prefer in order that we may be able to consult and see whether my colleagues and myself could fall in with it, that the matter should be deferred for a while. I understand the basis of my hon. Friend's Amendment is this: That the finding of the Royal Commission in every sense should be received, adopted, and acted upon before anything further is done. That, of course, would be a sine quâ non, and, as the Prime Minister said just now, the Government would not attempt to use their good offices unless they were absolutely assured such was the case. I honestly confess I should prefer time—as I think the Noble Lord my colleague said he should prefer to have some time—to consider the Motion, but I should be glad of an arrangement if it can be found.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think the House is substantially in agreement as to the line that ought to be pursued by the Government in this matter. It is very desirable that every word of a provocative character should be eliminated from the Resolution, and every word that would
  1266
  prejudice the consideration of the case if the parties meet. I think it is also important that every word should be eliminated which assumes there is to be any reopening of the whole discussion between the parties. The Government accept absolutely what was said by the Noble Lord in the concluding sentences of his speech on that particular point. I do not want to enter into any controversial matter, especially as we are so near agreement; but as one of those who took part in the negotiations in August last I could not possibly accept the narrative of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). I think I am bound to say that, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is in agreement with me. I certainly understood both parties were prepared to accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and it was upon that basis that we are operating in the advice that we shall give to the House upon this occasion. The objection we have to the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps) is that, I think, they are slightly provocative, and I think unnecessarily so, if I may say so. What is really wanted is to invite the parties to a conference to discuss certain details of the Report. If it is submitted by one of the parties that certain details in the Report are not very practicable, there may be some slight alterations which would make the machinery work more fairly without any change in regard to the main principle. I do not think it matters so long as it is clearly understood that the principle in accepted. These are the words we suggest as an alternative to the words proposed by the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member opposite,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, a meeting should take place between the representatives of the parties on whose behalf the railway agreement of August, 1911, was signed to discuss the best mode of giving effect to the Report of the Royal Commission, and asks the Government to use its good offices to bring both sides into conference without delay."
  I believe that really gives effect to the general views which have been expressed in the discussion.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In my opinion, the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman will not suit the case, because they do not recite the fact that the Report is accepted by both parties.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But surely that is necessarily involved in the words I have read. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why put them in?"] It is purely a conference to discuss the best mode of giving effect to the Report, and if that is not an assumption that the Report is adopted as the basis I do not know what words mean.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: But why should there be an assumption about something which has already been stated by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Prime Minister himself? As we understood it, we assumed it was the intention of the Government to propose the words, "That the Report of the Royal Commission, being accepted by both parties." That is assumed, and why should it not be embodied in this Resolution?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Why should the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends make it difficult for the parties to come together? There is no doubt at all that there is a very large body of opinion represented by hon. Members below the Gangway who are not under the impression, which I most certainly am, that the Report of the Royal Commission was accepted by both parties. The view of the Government is that we have no right to use the good offices of the Government if the Report of the Royal Commission is not accepted as a basis for the discussion. The principle must be accepted, and I think that is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Why should we make it difficult for hon. Members below the Gangway who have their constituents to consider in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."]
  Mr. CAVE: The hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for Derby said to-day that they accepted the Report of the Royal Commission.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This Resolution is an acceptance of the Report of the Royal Commission. By constituents I mean the railway men. Unless they accept the Report and come in there is very little use having any conference at all. What we want is a conference upon the basis of the acceptance of the Report, which will be a discussion of the details of that Report. I do entreat hon. Members opposite not to make it difficult for hon. Members below the Gangway to accept a Motion of this kind, which may be repudiated by those whom they represent. In that case the whole question would have to be reopened again. It is of vital importance that we should get some sort of Motion which
  1268
  would be accepted by all parties so long as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite get in substance what they are pleading for, and what we also are pleading for. We can only use our good offices on the basis of this Report. We feel we have been just as much a party to that agreement as the railway directors and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I think the Report of the Royal Commission has been accepted by all parties. We put the agreement on paper, we read that document to both parties before they left the room, and we published simply the document prepared in the room and read to the parties. It is because we think that the words we are now proposing involve the acceptance of the Report of that Commission that we are inviting the parties to come together to discuss the best method of giving effect to the Report. I think, in regard to certain details which have been suggested they will be found in working to be impracticable, but it is not for us to express an opinion, because that would prejudice our intervention. There are questions of detail and machinery, and I should have thought that this Resolution would really meet the views of both parties, without involving the introduction of any words which would make it difficult for either of the two parties to accept it.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Might I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that all these troubles have arisen on account of the absence of a definite undertaking in writing. Having experienced these difficulties, I think we should be careful to prepare the case so that it is impossible for any mistake to arise, and what we undertake to-day should be in writing. I think we should have an undertaking to abide by the Report of the Royal Commission before we agree to anything else.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The main body of hon. Members have come very near to an agreement on this question without distinction of party. It must be recognised that we are dealing with a very delicate situation, and I do not dispute the delicacy of the position of hon. Members who speak specially for the trade union railway employés, but the Government must remember that there are two parties to the dispute. You want to get the two parties to meet, and unless the Government occupy a middle position between them, they cannot hope to be successful in that effort. I think it only fair to say that in the action the House has

  1269
  taken to-day, we are asking the railway directors to sacrifice more than the representatives of the railway men, indeed, the representatives of the railway men are not being asked to sacrifice anything. They have had their full bargain. We have a Report by which they were to be bound, according to the understanding of the Government and the understanding of the directors. Now the House is inviting the Government to use its good offices with the directors to do something more to gratify the men. I think I have fairly stated the position in a way which will not be disputed by hon. Members below the Gangway. Under these circumstances, I think hon. Members representing the railway men should be willing, and the Government ought to be anxious, to do all they can to facilitate this fresh step.
  With regard to the events of August, a grave misunderstanding has arisen between one of the parties, but they disclaimed the Report after it was issued. I think it is only fair, if you ask for a further advance on the part of the directors, that you should embody in the invitation which proceeds from this House, asking them to take that step, an acknowledgment that the Report of the Commission is accepted by both parties. That does not in the least prevent a common agreement, if they are brought together by the action of the Government. They may find that this or that detail may prove to be unworkable or undesirable, but when you are asking them, after they have fulfilled every stipulation that you made, after they have done all you asked them to do, when you ask them to do something more, you are bound to give them an assurance on the face of your invitation that you are not taking away that which you have already accorded. I urge upon the Government, after what they themselves have said, that they cannot prejudice the position of the representatives of the trade unions by putting words into this Resolution which, on the face of it, mark the fact that the starting point before the Resolution is accepted by both parties is the acceptance by both parties of the Report of the Royal Commission. I do not want to use words which would seem to encourage any reluctance, but I think it is almost necessary that you should put some such words in the Resolution if the efforts of the Government under that Resolution are to have a successful result.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: In view of the new situation which has arisen, I
  1270
  should like to say a few sentences. I associate myself with the desire of hon. Members to come to an agreement. As the Noble Lord opposite said, agreements have been twice come to, and, either owing to ambiguity of language or owing to the fact that the agreement has not been very accurately put down in writing, there has been a good deal of recrimination resulting. The fear that is in my mind is that if the word "accept" is used in any resolution passed to-day, that word is so ambiguous that it may lead to unfortunate results. So far as the principle is concerned, we agree that there is no doubt about it. But supposing the men meet the employers and want to raise the point that 25 per cent. of the men in a particular grade must sign a petition before it becomes effective, and the men want to discuss that point with the directors, and the directors say, "No, we are not prepared to discuss that, and we are not going to allow you to discuss that, because in the House of Commons your representatives accepted the Report." That is the difficulty in using the word "accept," because it would be definitely interpreted in that way, and it might be absolutely impossible for the men to raise any point they desired to discuss with the directors unless the directors agreed to discuss it. I do not think that is fair. Hon. Members opposite have heard our speeches to-day. To-morrow morning it will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT that we have committed ourselves to accepting the Report in its spirit and in its intention and as a foundation for the whole of this agreement.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Does the hon. Gentleman commit the unions?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The point I want to bring out is that we have committed ourselves so far. That gives us a certain margin for agreement, a certain margin for discussion, and a certain margin for alteration; and it will enable both the directors and the men, with the Government present as a sort of arbitrator, to have a certain amount, not much, of discussion upon disputed points. I think that is very essential if the agreement, which I hope will be arrived at by this conference, is going to be a real agreement. The hon. Member opposite interrupted me and mentioned the point which I wanted to mention before sitting down. The House knows perfectly well that at the present moment a very important critical ballot is taking place. I want to be perfectly candid. All we can pledge

  1271
  ourselves to do is to use our influence, and I think the House knows perfectly well, if we make that statement, it can depend upon us to do everything possible to bring about a settlement. Hon. Members who are directors here are voting, but there are directors who are not present and are not voting. We can only bind them in a secondary way. The form of words suggested by the hon. Baronet would not do, because their interpretation might be so narrow that no real conference could result. You must have some looser form of words, so that a real discussion and agreement can take place. I hope the House will not feel I am rejecting attempts to come to an agreement, but, naturally, I must be very cautious about the form of words my friends and myself can accept.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman said what he has said, because there is not the slightest doubt that on previous occasions there have been very serious misunderstandings—I will not call them anything else—and it is most important we do not have another misunderstanding on this occasion. What the hon. Gentleman has said, I am sure in all good faith, is this: We desire to reserve to ourselves the right to discuss certain points in the award with the object of their alteration, and he has instanced the paragraph which says that 25 per cent. of a grade should sign a requisition before anything can be done. That is part of the principle of the award, and the hon. Gentleman quite candidly desires not to accept it but to discuss whether or not it should be accepted. I venture to say that is reopening the whole matter, and that is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman will not put these words into the Amendment. I should like to say a few words about myself as a director of the Great Northern Railway and about the attitude the Great Northern Railway take up. I think I may speak for the whole of the directors of the Great Northern Railway Company. They do not care two straws whether words supposed to be uncomplimentary to the directors are left in or taken out. They have done what they considered their duty, they are quite aware everybody does not hold the same opinion, and they do not care whether these words are left in or taken out. What they do care about is the motive which has induced the hon. Gentleman to move this Amendment. What is going to happen if the Amendment is accepted? I must take the House
  1272
  back to what occurred in Downing Street on 3rd November. There the Prime Minister met six or seven chairmen of the different railways in England, signatories to the 1907 agreement. They were accompanied by their general managers, and the Prime Minister endeavoured to bring about a meeting between the representatives of the trade union and the chairmen of the companies. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) was present, although not actually in the room.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, no.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understood he was in the neighbourhood. Well, that is a mistake. Every single chairman refused to do what the right hon. Gentleman wanted. I am not going into all the disputes that took place before, or the reason of their so doing, but they refused, and they refused because they knew that what was required was recognition, and that, if they had accepted, it would be said they had accepted the principle of recognition. If the railway companies accept this Amendment, the result will be that the principle of recognition will be accepted. That is the Amendment and the whole issue between us. Of course, the hon. Member for Leicester cannot speak for the railway men. He has not submitted his proposal to them. Neither can we in this House speak for our board as a majority. I cannot speak for the London and North-Western or for the Great Eastern, but I can speak for my own, board. My own board has loyally endeavoured to make terms of peace. They did so in 1907, and they understood those terms would be abided by. They did so again in August under very great pressure and against the wish of every single director of the board. They did it because their patriotism was appealed to. Having so far sacrificed themselves, they on Thursday last came to a unanimous decision, which was confirmed to-day at 12 o'clock, when I had an interview with Lord Allerton, the chairman, that under no circumstances whatever would they advance any further. I agree with them, and I take this opportunity of saying we shall not pay the slightest attention to this Resolution. We have done all we can, and' we will do no more.
  We believe the only result of this will be—as of all the other meetings and conferences—to intensify the dispute, and that we should be driven to such a position that we should have to do as the

  1273
  North-Eastern have done, and recognise the unions. The Prime Minister may say what he likes, that he will not enter into it unless both sides agree, but he will be thrown over as the President of the Board of Trade was thrown over in August, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was thrown over in 1907. Until there is recognition of the men there will be no peace. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad those cheers show I have correctly interpreted the situation. Under those circumstances, whether rightly or wrongly—and we think we are doing our duty to our shareholders and the nation—we have come to the conclusion we have done all we can, and we are not going to do any more. Under those circumstances, I should not have conceived I had done my duty, as a Member of this House, and as a director of the Great Northern Railway Company, if I had not got up and said what was in my mind. I believe until this issue is thoroughly understood, and the railway companies make up their minds that they have either to concede recognition or to go on refusing to do so, there will be no peace. We have the experience of the North-Eastern. It was not the oasis, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the centre of the disturbance; it was rather the contrary. The North-Eastern has for years been the centre of disturbance, and the oasis of quiet has been the other companies who have not recognised the unions. Under those circumstances, we feel it is impossible to do what hon. Members below the Gangway desire.
  The PRIME MINSTER: I am not sure the speech by the hon. Baronet to which we have just listened improves the prospects of peace. Until he rose, I was under the impression we were, I will not say quarrelling about words, but we were very near, if not actually in sight, of a substantial agreement. I want to bring the House back, if I can, to the temper in which it was before the hon. Baronet liberated his soul with his accustomed vigour. I think there is some slight misapprehension even now in some quarters as to what will be the effect of this Resolution—in whatever of its various forms it is carried. It is merely a Resolution which asks the Government to use its good offices to bring the parties together. It is open to either of the parties to take the course which the hon. Baronet has indicated, and to refuse to accept any invitation the Government offers. We cannot either coerce the representatives of the
  1274
  men or the representatives of the companies. It must be by their own free agency, and it must be in their own discretion to accept or refuse any invitation we make. I have said, and I think I have said it in the most distinct language possible—it has also been said by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that in any invitation which the Government tenders to either one side or the other it will be made perfectly clear they will not take part in any conference except upon the basis of the acceptance of this Report.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Why not say so in the Resolution?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have said so more than once. That is the position which the Government take up, and in the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved on behalf of the Government it is a position which I think is not only implied but is most clearly expressed, because the Amendment is to the effect that a meeting should "take place between the parties"—what for?—to "discuss the best mode of giving effect to the Report. You cannot give effect to a thing which you do not treat as accepted and as the basis of your proceedings. It is purely a verbal point, and I think on the verbal point my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester was right. There are more possibilities of latent ambiguity in subsequent interpretation from the use of the word "accept" than there is in the use of such phraseology as this, about which there can be no doubt of any sort or kind. The object of the conference is described as to give effect to that Report. We have altered the phraseology, recognising what, I think, was a good point made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It would be a very great pity to quarrel about words at this stage; but I say—and I repeat on behalf of the Government—we will have nothing to do with inviting either party to any such conference which does not take the Report of the Commission as the basis and foundation of its proceedings.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am certainly as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to come to an agreement. I should like nothing better than to assent to the explanation he has just given; but, after all, what is it? The right hon. Gentleman agrees with the hon. Member for Leicester that the word "accept" would lead to ambiguity; but the whole speech of the hon.

  1275
  Member for Leicester showed most clearly he objected to the word "accept," not because it was ambiguous, but because it was too clear and definite. The right hon. Gentleman says he will make it clear in the invitations that the Report is to be binding. Well, what possible objection is there in making the Motion of the House of Commons, which is what we are dealing with to-night, perfectly plain, and making it carry out what is declared by the Government itself to be the sole object they have in view? There is another thing that I think the right hon. Gentleman ought not to leave out. It is very nice to try and get a Resolution of any kind through the House of Commons. We are all sick of this, and we would like to get it through; but what is the object we are aiming at? It is to come to an agreement. Is it not quite evident, if the form of the Resolution is such that the railway directors will not accept it the whole object at which you are aiming must fail? It seems to me, from what I can gather, that, unless it is made perfectly plain in the Resolution itself, that the Report is to be binding, there is very little probability of the railway directors agreeing to a meeting. Everybody is agreed that the object of this coming together is not to alter the Report, but to find the best means of carrying it out, and surely the Prime Minister can devise some form of words which will make it clear, in a most unmistakable way, not only that the Government understand that the Report is to be binding, but that the House of Commons also understands it. I have said all I can on the subject. If the Government persist in the course they are taking, I shall vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member behind me. That is all we can do.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I have listened very attentively to every word of this Debate, and, as it proceeded, I thought there was just a possibility of the House finding some way out of the very serious position in which the country is likely to be placed. Hon. Members will admit that I occupy a rather curious position in this Debate. I must confess that, since the Report was published, I have felt myself in disagreement with both sides. I have disagreed with the position taken up by the men and I have disagreed with the position taken up by the companies, and, having listened to this Debate, my disagreement has, if anything, deepened.
  1276
  I thought at one time there was a possibility of finding a way out of the difficulty. I listened with very great interest to the speech of the opener on the other side, and I feel quite sure that if the Debate could have been continued in the same spirit with which the hon. and learned Member for Kingston opened it there would not have been much difficulty in arriving at a settlement. But the further the Debate has proceeded the more obvious has it become to me that there is still a very wide gulf between the two sides. I have listened to the appeals that have been made to Members on this side to declare their acceptance of the Report. I want to know if hon. Gentlemen on the other side also are going to accept it. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Yes, yes."] I hope my hon. Friends will not find themselves a little too previous in that reply. It is perfectly true that this afternoon some of them have talked of accepting the Report, but it has been of accepting it, not on the interpretation I would put on it, knowing, as I do, the minds of my colleagues who were on the Commission, but on an interpretation that I would very freely and publicly repudiate.
  For instance, we just now had a speech from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). He took exception to one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. He cited that part of the Report which deals with petitions. He wanted to know why there should be any modification in that part of the Report. If there is any part of the Report that the Commission intended should be modified it is the very part that the right hon. Gentleman has refererd to. I will show why. If hon. Members follow closely the Report they will find that in the proposed scheme there is a paragraph which reads, "Unless otherwise mutually arranged the procedure laid down in paragraphs 2 to 8 shall be adopted." Paragraphs 2 to 8 deal with a preliminary procedure that has to be gone through before any question can be sent to the conciliation board at all. It includes petitions. That is part of the preliminary procedure. I know that on the men's side exception has been taken to the stereotyping of that preliminary procedure, and if we had been discussing the Report I should have been prepared to defend the stereotyping of the procedure. I think a regularised preliminary procedure is better than a procedure of the beginning and end of which you know nothing. Yet that is the system

  1277
  they were working under under the scheme of 1907.
  Witnesses told us that when they got a large number of signatures to a petition they did not even know if the companies would accept it. In many instances the companies refused to accept it. We laid down 25 per cent. in order to regularise and systematise the whole thing and to render it impossible for any company to refuse a petition where these conditions were carried out. We had to prepare a scheme—and this is a point I would put in defence of this part of the Report—we had to prepare a scheme for lines which are highly organised as well as for lines which are not very well organised, and, having regard to that fact, the Commissioners put in these qualifying words, "unless otherwise mutually agreed." Yet the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that if that question were raised in the conference the men would be going beyond the legitimate bounds of this Resolution. If that is the way the railway directors are going to interpret this Report, then I think they are making out a very strong case for a preliminary conference in order that we may have these doubtful points of interpretation cleared up before the Report itself is entered upon. The right hon. Gentleman is not the only Member on the other side who, it seems to me, while appealing to the men to accept the Report, is not quite prepared to accept it himself. I listened with attention to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. He appeared to base his argument on this point—that the Report consisted of a proposed scheme which is found in a sort of appendix to the Report. If hon. Members and railway directors are going to narrow down the Report to this appendix, which is to be found at the end of it, there is going to be nothing but mischief. I hold that the Report consists of everything that there is in it from cover to cover. It is of no use hon. Members laying hold of the proposed scheme and ignoring paragraphs 24, 52, 53, and 54.
  I should like to call the attention of the House to the last three paragraphs. I find that the position is put before us pretty well according to the side that the newspaper represents. Some newspapers have seized upon paragraph 52 and have ignored paragraph 53. I claim that paragraphs 52, 53, and 54, must be read together. The whole of these three paragraphs deal with the question of recognition. Each of them has been strongly
  1278
  accepted by newspepers which stand for or seek to represent the position of the companies, and, in large type, I find these words printed, "We think that with their great responsibilities the companies cannot and should not be expected to permit any intervention between them and their men on the subjects of discipline and management." When that paragraph is quoted they go no further. I want to ask this. Why should we have put in this reservation with regard to recognition if we did not intend—if the Commission did not intend—that over and above questions of discipline and management recognition was intended? I would ask legal Gentlemen opposite what would be the object of any body of men having gone into the whole question and made this reservation unless they intended—and I think I shall be able to show that they really did so intend—that over and above the questions that were being reserved recognition should be accepted? The Noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) seemed to make his strong point against recognition on the question of discipline. Surely if he had read carefully the paragraph I have just submitted to this House, he would have seen that if they were to grant, as a result of this Debate, the same recognition as is enjoyed in all other trades, the whole question of discipline would still be outside the question of recognition.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: What about the North-Eastern?
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I have here the North-Eastern scheme, and I will point out that in this scheme, just as the Commission have done, the North-Eastern Company have reserved questions of discipline. Although on the North-Eastern they have recognition. I think the Noble Lord will agree with me that no question of discipline can be sent in to the Conciliation Board conferences.
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: I remember perfectly well a strike that took place on the North-Eastern Railway because a man was removed from one goods yard to another without the consent of the union leaders.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: In order to put the matter clearly before the House, I will draw attention to Section 8 of the North-Eastern scheme, which distinctly says that no question involving discipline will be taken into consideration by the

  1279
  conference. The point I am making is that you need have no fear with regard to questions of discipline, inasmuch as the Commission have taken up exactly the same position as is taken up by the North-Eastern. The men accept this position, and witnesses on behalf of the trade union—Mr. Williams and Mr. Thomas—gave evidence to that effect. On the question of discipline, when they were appealing for recognition, they each of them reserved the question of discipline and stated to the Commission that they did not think that question was one the trade unions would interfere with.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: If this was accepted by the men, how is it that the men came out on strike on the North-Eastern Railway on a question of discipline, and discipline only?
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: There never came before the Commission any case of the men having struck on the North-Eastern Railway on a question of discipline.
  Mr. H. SMITH: It is well known.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I have merely read to you, and I cannot do more, the North-Eastern scheme as it was presented to us, and as it is found in the minutes of evidence. In that scheme it is distinctly laid down that no question of discipline can come under the consideration of the conference. I was making the point that the Commission have reserved the question of discipline from all questions of recognition. I pointed out that there was a strong inclination to take paragraph 52 and to go no further, but I also stated that paragraphs 52, 53, and 54 must stand together. The hon. Member for Leicester brought to our notice the question contained in paragraph 53. I do not think he read it to the House, and I am going to take the trouble to read it, and I sincerely hope that hon. Members opposite will follow me. Paragraph 53 says:—
  "The trade unions press strongly for recognition as representatives of the men No doubt, in some matters and on some occasions, friendly relations between companies and the representatives of unions have been both convenient and useful. The witness who appeared before us on behalf of the Great Western Railway gave an illustration of the valuable results which attended his collaboration with the trade union official who had conducted the case of the men before the arbitrator. In that instance many vexed points of interpretation were settled quite satisfactorily, and in our opinion a more general adoption of this method of negotiation would be helpful to both parties."
  1280
  If hon. Members opposite are going to narrow the question of recognition as it is presented in paragraph 52, and ignore the statements contained in paragraph 53, they are providing the strongest argument for the men to have this point cleared up before any attempt to apply the machinery is made. Paragraph 54 deals with the question of the secretaries of the boards, which is not disputed by the other side. The Debate has convinced me of this: that no machinery that this Commission or any other Commission could have set up will work satisfactorily if we have the spirit introduced that was introduced into this Debate by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. As most Members of the House are aware the Commission, in more than one part of the Report, referred to the absence of meetings between the two parties, and I do not think for a single moment that I misrepresent the position of every member of the Commission if I say that, as they expressed their disappointment in paragraph 24 at the failure of the companies to show a conciliatory spirit when the national programme was set up, so they will equally deplore the spirit that has been manifested in the speech to which I have referred. If that is going to be the spirit that is going to characterise the conduct of the directors in the acceptance of this Report, then the whole proceedings on the part of the Commission will be reduced to an absolute failure.
  The right hon. Gentleman who has just come in, and the hon. Member for Kingston both mark the right spirit. I am quite sure of this: that if the Amendment before the House is accepted by both sides in the spirit of their speeches, and in the spirit that prompted the Commissioners, not to give some imperative command to the directors, we, at any rate I am speaking for myself on this point—have strong ground for complaint against the companies, if they are going to take this Report and handle it in the same spirit that they handled the scheme of 1907. I speak with the experience of twenty-five years of conciliation board work when I say that the spirit, in which the machinery is administered is almost more than the machinery itself. I venture to make one last appeal to hon. Members on the other side to accept our Report, not the proposed scheme only, but the Report from cover to cover in the spirit that it was constructed by my four colleagues and myself. If they do so it will be a machinery that will end the

  1281
  troublesome times we have had in connection with our railways in this country.
  Mr. BRADY: A very few moments only will be necessary to state the attitude of the Irish party in reference to this Amendment. We recognise as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is a question of enormous importance. If it is a grave question for England, it is a still graver question for Ireland, for the party of which I am a member shares with every Member of this House the desire to avoid a recurrence of anything approaching a national strike, for shocking and serious as such a great dispute would be in the case of England, Scotland and Wales, it would be still more shocking and terrible for a country which has too little trade already. Important as this subject is, like most important subjects, it may be narrowed down to a very small issue. That is the very issue which has been raised by both Noble Lords above and below the Gangway, when they said the acceptance of the Amendment involved the principle of recognition. Recognition has been spoken of as if it were a terrible bogey. Hon. Members above the Gangway seem to think that it will be the end of all things as far as railway companies are concerned if the principle of recognition is extended to them. So far from that being the case, if the principle of recognition were extended to railway companies, as it has been extended to practically every other trade in the United Kingdom, then these disturbances of trade with which we have become so familiar in recent years would speedily disappear.
  In thorough Irish fashion I would answer hon. Members by putting a question. How is it, if this non-recognition is such a good thing as hon. Members claim it to be, that we have had so many disputes in the railway world during recent years. Even those of us who have not adorned this House so long as the Noble Lord above the Gangway (Lord Claud Hamilton)—whose part in this Debate we welcomed this evening—know that during the last twenty-five years there have been many grave disputes in the railway world under a system where non-recognition obtained. Surely it is not to much to ask hon. Members to give recognition a chance. The strongest case for a limited form of recognition, outside matters of discipline, is to be found in the Report itself. I do not wish to labour that point, but it is put so clearly in this Report that it is almost worth while to read it again. It is pointed out that in the case of the
  1282
  Great Western Railway, where the principle of recognition was resorted to,
  "In that instance many points of interpretation were settled quite satisfactorily, and in our opinion a more general adoption of this method of negotiation will be helpful to both parties."
  What more eloquent plea for the principle of recognition could be found than in those words? I would go further and suggest to my hon. Friends above the Gangway that they are acting illogically in denying the universal principle of recognition, even in the case of matters of discipline, for this reason, that the principle of recognition is already followed in the case of arbitration. The railway directors do not object to trade unions being represented by having their representaties before the conciliation boards or the arbitrator, and it is only carrying the matter one step further to ask that these trade unions should be permitted to represent their unions in the first place with the directors themselves. This principle of recognition is only a corollary to the great principle of trade unionism itself. Perhaps the House will allow me, in passing, to note the fact that this principle of trade unionism, in the opinion of the late Mr. Gladstone, is a lesson which Englishmen learned from Irishmen. Speaking shortly after the great dock strike of 1889, Mr. Gladstone said:
  "The working people of this country learned the lesson of combining to make a common cause from Ireland, where the people, thanks to coercive laws, have been compelled to associate for an object they believe to be vital to all."
  The proposition I am endeavouring to maintain is, that it follows logically from the principle of trade unionism that the chosen representatives of trade unions should be allowed to put their case before the railway directors, as they are allowed to put it before the employers in any other trades.
  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
  Considered as amended; to be read the third time to-morrow (Thursday).
RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THEIR EMPLOYÉS.

  PROPOSED CONFERENCE.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question,
  "That this House regrets that the directors of the railway companies have refused to meet the representatives of the men in order to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Railway Conciliation Agreement of 1907, declares such refusal to be contrary to the public interest and to have no justification, and asks the Government to bring both sides into conference without delay."
  Which Amendment was, after the word "That," to insert the words "the Report of the Royal Commission being accepted by both parties."
  Mr. BRADY(resuming): I suggest that, so far from the principle of recognition carrying on the unfortunate disputes which exist in the railway world at present, it would make for lasting peace, and I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway hot to adopt this non pos-sumus attitude in reference to the principle, but rather to accept it in the spirit in which it has been offered by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and allow it to get a fair chance. Trade unionism has come to stay, and it is but the logical consequence of trade unionism that in matters of this kind its principal representatives should get an opportunity of putting their views before the railway directors. Of course, in common with this country, we in Ireland had a railway strike, and I am happy to say, and I think I am voicing the opinions of my colleagues in the representation of the city and county of Dublin, that that strike, keen though it was and great as was the injury which it inflicted on both parties to the dispute, went on without any loss of life, or indeed of property, or any injury to person or property, to any appreciable extent. I am happily borne out in that opinion by one whom hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway regard as an important and reliable witness—Sir Horace Plunkett. As was stated in another place recently, Sir Horace Plunkett gave it as his opinion that the Irish strike was singularly free from violence, and had caused less suffering and dislocation of business than had been experienced in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is no part,
  1284
  of course, of an Irish Nationalist Member's duty to make any apology for the absence of the Chief Secretary whilst the strike was on in Dublin. I can speak with a little personal knowledge of the matter, inasmuch as my colleagues and myself in the representation of the city and county of Dublin were in Ireland throughout the entire struggle, and at no time, at any rate as far as the strike was concerned, was there the least necessity for the presence of the Chief Secretary. Of course hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, if they believe that his actual physical presence was impossible in Dublin on account of his duty at Balmoral or elsewhere, would like to have sent a telegram to his subordinate, "Do not hesitate to shoot," but happily these days are gone for Ireland and we are rid of that form of resolute government, whilst perhaps we have not yet all realised that we have a Government in office which is a little more sympathetic to Ireland than the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. M. Campbell) would be an ornament. I should like to look at the question from the standpoint of the Irish railway directors. I remember once hearing it said that the people of Montenegro were such a warlike race that it was regarded as a reproach if one Montenegrin said to another, "Your father died in his bed." We should regard it as a reproach if one Irishman said to another, "Your father was an Irish railway director."
  Mr. STANIER: May I ask if this is relevant to what we are debating?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is travelling rather wide.
  Mr. BRADY: We on these benches share to the full the views expressed by the hon. Members on the opposite side and by the Mover of the original Motion, and if it goes to a Division we shall certainly support them.
  Mr. WARDLE: I understand this Amendment was suggested with the object that it might be acceptable to both sides, and indeed to all of us, and that we might get rid of this very troublesome question; but I am afraid there are certain things which stand in the way of the acceptance of the Amendment. The difficulty with regard to it is that it commits the meeting which would then take place really to nothing, and we feel that we cannot agree, so far as we are concerned,

  1285
  to a meeting to discuss the Report which may arrive at no decision whatever and come to no agreement. The question has been specifically put to us with regard to this Report whether we accept it as the basis of such a discussion. I think the letter which was sent to the Prime Minister makes it perfectly clear that such a meeting is to discuss the Report and the findings of the Commission, accepting that as the basis of an agreement. But to us, to give effect to the full recommendations of the Report leaves no basis at all for negotiations in regard thereto. Unless we know exactly where we are in regard to the wording of this Resolution we may find ourselves in the same difficulty as we have found ourselves in on previous occasions. Declarations have been made to-day that we are running away from the words of the agreement entered into on behalf of the railway workers, but that is only one side of the question. On 19th August a certain agreement was come to between the companies and the men with regard to negotiations in the matter of the conciliation boards which are now in existence. Certain matters were to be remitted to them, amongst others, the question of remuneration. Hitherto in all these conciliation board matters the question of rates of wages has been the only matter that has been allowed to be discussed. The question of the method of remuneration, such as piecework and other matters of that kind, have not been allowed to be discussed at all. On 19th August it was agreed that these matters should be brought within the purview of the conciliation board. At the very first meeting of the London and North-Western Conciliation Board this question was raised, and we found this difficulty, that while the directors said "we will agree to consider the matter of how much remuneration shall be given for a trip rate," they would not agree to consider the question of the method of settling payment by the trip rate, and therefore we feel that we are in this difficulty, that unless we know specifically to what we are bound we cannot agree to such an Amendment as is now before the House.
  May I point out that it has been assumed that it is desired to repudiate the whole of the Report? It is not the desire of the unions to do anything of the kind. There are several matters in the Report which, as will be easily seen, require discussion between the parties before it could be accepted. Let me take one
  1286
  illustration. In paragraph 2 of the proposed new scheme it is said that
  "a petition shall be presented and signed by at least 25 per cent. of those concerned. The petition shall name a suitable number of employés of the company whom the petitioners desire to form a deputation. The company shall receive the deputation and shall give a reply to the petitioners within twenty-eight days of its reception."
  Here there is evidently a time limit within which the reply must be given to the deputation, but there is no time limit at all to the time when the company shall receive the deputation, and they can go on putting off the deputation week by week and month by month, so that the time limit under this scheme is of absolutely no use at all. There are several other points of the same kind. For instance, take the question of trip payment. The North-Western Company can question whether they shall pay by trip or by ordinary time. That is not a question, in their view, to be discussed by the conciliation board, but one of the questions which come under management or discipline, and is therefore ruled outside the purview of this Report. These are illustrations, and only illustrations, of the kind of thing at stake with regard to this matter. Let me say it is utterly impossible for the men to accept the position that the sectional boards which will be set up under this scheme—there will be 500 or 600 of these sectional boards—should be the means by which agreements should be arrived at as to procedure, and as to the methods of carrying out the board's agreements, because if that were done, instead of having uniformity in the various companies, we might have in the different companies different methods of carrying out the conciliation board's agreement.
  The House has listened to statements by various directors of the companies and by some of the representatives of the men. A charge has been made against myself personally with regard to the "Railway Review," of which I have been editor for many years, and I desire to say one or two words upon the matter. The Noble Lord the Member for Kensington (Lord Claud Hamilton) made the charge against me that I had been against the 1907 agreement from the very first, and that the "Railway Review" had from the inception of that agreement done its very best to make it impossible to work. I absolutely deny that charge, and I defy the Noble Lord or any one else to prove that from the columns of the "Railway Review." That agreement was signed in 1907, and any one who will consult the files of the "Railway Review"

  1287
  will see that the very next week, although the bargain was not liked by the men, it was urged that as honourable men they should abide by it and attempt to carry it out. I believe they intended to carry out the agreement of 1907, but, as the mover of the Motion said, there is not the slightest doubt that on the other side, as well as on our side, there have been suspicions and animosities, because we have felt that the agreement was not being kept on the companies' side, and they have felt that it was not being kept on our side. How can you keep, or undertake to keep, an agreement when you are kept at arms' length all the time. Here we have an illustration. The Noble Lord signed the agreement along with six other railway directors and certain members of the railway trade unions. Their names appear on the agreement, and yet, though they never saw each other, they are expected to carry out the agreement which they did not come to in the presence of each other. Therefore they cannot be expected to understand one another's point of view with regard to the agreement. The same will be true, and must be true, with regard to the present agreement if this system is to be carried out. Sir Guy Granet, and Mr. Gilbert Claughton, chairman of the Railway Companies' Association, met the men and came to this agreement. They met face to face, and no degradation was imposed on them by the fact that they met in the same room and signed the document. Now we are asking simply to have another meeting in order that the terms of that settlement of August 19th may be carried out.
  I should like to say a word or two with regard to what was stated by the Noble Lord the Member for Kensington upon the position of the railways as to the question of the recognition of the unions. He said railways were a special business, and that they could not recognise trade unions in the same way as employers in other industries recognised trade unions. What a ridiculous position that is to take up, especially in view of the fact that the railway companies did agree to recognise the unions, provided the Royal Commission reported in favour of such recognition. How can they have it both ways? If they never had any right to enter into any such agreement as they did enter into, if it is their view that it is not in the public interest, and if they think that recognition of the unions is fatal to the carrying on of their business, we say that it is this high
  1288
  and dry old-fashioned way of looking at the matter which is at the root of the trouble. I say honestly and frankly, for myself and my friends, that we want to get rid of this atmosphere of suspicion. We want to get rid of this disagreement, in order that we may bring about a system of collective bargaining on railways. We are told, "We cannot bargain with you, because you do not represent a majority of the men."
  It does not matter whether we represent a majority of the men or not. Our position is that if there are 5,000 or 10,000 men who are members of a union, we want to negotiate for those men, and not for the others. We do not say we represent the whole of men. All we ask is that we shall negotiate for the members of the union we represent. We do not say we represent the whole of the men. We represent the men who are members of our unions. I am sure if any individual has the right to represent his case to the company, when it comes to the case of 5,000 individuals they have the right to ask that they shall have their representative, and that their representative shall, if necessary, be a man whom they pay. The Noble Lord said there were two parties to the bargain in 1907, and that there are two parties to this bargain, and the trouble, according to him, is that we do not keep our part of the bargain. I want to say frankly that as far as we are concerned we are as ready as they are to keep bargains which are entered into and signed, sealed, and delivered. But we want to know the bargain we are entering into, and we want it down in black and white.
  Here we have the position so far as I am concerned. I have made the declaration on a public platform, by which I am prepared to stand, that I recognise so far as the railway companies are concerned that in accepting the findings of this Commission they are carrying out their part of the bargain on which they entered. The whole question that remains is what is the position of the men? I have just seen two of the signatories to the agreement come to on the 19th of August. You have already heard one of the signatories. There is a conflict of evidence undoubtedly on this point as to what took place at the Board of Trade with regard to the so-called reading of a statement which was issued to the Press. What we say in regard to that is that the men did not sign that statement. They say they never heard it, and if it was read out it was read in the excitement of parties, and they did not notice its significance nor understand what was being read to them at all. I

  1289
  quite agree that in ordinary circumstances when two people sign a settlement, and as a result there is a certain commission issued, they would both be bound by the result of that commission. But in this case it must be remembered that pressure was brought to bear upon the men to sign, and that they did not understand at the time of signing. It is quite clear from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House before they met, and from the proposals which were put before the men, when they entered into negotiations, that they were not expected to sign. I have here the basis of the conference, held at the Board of Trade, and it says that the Commission is to proceed with its inquiries as expeditiously as possible, and the Government is to take the Report into consideration forthwith. The Government through the Board of Trade is to use its good offices with the parties to secure the adoption of the recommendations of the Commission appointed by the Government. Should these good offices fail, and legislation be necessary Parliament would be specially convened, if requisite, to deal with this matter.
  So now the whole responsibility for carrying out the recommendations of the Commission and bringing the sides together rests with the Government. The Government undertook when they got this settlement on 19th August, if necessary, to propose legislation to Parliament in order that a settlement might be brought about. I can say frankly to the House that the railway men have tried without recognition of the union. They have done everything they possibly could individually to improve their conditions and better their lot, and I could give this House illustrations of the tragic fate of many a man who has tried to improve his lot on railways. I could give many cases where because the men have joined the union and have been very active with the union they have been discharged from the employment of the company for practically no other reason. What we say is this. The railway men in the country are determined so far as they are concerned now or in the future, more probably now, that they will not be outlaws any longer as they have been, and remain deprived of their rights of collective bargaining, but that their union shall be recognised by the company, and that the men shall have the same rights and privileges as other citizens of this country. It is to achieve this that they set out, and it is to carry this finally that they will continue, whether this Division goes against them
  1290
  or not, or whether the Government on this occasion stands by their own word or not. Whatever this House may say or do I frankly say that the men on the railways will never be satisfied until they have won the same rights as other citizens, the rights to have collective bargaining and to have the representatives of the union as negotiators in whatever negotiations take place.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am entirely out of sympathy with the Amendment which has been suggested from this Bench, and if it went to a Division I should vote against it. At the same time I regret that the Report which we are now discussing should on very important points have been silent, and on other very important points, particularly the one now before us, should have been ambiguous. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), and was sorry he sat down without stating definitely whether the men would or would not be bound by this Report if a meeting took place. I was very sorry to hear the wording of the suggested Resolutions from the Government Benches, because it appeared to me that that again was going to be ambiguous. But, of course, when the Prime Minister makes suggestions we always expect any suggestion he makes to be ambiguous, because it is the business of a Prime Minister when mating a suggestion to be as ambiguous as possible. I would only make this suggestion, that both sides wish to proceed on the basis of the Report.
  We have had some wording suggested to us by the Prime Minister as to a meeting taking place between the parties. Why not add there the simple words "both sides agree to be bound by the terms of the Report"? That would comply with the suggestion that is made from the Front Opposition Bench, and if the Prime Minister's speech is to be really taken seriously, that ought to meet with the approval of the Prime Minister. I should like to see some words inserted in this Resolution that both parties would agree to be bound by the Report, and are now about to meet together to discuss the best means of carrying it out. I believe that it is the bounden duty of every man in this House on every possible occasion to do all in his power to put an end to industrial unrest, and to avoid any strike. But I also believe that we should all try to do justice between the parties that are at

  1291
  issue. The great drawback that has been in all these matters is that the public have not been able to get the whole of the facts. I am a believer in the commonsense and the power of educated public opinion when the facts are properly elicited. It is for that reason that I would support any scheme which would have the effect, when an industrial dispute takes place, of eliciting the facts and putting them plainly and simply before the public.
  That brings me to this statement, as regards the merits of the real position brought about in this discussion to-night, and the attitude in this dispute that I am assuming, I happened to know of my own knowledge that there are 500 men employed by the London and North-Western Railway at the Grid Iron at Liverpool, where they work day and night, sorting goods, for wages which do not exceed £1 a week. Having regard to the fact that in the place where they live the cost of living has increased by 2s. in the £ during the last ten years, although I am a member of the party on this side of the House, I say this is not an adequate wage. These men do not belong to the union; they are too poor to belong to the union. It is a terrible and disgraceful stale of affairs, and you may depend upon it that where you can still see smoke there is a fire smouldering, and unless something is done to extinguish it, it will inevitably break out again, and it will be the fault of the railway companies, in my opinion, if it does. I have just one word to say on the subject of recognition. Who are directors of these companies? [An HON. MEMBER: "Tory Members."] I, who know something of them, often wonder how on earth any body of shareholders appointed them. They are the paid servants of the shareholders themselves. They are supposed to be paid as experts. It may be that they fulfil the requirement of receiving payments, but I do not know whether they fulfil the other requirement.
  What is the position they have taken up? Their attitude is that they will not meet the paid experts who represent the men. These directors are only paid and expert representatives themselves, and they sit with the advantage of their paid secretary and solicitor in the board room. Why should they deny to the men representation by paid experts, who can make a statement in their behalf? I have always contended that the attitude of railway companies in regard to recognition
  1292
  is absolutely illogical; I go a step further and I say now, almost at the end of the year 1911, that such an attitude has become practically senseless. I believe the railway companies would be wise if they fell in with the reasonable suggestion that the panties, who have been at arm's length for many years, should be able to meet and settle disputes in a friendly way. There is only one reason against the accomplishment of that object. It is that the directors will say, "Oh, if you do that, we shall have a person coming in here as an expert representing a trade union, and he does not represent seven-eighths of the men we employ." That may be perfectly true, but if he represents the other eighth he has a right to discuss the matter with the paid servants of the shareholders. I do hope that when the air is clearer, and when the public find out that the great majority of the men in the employment of the great railway companies in England are paid an inadequate living wage, and that really they have grievances which ought to be set right—I do hope, I say, when once that is realised, that there will be less hesitation on the part of the public to say, "Let us hear, at all events, what these men have got to say." There are, I believe, even directors who do not know the true facts, because the permanent officials may not have stated them, but I think that with the true facts before them the railway directors will be ready to listen to reason, and put these matters right.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I must say that I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, more especially in view of the fact that it is the only crumb of comfort we have got from the other side of the House or from the party to which the hon. Member belongs. So far as I am concerned, the speech of the hon. Gentleman shows that there are some Conservatives who sympathise with the poor working man in his endeavour to maintain wife, family, and home in decency on less than £1 a week. What terrible conditions that simple fact discloses. It is only men who have been through the mill who thoroughly understand the causes and effects of the present system. I want to say a word or two that may not be altogether palatable to the other side of the House. I go back to the beginning of the dispute, to the 17th August last. On that date the circumstances were such that either a strike amongst railway men ought not to have taken place or certainly never ought

  1293
  to have been settled until absolute recognition had been granted. I do not know whether that is the opinion of most men, but it is my opinion. What is it proposed we should do? It is proposed that at the present time this House should absolutely stultify itself by accepting holus-bolus the Commission's Report. That is the proposition. Once having done that, we should have to make some provision to see how it is going to be interpreted, otherwise we should land ourselves in a very serious difficulty. I can remember being a member of the committee of inquiry into the Post Office service, and after two years of taking evidence, and another year considering the report as big and voluminous as a Bible, we thought our decisions would be pretty plain.
  Everybody knows, however, that, while the Government declared that they were prepared to put it into force, there have been thousands of questions put in this House, and hundreds of deputations from the different sections of various departments of the Post Office, disputing the interpretation put upon the Committee's report by the Post Office officials themselves. Similarly, to declare in the House of Commons that we accept the Report, and then leave such Gentlemen as have addressed us here this afternoon as the sole interpreters of that Report, seems to me to be an absolutely futile and ridiculous position. Therefore I welcome the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford). It is said that the Resolution would mean recognition. It means nothing of the kind, and even railway directors—and there are railway directors on the other side, I notice—will be able to tell you whether my interpretation of the Amendment is not the correct one. If this Amendment were carried, and even if the directors agreed to meet the representatives of the men to interpret the scheme, and to devise, as it were, a scheme out of the general recommendations of the Commission, then, as I understand it, that would only be a temporary or momentary sort of arrangement, that would end the moment the scheme became operative. The moment it was understood what the recommendations amounted to, and that the joint meeting decided what the clauses of the agreement amounted to, recognition would cease at that moment. Therefore, this is only a very miserable attempt to get over a difficulty, and I venture to say that the House and, I think, everybody concerned, had better face the difficulties
  1294
  instead of trying to plaster them over and imagine they have met them. They had better seek and understand what is the fundamental difference between the parties.
  A great deal has been said about provocation. Speeches were made at the outset on the opposite side that no word should be used during the Debate this afternoon that would in any way be provocative. I must confess that the speeches that have been delivered under Labour Benches have been the mildest mannered sort of speeches that it is possible for one to imagine. There is no doubt about that. The only provocative speeches have been delivered by two railway directors opposite. What did they say? As a matter of fact, I venture to suggest if one were to compare the speeches of those two railway directors which they addressed to the meeting—I mean the House—although I thought when I heard them I was at a meeting, and I thought of Tower Hill when I was listening to them, I venture to say that there has been nothing more provocative of industrial unrest and difficulty than those two speeches. What did the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London say? "We are," he says, "to leave the interpretation of the recommendations of the Commission to such as him and his friend behind him." To this the most ancient legislative assembly in the world, he said, "You can pass your resolution, you may represent public opinion outside, you may represent all the best interests of the country who wish for industrial peace and for industrial and social harmony, but we defy you; you can pass as many resolutions as you like, me and my directors will simply put them into the waste-paper basket and take no notice of them as if you had never passed them." Is that the kind of language, is that the sort of language, I wonder, that those railway directors employ. If that is the kind of language which those railway directors employ when addressing the Members of the House of Commons, what sort of language would they employ when recognition is not granted and they get an eighteen "bob" a week porter before them? One looking at the psychology of the moment saw today in this Debate in the attitude of those two Gentlemen the causes, and one began to get, as it were, at the inside of the whole trouble from beginning to end. You cannot flout men and treat men as though they were cyphers in the way suggested by the hon. Baronet that he means to treat

  1295
  the decision of the House of Commons and then expect that the men will submit to your dictation, and your impudence, for it is nothing else. Let us take the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Kensington (Lord C. Hamilton). He said: "I greatly regret, in spite of the social difficulty, in spite of the fact that the nation might have had international trouble which made it impossible to carry on internal and domestic difficulties at the same time, and I only wish, in spite of all that, the Government had just allowed us and we would have smashed those men's unions—we would have defied the whole of their authority, we would have laid them in the dust, and you would never have heard of this question of recognition again." That really amounts to the speech we heard this afternoon.
  Mr. FLETCHER: When did he say that?
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. WARD: This afternoon the Noble Lord the Member for Kensington, said: "If you only allowed us to go on in four days we would have smashed the whole of the opposition of the unions."
  Mr. FLETCHER: He never said so.
  Mr. J. WARD: I am within the knowledge of the House, and I say that the speech meant nothing else but what I have just now said. Those were the two Gentlemen, the Noble Lord and the Noble Baronet, those are the kind of Gentlemen for whom we are to pass a pious resolution accepting the decisions of this Commission, and those are the sort of Gentlemen to whom we are to give the opportunity of fairly interpreting and settling the clauses of the Commission Report. Nothing more grotesque has ever been suggested in this House. I venture to say that the two speeches that have been delivered by the two hon. Gentlemen whose constituencies I have mentioned, have done more to injure any chance of industrial peace, so far as the railways of the country are concerned, than anything that has been said by any of the men's representatives during the whole of the agitation. Talk about Tower Hill! Why Tower Hill is a mere moderate flapdoodle sort of business compared with the speeches of those Gentlemen, because the men on Tower Hill have at least this excuse, that they are not men who have had a college education. They are very rough in their ordinary methods of language, but those Gentlemen are supposed to be polished, to understand the
  1296
  fine social distinction, and policy, and conditions of contact with one person and another, and yet they use language which, is really a menace to any possible industrial peace so long as they have any control of either side of negotiation. If they are the illustration, luckily we had an exception of a slightly different kind in the hon. Baronet the Member for the Epping Division (Colonel Lockwood). If he was the type of director, I think we could do without recognition, but one can quite see how necessary it is to have recognition from the powerful company to protect the interest of the poor in negotiations conducted with those Gentlemen to whom I referred a little while ago. I do not think that we can afford to surrender a single item of the Resolution. Although there was all this talk of a conciliatory character, and it looked as if we were going to do something that would be of benefit in removing the friction between the different sections that are causing the trouble at the present time, the speeches of these two Members have made it absolutely necessary that we, even though there were only a dozen of us representing labour, should stick to the entire Resolution as it appears on the Paper. We cannot do other than regret that the Government have not used their good offices to compel the directors to meet the representatives of the men. I can quite understand that they would not like to meet me in a discussion at a round table. This is the whole inner meaning of the business. A poor fellow, who is not a week in front of poverty and the workhouse, with a family dependent upon him, afraid to say a word in defence of his position lest he should be dismissed—that is the sort of man with whom the directors want to negotiate. They do not want to meet a man like myself or any of the railwaymen's representatives in this House, who are paid by the men, who are experts at their business, who can meet the directors on their own ground, and who are not afraid of being victimised by them. One can understand why recognition is so long delayed, and this condition of affairs, in which the directors are able to do just as they like and to treat people how they like, is maintained as though it were a fetish. If the Government took the opinions of the majority of the working people of the country, they would do nothing to assist the railway directors in maintaining what is, after all, one of the most unjust systems of negotiation and bargaining imaginable. There can be fair

  1297
  bargaining in the ordinary market only when two people meet on equal terms, one wanting to purchase and the other wanting to sell; but the one in a position to refuse to purchase and the other in a position to refuse to sell. That is not the position between the wealthy railway directors, backed up by all their influence, power, and money, and too often by the State, and the poor porters and the poor platelayers, who, I understand, sometimes get 15s. or 16s. a week. It is nearly time either that we had definite recognition or that we decided that these people are absolutely incompetent to maintain and control such an enormous social service as the railway undertakings of the country. One of the two is certain: either there must be recognition, where the union conies in to protect the interests of the men, or the State must take the place of those who have proved themselves utterly callous of the best interests of the country.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: I should like to bring the House back to the subject of our discussion. The speaker who preceded the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) said that they wanted the bargain in black and white. That is exactly the meaning of the Amendment before the House. We on this side want inserted in the Motion the words, "the Report of the Commission being accepted by both parties." The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that we have practically got that; that everybody admits that the Report is accepted. Then why not put it in black and white? The directors have a very good reason for wishing to have it in black and white, in that they have been through the same kind of thing before. The hon. Member for Stockport, the editor of the "Railway Review," said that they would not accept these words as they would be put in a difficult position; they would not know what they were bound to. But the directors, if the words are not inserted, will be in the same position, only more so, because they have been through a similar experience before, not only in 1907, but in August of this year. The hon. Member for Stoke said that he wanted to face the difficulties and not plaster them over. He then proceeded to deal with the speeches of two railway directors, the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and the Noble Lord, the Member for Kensington (Lord C. Hamilton). I have listened to nearly the whole of the Debate, and the speeches
  1298
  delivered by those two railway directors are about the only speeches that have really faced the difficulties at all. From the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Cripps) we had speeches which were very nicely delivered, very calm, sweet, and tender, and all that sort of thing, but they did not face the real difficulty, namely, that Members on the Labour Benches are out definitely for recognition, and the railway directors are out dead against it. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) had the courage to get up after a very mild speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say exactly what he meant, and that is what not a single other Member of the House has done. They were apparently trying to save their faces. The Leader of the House said that he was trying to save the faces of the hon. Member for Leicester and the other labour Members. But the railway directors do not want to save their faces; they want the thing definitely in black and white. They have been "had" before.
  Let me speak not as a railway director or as a railway shareholder, but purely as a member of the ordinary public, who do not get much attention nowadays. You had unrest in 1907, and the matter was then supposed to be settled until the year 1914. Both parties were bound by the agreement. The directors thought the men were bound by it, and the men for a certain number of years thought they were bound by it. Then came agitation, and the men were going to drive straight through the 1907 agreement. Another agreement was come to. The companies and the men came face to face for a second time in August last, and everybody came out of the meeting believing they were to be bound by the Report of the Royal Commission. It was stated in the papers at the time that both parties had agreed to be so bound. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), according to the papers, said the same thing the next day. Now we have the leader of the Labour party saying, "It all took place about twelve o'clock; we were all so tired that we did not hear what was said; we wanted to get away; we had had enough of it; we did not really know what was going on." That is supposed to be sufficient for saying that the men are not bound by the agreement. That is the sort of thing the directors wish to guard themselves against this

  1299
  time, and therefore they would prefer to have it in black and white. The Prime Minister said, "You have practically got it as good as in black and white; we all know what it is; I have made as plain a statement as I could." But the directors having gone through these two experiences say that they would prefer now to have it in black and white.
  That is the whole point of this Amendment. What is there in this Amendment with which hon. Members on the Labour Benches cannot agree? "The Report of the Royal Commission being accepted by both parties"! Are we to make out that hon. Members opposite below the Gangway do not accept the Report? When that Commission was appointed by the Government both sides agreed, as far as any words could bind anybody, to accept the findings of the Commission. That is the whole point of this Amendment, and that is what the words of the Prime Minister practically amount to. I do not speak for the railway directors, but I imagine that hon. Members on this side of the House would like to say, if those words mean what I say, that they would like to see them in black and white. It is not worth while travelling over the whole railway system to see whether the men are or are not penalised as outlaws. That is not the point. I hope the House will see the reasonableness of our attitude.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has certainly seized on the kind of technical points which we have been discussing in this House more or less all day. When he says that is the only other real point, I think he is entirely mistaken. The only other real point is very much larger. This House has been discussing this matter this afternoon in a most curiously unreal manner. What are the real facts? The real facts are that you have outside this House hundreds of thousands of railway men in a state of dissatisfaction. There are very large bodies of these men dissatisfied with their conditions of labour, with their wages, dissatisfied that they have no recognition, and threatening in a short time to come out on strike again. Those are the actual facts. Those are the facts that we must bear in mind if we want to do any good here at all. It is curious that in our discussion to day we have had a great many arguments about what has happened and about what has not happened in the past. We have not had sufficient
  1300
  recognition, I think, in the House of the actual facts as they are to-day outside the House. Why are we discussing this matter at all? We are discussing it surely because we all know that a railway strike is a very disastrous thing, not only for the railway men themselves and the companies, but for all the inhabitants of the country in every way, and for every trade in the country.
  We know that a short time ago this country was placed in a most serious position. Most lamentable occurrences took place which everyone regretted. We want, as Members of this House, to find a method of trying to avoid a similar conflict taking place. It is not a question of putting a few words into the Amendment. It is not a question of what the railway directors want at all. It is a question of what we, the representatives of the electors of the country, want. I am tired of being told that the railway directors want to do this or that. The railway companies are the children of Parliament. They are there in pursuance of the statutory powers given to them, and I say most strongly that what we consider is in the public interest is what they must do or must not do. That lies at the bottom of the whole position. The Noble Lord the Member for Kensington argued at one moment the railway companies were in a different position to private concerns, that they were carrying out a great public trust. To a certain extent I agree. But if they are carrying out a great public trust under Parliamentary control, it is also the duty of Parliament to exercise that control, and not to leave it to the sweet will of a certain body of gentlemen, however estimable, to say whether or not they will give recognition to the trade unions or starve the population of the country for weeks.
  On the question of recognition I listened very carefully to the speeches of the Noble Lord the Member for Kensington. I read all the evidence of the railway managers before the Royal Commission, and I must honestly confess, as one who has had some experience of the employment of labour, who has had negotiations with trade union representatives, as one who has had practical experience of this question, that I cannot for the life of me see the difference between a railway company and any other undertaking in negotiating with trade union representatives. The Noble Lord, the Member for Kensington, argued on the curious assumption: firstly, that the result of recognition would be that all the men would join a

  1301
  union. Well, I have not found that to be the case in works which I am interested in. Secondly, he argued, if that took place, then circumstances would arise which would make it quite impossible for them to conduct their business. Why would it be impossible for them to conduct their business? Other industries do so.
  Take the great cotton industry of Lancashire. Practically the whole cotton trade of Lancashire is a trade union industry worked by conciliation boards, and certainly they have no trouble in managing that industry. The railway directors say they are responsible for the life and limb of the public. That is a mere phrase. The fact that they meet members of trade unions, that they have trade union delegates with them to discuss questions of service or hours, or terms of employment, does not in the least interfere, and should not be allowed to interfere with their conduct of the railways. Take the public tramway system of this country. Tramways are also public trusts. Tramways are also responsible for the safe carrying of the people. Yet I would venture to say that a very, very large proportion of the men engaged on the tramways of this country are trade union men. No people who run the tramways, no corporation, would refuse to meet the representatives of the tramway unions on the plea that it was a danger to the discipline on the tramways. The fact is that those arguments arise from an absolutely old - fashioned superstition and a perfectly ridiculous fear that those hon. Gentlemen with whom hon. Members opposite talk courteously across the floor of the House would, if they met them in a room somewhere to talk over this business, behave otherwise. No, say the directors, we must have the railway men represented at one end of the room and we at the other. If we were to sit down at one table the railway system of the country would come to an end. Is it not time that these childish expressions ceased? These ideas are not held by all the railway companies.
  Take the North-Eastern Railway Company. They certainly had grievances in the late strike. For all that the North-Eastern Railway is one of the most efficient, one of the best-managed, and one of the most profitable companies in the country. I know the general manager, Mr. Butterworth, one of the ablest of railway men that ever I had the pleasure of meeting or of having conference with. That
  1302
  company has given recognition to the trade unions, and none of the terrible results that have been prophesied have happened on the North-Eastern. Why should they happen on the Great Western? We have been given certain figures. I must really point out to the House that the figures which have been used are not quite fair. Because certain railway men at Swansea or on the South-Eastern Railway are not trade unionists, that is no answer to those trade unionists who want "recognition."
  It is no answer to people who have what they regard as a definite grievance, and although we may find it difficult to realise that it is a grievance, it is all the same a real grievance, giving rise to a feeling that they are being treated differently and are being treated with insult, when compared with other people amongst whom they are working. That is one of the points that has been impressed upon me most strongly by reasonable and moderate men. The Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford, cannot understand the object there is in having recognition, and he cannot see what it to be gained by it. That shows he has very little experience of trade union work. He went on to say that there was great difference between a national strike and a private strike, and that the railway men should not go on strike because that would create a great calamity. Under his conditions of railway management the men would never be entitled to strike, because the strike would create a national calamity, but if the men do not strike they get nothing. The great point is to avert this calamity, and the way to avert it is to procure compulsory arbitration in railway disputes or else to establish State ownership. That must be obvious to everyone, and it is becoming increasingly obvious to other traders, who are quite tired of seeing their business threatened and their workmen thrown out in the street owing to such strikes. It is quite clear that the present state of things cannot continue.
  After all, the resolution of the railway men is extremely moderate. All they ask is to be admitted to a conference upon the basis of representation, and now we are asked to go into elaborate kinds of verbal niceties as to what this conference is to do. I suggest as a practical person that this conference should meet and discuss matters. Suppose they come to no conclusion they will be no worse off. The railway companies will not be damnified. I believe conferences of this kind must do good. I am a great believer in people

  1303
  coming together and talking matters over. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Lockwood) made a most moderate speech, and he admitted he would not be against talking matters over with trade union leaders. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman could by blood transfusion inoculate the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and the Noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton), a surgical operation of that kind, would settle the whole question.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I am afraid it would only leave me whiter.
  Sir A. MOND: I should be sorry the hon. Gentleman should fail in such a good cause. One thing that struck me immensely in reading the evidence of the railway managers was that they admitted that on various occasions they had benefited and got through a lot of difficulties by consultation under the conciliation scheme and discussion with Mr. Richard Bell in regard to matters that had arisen in connection with the interpretation of awards. If that was the case then, why not expand it. I do not think it is quite fully realised, that in one clause of the Commission's Report recognition is advocated, at any rate in relation to conciliation. If you take the procedure recommended by the Commission in regard to 25 per cent. of signatures to the petition, there the men go to the directors, and if they do not agree they go to the conciliation board. At the conciliation board the trade union representative can attend but he cannot attend in the first instance. Is that not really a very small point over which the railway directors are quarrelling? It is very difficult for a man to take up negotiations in the middle after the men have presented their cases. The men may advance very foolish and unjustifiable arguments, and they may give away their whole case. Then you come to the conciliation board. Suddenly the trade union representative comes in and finds himself weighted with all the statements made upon the previous occasion when he was not present, and this puts him in the difficult position of either repudiating them or accepting them. If he were there from the beginning and had the handling of the case from the outset, it would be more easy for him and more satisfactory for all, and would save time in the long run.
  It is somewhat like the difficulty that occurs in having a solicitor in the Lower Court and a counsel in the Higher Court
  1304
  on appeal. It would be much better to have counsel from the beginning, and the same applies to the trade union representative who finds himself placed in a difficulty of this kind. Once this was agreed to, the whole of these quarrels would be pretty well settled. You have these men at the conciliation board; you agree to that, but you say that the railway system would come to an end if the directors received trade unionists on deputations. When you say that, are you not really fining things down to a point which no workman or business man outside this House can possibly understand? I feel sure that this concession, which, after all, is a very small concession, ought to be made. I hold no brief for trade unions, I do not say they are always wise, or that their leaders are always reasonable, or their followers always sagacious, but I say the time is passed when any big organisation can stand out by itself and say, "We will not do what everyone else does." After all the Post Office and the Postmaster-General have given recognition. The Post Office is a great public department with more duties to the public than the railway companies, and they have found it possible to carry on the Post Office after giving recognition. Of course they have different arrangements to railway companies, and possibly we may have different arrangements for railway companies if recognition was allowed.
  The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps) is very ingeniously worded, and it is because it is so ingeniously worded that I find hon. Members below the Gangway are loath to accept it. Gentlemen learned in the law are very ingenious in their language, and we often have to get others to tell us what it means. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches are not at the moment able to say to what point they bind themselves by accepting this Amendment, I think these matters might well form, the subject of friendly conversations. It is surely not our business to lay down the exact terms or conditions under which these conferences should take place. The Prime Minister said he would only use his good offices on certain terms for the conferences to meet, and if the conferences do meet he will see these terms are applied, and otherwise he will not support the conferences. It is not the duty of the House of Commons in the course of a Debate and an interchange of notes across the floor of the House to settle the question as to what this conference has to be exactly bound to.

  1305
  It is our duty to settle the principle, which is that a conference should take place, and the wider the terms of the conference the better. We wish to do everything we can to induce both parties to take every step humanly conceivable to avoid a repetition of the days we went through last August. As members of the general public we have a vital interest in doing everything we can and using what power or influence we have in order to prevent a strike coming about, and I shall certainly support the Resolution of the hon. Member for Leicester.
  Mr. E. CECIL: I think several points have been made during this Debate which require answering. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle earlier in the evening referred to Clause 53 of the Commissioners' Report, and said that they were advocating recognition because that Clause had been inserted. If that Clause is carefully read it is perfectly obvious that the suggestion was limited by a paragraph in Clause 54, which shows that the Commissioners were disposed to accept recognition, so far as it was found in the subsequent paragraphs. I cannot believe that any extended interpretation can be put on that Clause or that the mind of the Commissioners can have been otherwise than that the limitation was to be strictly confined to what was stated in the Report itself. The hon. Baronet who has just spoken (Sir A. Mond) has certainly brought a good many misconceptions into this matter, and he studiously ignored the history of this dispute. It is all very well to come forward and say that this is a reasonable request, and why not enter into a conference because the parties are thoroughly agreed. If we both began with a clean slate no doubt it would be perfectly reasonable, but this is not the case. I do not wish to put the case unfairly, but certainly the trade union representatives are open to the allegation and the charge that two whole months elapsed without their contradicting the official statement that both sides were to be bound by the Report of the Royal Commission, and it was only when the Report was published that any suggestion was made that the men were not to be bound by it, although the railway directors were to be bound by it. You cannot ignore that history of the question, and naturally it has produced some mistrust between the two parties.
  It cannot be supposed that the railway companies will go into a conference of this kind, bound to accept in all respects the Report of the Royal Commission, while the
  1306
  men's representatives are enabled to throw open the whole quarrel again and have the right to rediscuss a large number of questions. It is really asking the railway companies to agree, in a new conference, that there shall be no concession by the trade union leaders, whereas the railway companies are to be pressed to give what the Railway Commission did not grant. Even if the trade union leaders did by any chance agree to a concession they have not sufficient control over the men to insure that that concession will be carried out. I cannot help feeling that much of this unfortunate situation is due to matters of somewhat long standing. I do not know why in cases where friendly relations have long subsisted, as is the case in a great portion of the railway world, they are to be interfered with merely because the question of recognition is to be raised. After all, recognition has become a sort of election fetish, and I wish there was a more clear definition of it. The Commissioners' Report itself complains that there is no sufficient definition of recognition. I do not know whether it is very rash of me to rush in where others have failed, but I would say that recognition is really the admittance of a third and biassed party as a permanent intermediary between employers and employed. I think that is a fair definition, and, that being so, it is perfectly intelligible why one party does not altogether appreciate it. Is recognition, after all, very useful, and does it do any great amount of good? Look at the North-Eastern Railway. They have had recognition, and have they escaped the strike? It did not produce peace in that case. Has it increased the goodwill between the different grades on that railway? It is general public information that there has been continuous trouble on that railway ever since recognition was granted. I do not see the advantage of recognition.
  If you turn to the South-Western Railway they have no recognition and there was no strike, and it is equally well known that they are on excellent terms with the men. [Laughter.] I thought I heard a sneer from hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "We laughed."] I do not know what hon. Members laughed at. Is it suggested that the South-Western Railway Company is not on good terms with its employés?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: They are all Socialists and they all wear a red tie.
  Mr. E. CECIL: There is no discontent, but when outside agitators came into the

  1307
  district two men struck work out of 27,000 employés. Not only was there no discontent, but in the case of one of those men who struck he made a statement that he was perfectly happy in his position and perfectly contented with his wages, but he said that he had been ordered to come out and he did so. With such evidence it cannot be denied that much of this recognition and this pressure of trade union leaders is tending to create discontent and to foment dissatisfaction to the detriment of the public interest. Nobody wants to treat the men unfairly. In the words of the last paragraph of the Royal Commission Report it is stated that any case fairly put ought to be fairly considered, and that when a grievance is disclosed it ought to be remedied, and with any proper spirit existing between the management and the men I feel convinced it would be remedied. It is most unfortunate that where mutual cordiality exists it should be sought to bring in a remedy which certainly produces less cordiality and which I believe is wholly unnecessary really in the interests of the men themselves. With a fair and considerate management such as I know exists on the London and South-Western Railway, the men are encouraged to come direct to the management, state their grievances, talk the whole matter over, and time after time during many years past those grievances have been remedied to the satisfaction of the men.
  The suggestion has been made to-night by one of the speakers that the men are afraid to speak out because they will be victimised. I have had opportunities of listening to the advocacy of the men, I have warmly appreciated its excellence, and I can say of my own knowledge that on more than one occasion, men who have disclosed so great ability in stating their case have been recommended for promotion and have been promoted. I should have thought hon. Members sitting on the benches below the Gangway opposite would have appreciated that attitude, and would indeed have cheered it. I think it is an attitude that ought to be encouraged. It is one which makes for a good understanding between all classes concerned, and it is certainly to the public interest. One cannot but remember, again quoting the London and South-Western Railway, that when the last conciliation scheme was voted upon only two-thirds of the men entitled to vote did vote, and at least one-third, being something over 4,000, did not
  1308
  record their votes at all. It does not look, if that may be taken as evidence, as if there was any great dissatisfaction among the men, or as if there was any great enthusiam about the institution of the conciliation scheme. At the same time, I do not want to attach too great importance to any facts these figures disclose, but I do think they go far to point out that a great deal of the dissatisfaction which is supposed to exist does not exist, and that but for other influences—influences perhaps connected with increasing the membership of the trade unions, and so getting greater subscriptions—there would not be much of the discontent that is alleged. After all, there are serious objections to recognition. If in the case to which I have referred there are only 10 per cent. of the men who belong to the union, it is hardly true or just to urge that the leaders of those unions are the representatives of the men. That is an argument against recognition.
  Mr. HODGE: They do not get enough wages to pay into the union.
  Mr. E. CECIL: They do not get enough wages to pay into the union?
  Mr. HODGE: No, they only get 16s. or 18s. a week.
  Mr. E. CECIL: They get more than that. The hon. Member does not know his facts.
  Mr. HODGE: A great number do not get more than 16s. or 18s. a week.
  Mr. E. CECIL: Not a single man gets 16s. a week. Surely if the railway directors are to be responsible for the safety of the travelling public they must be masters in their own house. We hear sometimes of a national programme. I do not think those who advocate it fully realise what it really entails, or I can hardly believe they would, as practical men, advocate it. They suggest an expenditure which anyone would think reckless in an ordinary business concern, and it is perhaps particularly reckless in the kind of business in which railways are specially engaged. If further concessions are granted to leaders, it is known only too well they have no adequate control over the men to get those concessions accepted. That, to my mind, is a reason against recognition. We know that the men of the North-Eastern Railway would not go back to work when they were told to do so by their leaders. That does not look as if their control was so complete that the leaders could be accepted and recognition could be granted. There is

  1309
  no certainty the men would follow their lead. It is far wiser to try and bring the two sides together by a mutual spirit of good understanding than to introduce recognition, which necessarily brings in greater bitterness, and which is more open to the suspicion of unreasonableness. I hope the House will allow the words of the Amendment to be inserted. It is really desirable we should know exactly where we are, and that we should start working together, accepting the Report of the Commission as a whole, and not making it merely the basis for further concession, and therefore greater friction and greater public misfortune. I think if both sides recognise their duty to the
  public and to themselves, they will take this Report as it stands, make it work to the utmost of their ability, and so do a great public service all round.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not rise to continue the Debate, but rather to suggest that the discussion upon this particular Amendment should now come to a termination. It has been discussed very fully, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by prolonging it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 218.

  Division No. 401.]

  AYES.

  [9.55 P.m.

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Baird, J. L.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldman, C. S.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Goulding, E. A.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Stanier, Beville

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Swift, Rigby

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cator, John

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

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

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

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Waring, Walter

  Craik, Sir Henry

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Cripps and Mr. Cave.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Peto, Basil Edward

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clough, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Adamson, William

  Clynes, John R.

  Falconer, J.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Anderson, A. M.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Armitage, Robert

  Cotton, William Francis

  Furness, Stephen

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crooks, William

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gill, A. H.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barton, William

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Bentham, George Jackson

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

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  De Forest, Baron

  Gulland, John William

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hackett, J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Brace, William

  Doris, W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

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

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Elverstoh, Sir Harold

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Middlebrook, William

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Herbert, Sir Ivor

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Snowden, P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Neilson, Francis

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hinds, John

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Summers, James Woolley

  Hodge, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutton, John E.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Grady, James

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Shee, James John

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wardle, George J.

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  King, J.

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Webb, H.

  Lansbury, George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Reddy, Michael

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whyte, A. F.

  Logan, John William

  Richards, Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Martin, Joseph

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Duncan and Mr. J. Parker.

  Meagher, Michael

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

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Prosposed words added.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I now beg to move to leave out of the Resolution the words "declares such refusal to be contrary to the public interest and to have no justification."
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I rise to second the Amendment, and I would like to reply to two statements made by the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil). The hon. Member said it was impossible to have recognition if the railway companies were to be responsible for the discipline of the company. But the North-Eastern Company have recognised the men's union, and have not found any insuperable difficulty on that point. I want to refer to this fact, that the general manager of the North-Eastern Railway Company said that he was perfectly satisfied to go on in the future as they had done in the past. I agree that it is not with the past that we have to deal, but with the future. What we have to do to-night is to find out whether there is any way in which this House can practically by a
  1312
  unanimous vote exercise its great authority in the cause of peace.
  Mr. CAVE: On a point of Order. Would not the Amendment, which the Government stated it was their intention to move, come before the Amendment which is now proposed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the Government do not propose to proceed with their Amendment.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I am anxious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should explain this Amendment further to the House, and I will therefore second the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was certainly my intention to move the insertion of the words referred to, but I ascertained through the usual channels that they were not acceptable to either the party opposite or to the party below the Gangway. In those conditions we came to the conclusion that it would be a great mistake for us to press them upon the House. If they had been acceptable to either of the two parties we

  1313
  should have certainly moved the Amendment. I am of opinion that it would have been perhaps the best form of words, but we could not in these conditions press them upon the House, inasmuch as they would not have been an agreement even on this side. If we had had the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite we might have proposed them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Try it now."]
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We prefer our own words.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was certainly under the impression that having tried to carry the much stronger words suggested by hon. Members opposite and having failed, they would accept as a second best the words of the Government. I have been in communication with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite on this subject, and I have tried to ascertain their views. If we had an assurance of their support on the subject it would have been worth our while to move. [HON. MEMBERS: "Try it now."] If anybody with authority is in a position to say so I shall be glad to hear it. But I am afraid it is too late, because there is a question of order.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Have you not got opinions of your own?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We are only anxious to try and carry something which as far as possible will reach agreement in the House. We are not going to press this thing as a party matter. That would have been the effect if we had moved these words without any support from hon. Gentlemen opposite or from hon. Members below the Gangway. We were assured that that support would not be forthcoming, and under those conditions we have to fall back on what we think is the second best, that is this Amendment.
  Mr. CAVE: I am not a person of authority, and have no right to speak for anybody but myself, but I think what I am going to say is also held by many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. After the speech of the Prime Minister, and the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, I think I am right in saying that the whole tone of the Debate has changed, and that we should welcome the Amendment which was to be proposed by the Government as a great improvement in the Motion on the Paper, even with the Amendment now moved to
  1314
  it. That being so, I should regret very much if the Amendment suggested by the Government were not moved. I say with all the strength I can that the Motion as proposed to be amended by the Government is much more likely to tend to peace than the Motion as it is now proposed to be amended, and would be much more likely to lead to a meeting between both sides, with a chance of bringing things to a reasonable conclusion, than if the Amendment was dropped. I was not aware of any discussion upon it. I am certain of this, that if the Government will adhere to that proposal they will receive a very large amount of support from this side of the House, certainly including my own, I shall look upon it not only as a disappointment, but something more, if the Government recede from the position they took up. I think it would be quite possible for them to move their own Amendment if this Amendment were now with drawn.
  Mr. BRACE: The Debate has changed more than once to-day, and we have had considerable difficulty in following it from stage to stage, but I think we have now reached a point in which, if I understand the position of the Government, we, the representatives of the Labour party, will be able to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones), which I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts. The Motion will then read with the words "declares such refusal to be contrary to the public interest and to have no justification" deleted. May I tell the House—and I say this with much confidence—that we stand as the spokesmen on behalf of labour exactly where my distinguished Friend, the Leader of the party, put us this afternoon. We have no desire to withdraw from a position which has been so clearly laid down. Therefore, when we invite the House of Commons to be the medium through which the directors shall meet the representatives of labour in conference, it is on the understanding that they are to meet in conference on the distinct issue of interpreting the Commission's Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] This is not a time for hilarity. May I express the sincere hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in this House will understand that the position is a serious one. There are only two ways of settling labour troubles. One is by negotiation and conciliation, and the other is by strike. It is because, as the representatives of labour, that we

  1315
  think the public has much to gain, as well as ourselves and the employers, that we welcome the introduction of a proposition that we hope will mean the settling of the trouble on the railways of this country by negotiation and conciliation rather than by war. We are living in rather unsettling days. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken with some misgiving about the capacity of Labour leaders to lead their men. If the House of Commons would understand the serious position that Labour leaders are in they would not expect more from us than that we should do our level best to be loyal to the agreements that we enter into. Unless some such Resolution were carried as it now stands the position would be seriously jeopardised. May I say to the railway directors that I do not understand their opposition. I have for more than twenty years been a recognised trade union leader, with no difficulty at all in coming into direct contact with the employers and their representatives, and a member of a conciliation board for more years than I care to remember, and I am certain that if these employers were asked they would not go back to the old days, when we had to fight out our troubles by guerilla warfare rather than by negotiation.
  The hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) talked something about compulsory arbitration. I am not in favour of compulsory arbitration. The genius of the British people is based largely upon voluntaryism, and we have agreed in practice on conciliation boards based upon a voluntary basis plus mutual confidence by the representatives of capital and the representatives of labour as being by far the best means for settling disputes between capital and labour. What is the attitude adopted by railway directors? I have been at a loss to understand the arrogant claim that they set up that they ought not to be called upon to meet the representatives of labour. What are the railway directors other than representatives of capital? In principle there is no difference whatsoever, and if the workmen's representatives are not to be recognised, by what principle of equity and fairplay are the representatives of capital to be recognised? I put exactly the same position in connection with the managers of the railway companies. They are simply the representatives of their employers as we are the representatives of our employers, therefore when we ask that the railway directors shall go into conference to
  1316
  argue the terms of the Commissioners' Report, we feel that we are going in the direction that is best open to us to provide a peaceful means for the settlement of the grievances and the disputes which exist at present. The Government could not resist this proposition. The Government itself has established precedents in connection with all its great State Departments which would compel them to recognise this proposition. If there had been a dispute in connection with the War Office, or the Education Department, or the Board of Trade there would be no trouble whatever. We should have a free course for negotiation and conciliation. How, therefore, could the Government resist this proposition that we are making in connection with the meeting of the directors and the workmen's representatives to interpret this Report? I take my stand broadly upon the terms of our Motion. We infinitely prefer our Motion as it stands upon the Paper, but for the sake of peace, for the sake of a better understanding, for the purpose of bringing through negotiations with the mutual confidence which is essential between capital and labour if disruptions are to be prevented, we are ready to recognise the reasonableness of the proposition to delete the words. I hope the House of Commons will unanimously record its vote in favour of this. It will be an earnest to the men who are now taking a ballot on this great question, and who are looking with more than anxiety upon the decision of Parliament in connection with this matter. If they find that the House of Commons has by a unanimous vote recorded the fact that the directors and themselves are to go into conference, I am certain it will have a great influence on how that vote shall be cast in the ballot. If a conference can take place without the shadow of the ballot-box decision calling upon the railway workers to come to a standstill on a given day, assuredly when the representatives of the companies and the men come face to face their experience will be the same as the experience of others when they meet round a table to discuss matters in dispute. I hope that the Motion will be carried unanimously, that the conference will settle these matters once and for all, that we shall have swept out of the way all those difficulties, and that the railway men will have the same recognition of their organisations as is given in connection with the other staple industries of the country.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Brace) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the general disposition of capital and labour. I believe the Resolution, as we have it now, makes not for peace, but for war, and I think the House of Commons has reason to complain of the manner in which it has been treated by the Government this evening. We had from the Prime Minister a considered Resolution framed with the skill of which he is a master and without prejudice. Personally, I do not think it differed much from the Amendment moved toy my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Alfred Cripps). Now the House is asked to adopt the Resolution as amended, framed with prejudice and directed against the railway companies. The words are still left in, "We regret the attitude of the railway directors." Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not contradict me, and therefore I say this Resolution is framed with prejudice, and is meant as a demonstration against the railway companies by those who vote for it. I do not mean to take sides in this dispute. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have had the courage of his opinions, and the Government might have stuck to the words they themselves proposed. What reason is there for modifying their attitude since the words were read out at the Table? There are many of us—I can speak for myself and I think for others also—who would have voted with the Government if they had pursued their Resolution—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes certainly, if they had pursued their Resolution and allowed us to take a vote on the words of the Amendment as read out by the Prime Minister. I do not suppose they will be able to vote for the Resolution as proposed now. It has become a party Resolution, and is likely to lead to disturbance rather than settlement.
  After all, this is a matter not to be settled here, and although the railway companies have had a great deal of abuse tonight, especially in one very violent speech by an hon. Member below the Gangway, nobody will wish that they should enter into conference with anything but goodwill. The Government should look at this matter not from a party point of view, but in the interest of industrial peace in the country. The Government have most at stake, but they will recollect the event of last August. They ought to stick to their own Resolution. They ought to have the courage of their opinions, and not change their words at the eleventh hour in order there was not the same reason for moving
  1318
  Gangway, some of whom at least are out for blood.
  Mr. LANSBURY: No.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I was only using the phrase figuratively and not literally. I meant that they wished for sharp industrial conflict, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. I was using a phrase of common talk. I hope that the Government, now that they have an assurance of considerable support from this side of the House, will propose the Amendment, and I am sure that we shall be glad to support it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said quite distinctly I would have preferred the words we read out to the House, but if we moved them and went to a Division with only the support of our own party, surely that would have made them more party than ever. I could not consult all the hon. Gentlemen opposite. That would be out of the question, but I did consult those who, I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit, are in authority on the other side, and distinctly stated that if I had an assurance that these words would be accepted, not as the best, but as the second best after the hon. and learned Gentleman's, I should certainly move them. After consultation among hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench I got a reply that they could not consent to them on behalf of the Opposition. I then said that being the case, we could not accept the responsibility of moving them, because we would only get the support of our own immediate Friends. That would make it purely a sectional Resolution which would not carry the authority that it would carry if the whole of the Members on this side were to support it. The only object we had in suggesting it was to get some kind of common feeling of the House. Even if my hon. Friends below the Gangway voted against it, still I would have accepted the responsibility of moving it if Members on the other side of the House were prepared to support it. But I got; no assurance of the kind—quite the reverse. Therefore we were in the position to say we must fall back on the original position taken up by the Prime Minister when he opened the Debate. That was a suggestion made in the course of the proceedings when we were feeling our way towards getting a Resolution that would unite all parties in the House. The moment it became evident that it would not even unite these two parties, there was not the same reason for moving

  1319
  it, and we therefore very regretfully and very reluctantly were forced to fall back on the Amendment now before the House.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is true that a number of us on this side of the House practically felt that we really could not accept the Chancellor's words as they stood, because they left it, as he would say, to be implicitly understood that this agreement was accepted by both parties. Our words made it perfectly clear that the agreement was accepted by both parties. One was an implicit expression of opinion that the agreement was accepted; the other was explicit. Had a number of us known and realised that the Chancellor was going to take the course of withdrawing his Amendment, we should then have been in the position of having to decide between voting for the Chancellor's Amendment and voting for the original Resolution.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said so. I do not mean that I said it across the floor of the House, but I did explain that unless I got the support of hon. Members on the other side, as I knew that my hon. Friends below the Gangway would vote against it, I would not undertake the responsibility of moving it. I made this perfectly clear.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will try to make our position, right or wrong, perfectly clear. Between the Chancellor's Amendment and my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment we prefer my hon. and learned Friend's. Between the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment and the Resolution we much prefer the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. The Resolution of the Labour Members contains the word "regret," which implies a certain amount of censure. It is a common phrase in this House, "We regret that the Government has done so and so," and it is tantamount to censure. The Government Amendment does nothing of that kind, and of the two we much prefer the proposal of the Government. I regret very much that they have not given us an opportunity to express an opinion upon it.
  Mr. HUDSON: I think it would be well that we should finish this debate in the same spirit in which it was begun. I should be sorry to say a single word that would cause bitterness of feeling, or would in any degree be a hindrance to the two sides coming together and discussing with the greatest freedom how to work the system of conciliation boards. The hon.
  1320
  Member for Ashton Manor said it would be a good thing if we had a clean slate. I think so too. But we have been forcibly reminded during this Debate of certain matters which have caused mischief and discord in the relations between the employers and the workmen, though I think they are more imaginary than real. Several speakers have made reference to the position of the North-Eastern Railway Company, and I happen to be secretary to the men's side of the conciliation board in connection with that company. I do not want to give my opinion, which to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might appear somewhat biased, but I will draw a picture in the case of the North-Eastern Company and the award known as the Sir James Wodehouse award of the 1st December, 1909. That award took effect on the same date as the award of the Great Northern Company's, of which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is a director. In the first case I met in conference at York a number of men, sitting on the Conciliation Board, for the interpretation and application by mutual agreement of the Wodehouse Award. I had been advocate in the case of the Great Northern men. I approached the Great Northern Company, and eventually I secured a meeting with the general manager of that company. I tried to induce him to sit down and talk about the various differences that had arisen through misunderstanding. This is the picture I want to draw: One day I would meet him in perfect harmony and perfect good will; the North-Eastern Railway Company having the general manager as chief spokesman on one side and I as chief spokesman on the other. The next day I go to the manager of the Great Northern Railway Company and I ask him to sit down and as a sensible man see if we cannot arrange the difference there is between us in a matter of interpretation. He says, "No, if I do it will be said to-morrow that I have given you recognition." I want the House just to see the ridiculousness of the situation. I think an hon. Member on the other side some time ago said, "Look at the difficulty that the North-Eastern Company had as the result of recognition." I do not want the House to take my view, but to take that of the general manager. What does he say. He says with regard to strikes, and I am reading from the evidence he gave before the Royal Commission:—
  "Then with regard to strikes of course there one must confess to a certain disappointment. I think the

  1321
  most has been made of our trouble. When you get London gentlemen talking about the North-Eastern as being in a state of 'chaos and confusion,' I am glad to say that our north-country friends laugh, and they rather wonder what Noah's Ark those gentlemen have come out of, and would like them to come up and spend a few weeks in the North."
  Again, he says in another part of his evidence in answer to questions:—
  "As regards the gentlemen who talk of 'chaos and confusion' on the North-Eastern, one would like to ask them to study the Stock Exchange lists and see whether North-Eastern stocks and North-Eastern dividends have gone down in a very different ratio from those of other companies who do not recognise."
  I would ask the House to consider the statement of the general manager of one of the best managed railways in this country, and I also desire to emphasise the point made by one of my hon. Friends, that the question of discipline is clearly defined under our rules as not one of the matters the men could raise. I ask the House to support us in this Motion in order, if we possibly can, to convince the directors of the railway companies, in perfect good will, that if they would only be wise enough to meet the men that this pending difficulty would be got over.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I trust that the House will reconsider the position. We are really not here in order to vindicate our amour propre. We are here to see, if possible, if we can honourably arrive at a settlement which would obviate the possibilities of a general strike, which would be a national calamity, taking place. I consider myself, having listened very carefully to all the earlier part of this Debate, when the main issues between the directors and the men were set forth, that I should not be able, either in honour or in good faith, to take part in any Resolution whatever which voted even a modicum of censure on the directors. That is the opinion which, coming really with an open mind to the speeches, I formed after hearing the full deilvery of both cases. I judge from the report that has reached me of the Government Amendment that that is really the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as the Prime Minister takes up. That being the case, it is impossible for us on this side to use the word "regret" in the Resolution. It is quite plain to anybody who has been only a year or two a Member of this House, let alone those who have been here a long time, that it is impossible to use the expression "this House regrets" that a certain course of action was pursued, when that course is one which we believe is not open to censure, but is open to fair argument. How does the matter stand? Both
  1322
  sides—even the Labour party concur in this, as far as I can gather—agree that the findings of the Commission are binding upon both parties. The Labour party think—the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) especially pointed out—that there are certain matters, such as the methods of enforcing the findings of the Commission, which might lead to friction, and that discussion might obviate that friction. Therefore, I claim that the whole House is, in substance, of opinion that the findings of the Commission should be the basis of future discussion, that that should not be departed from, and that the discussion which this House invites both parties to take part in should be one as to details and as to the methods by which those findings should be carried out. If that is the general feeling, surely the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are far more fitting to express the sense of the House than any others that have been produced, except those of my hon. and learned Friend, for which I would gladly have voted. Although it is absolutely beyond my power to give any guarantee, yet, speaking with a sense of responsibility, I believe the words suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be supported by my hon. Friends as against the Resolution as it stands. Those words, I understand, to be these: "That, in the opinion of this House, a meeting should take place between representatives of both parties to discuss the best mode of giving effect to the Report of the Royal Commission, and the House asks the Government to use its good offices to bring both sides into that conference without delay." Those words would enable both parties without any loss of honour or of self-respect to meet and discuss the question of enforcing the award by which both parties are bound. I trust that that view will be taken by the Government.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can speak again only by leave of the House. Hon. Members heard the statement of the Government. The only difficulty is one which I have already mentioned. Not only was I not assured of support, but I was assured that there would be no support.
  Lord BALCARRES: A misunderstanding.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I wish the right hon. Gentleman who took part in the discussion had been present; but I am perfectly prepared to accept the statement of

  1323
  the Noble Lord. I understand now from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alfred Lyttelton) that he and the hon. Members behind him would be prepared to support the words read out by me earlier in the evening. I am prepared still to adhere to those words. I still think they are better. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay Mac-donald) will withdraw his Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—I shall be preferred to move them. May I just say this to my hon. Friend: this is a very grave situation. We want, above everything, to avoid a great national conflict. If this goes out, not so much as an appeal of the House of Commons, but for the moment as an appeal of two or three parties in the House to the railway directors, it will not have the same effect as an appeal which came from the House of Commons as a whole. I think it is vital—if I may say so—that those whom my hon. Friend represents below the Gangway should have an opportunity of meeting the directors to discuss these questions of very important detail. I do not see how the railway directors can possibly refuse—even if some are indisposed to meet—if it came as an invitation from the House as a whole. I earnestly appeal to my hon. Friends, whatever their personal views about the matter may be—and I know that their feelings must necessarily be strong—and nobody appreciates more than I do the special difficulties that they have—that if in substance they get what they are pleading for, that is a meeting of the railway directors, not to stand upon the mere form of the Resolution, but to allow any words to be carried which will enable us to go with much greater force behind us to the railway directors in appealing to them to get a meeting with the men. I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and then I shall move these words.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: In order that the House may have an opportunity of deciding clearly between the Motion and the Amendment which I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer will move, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I then beg to move these words—and I understand that at any rate I will get the assistance of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—
  "That in the opinion of this House a meeting should take place between
  1324
  representatives of the parties on whose behalf the Railway Agreement of August, 1911, was signed, to discuss the best mode of giving effect to the Report of the Royal Commission, and this House asks the Government to use its good offices to bring both sides into conference without delay."
  I must again appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, whatever their views may be upon a particular form of words, not to press the Amendment, so long as they in substance get an appeal from the House of Commons to the directors to meet the men to discuss the details of the Report, it will be infinitely better to get a unanimous vote, because the moral effect of that will be of great assistance. In spite of one or two speeches that have been made to-night, I have every confidence that even those who delivered those speeches will assent to what after all is one of the most powerful appeals that can be made to any body of men in this country—an appeal by the representatives of a united nation. I earnestly appeal that this Resolution may go unanimously from the House of Commons.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I shall take up very little time in stating our position.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: On a point of Order. Is the Amendment seconded?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not apply to Front Bench Amendments.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I should like very much, if it was possible, for the House to come to a unanimous decision. So far as the request for a meeting is concerned, on the lines of the speeches delivered to-day, accepting the Report generally as a foundation, and allowing a certain margin for negotiation and discussion and agreement—within those limits—we desire a meeting, and we will support the request for a meeting. We have consulted, not merely our colleagues in this House, but the representatives of the men outside, who are in other parts of the House. They tell us, and our experience bears out what they say, that there is a past behind all this, that Resolutions with veiled formula have been carried time and time again, and the men have been worsened in the negotiations that followed. We tell you quite plainly that when you put lawyers' brains to interpret resolutions like that the common blunt workman is no match for the lawyer. The result is that

  1325
  we are suspicious, we shall remain suspicious, and we must express our suspicion against such expressions as are in the Amendment. The Government undoubtedly have tried to devise a form of words which will probably meet our intention. That form of words will also meet the intentions of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) the Member for the City of London. We cannot forget the speeches that have been delivered, not merely by railway directors, but by highly influential railway directors during this Debate. We regret exceedingly we have to divide the House upon this Amendment, and we divide the House on it simply because we regard that formula about devising how to put the Report into operation as being indefinite, as being capable of a definition that would mean no discussion could take place upon the substance of the Report, and that being so, it is altogether inadequate to meet the situation, and with great regret we shall have to offer it opposition in the Lobby.
  Lord BALCARRES: I ask to be allowed to say a few words only. I was not present at the conversations to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, neither was my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. If any misunderstanding has occurred I am very sorry, but I should like to say to the House that neither my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law), nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Chamberlain) has been unsympathetic in any way towards the proposal of the Government, but they thought that they were not in a position
  to do what they understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired, namely, to give a practical guarantee that hon. Members on this side would vote in the Lobby with the Government. Personally, of course, I shall do so, but they thought it right to say they were not in that position because at a few moments' notice they could not give that guarantee, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, during the last twenty minutes the bulk of the hon. Members on this side of the House have signified that they are willing to support this Motion.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I am not going to prevent a Division being taken before Eleven o'clock. It is quite obvious that everybody is desirous of obtaining one object, and that is to pass a Resolution which will tend towards peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has drawn up a form of words with that one object in view. The Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Leicester, in the opinion of a great many hon. Members, surely, cannot have that effect, because it involves an indictment against one of the parties, and if we were to adopt that Resolution it would be binding one of the parties guilty of the conduct charged against them. I hope a large majority of the House will adopt the form of words proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 167.

  Division No. 402.]

  AYES.

  [10.58 p.m.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Adamson, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Alden, Percy

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Lansbury, George

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Logan, John William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Barton, W.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hancock, John G.

  Martin, Joseph

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Brace, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hayward, Evan

  Neilson, Francis

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Grady, James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pointer, Joseph

  Clynes, John R.

  Hinds, John

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hodge, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Crooks, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Richards, Thomas

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  De Forest, Baron

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jones, Lelf Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Wadsworth, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walters, John Tudor

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wardle, George J.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Webb, H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. Parker and Mr. C. Duncan.

  Sutton, John E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Greene, Walter Raymond

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

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Anton, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

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

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Radford, George Heynes

  Armitage, Robert

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Robertson, John M (Tyneside)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shirs)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Herbert, Colonel Sir Ivor

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

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Bigland, Alfred

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Bird, Alfred

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stanier, Beville

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon Sir Rufus

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Swift, Rigby

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

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

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

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cave, George

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

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

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Clough, William

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cowan, W. H.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Waring, Walter

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Whyte, A. F.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Falconer, J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Fell, Arthur

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

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

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Ellbank and Mr. Gulland.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved, "That, in the opinion of this House, a meeting should take place between the representatives of the parties on whose behalf the Railway Agreement
  1328
  of August, 1911, was signed, to discuss the best mode of giving effect to the Report of the Royal Commission, and this House asks the Government to use its good offices to bring both sides into conference without delay."
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Customs and Excise (Examination).
  Customs and Excise (Examination).
  Land Valuation (Form IV.).
  Land Valuation (Form IV.).
  Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries.
  Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries.
  Civil Government Charges.
  Civil Government Charges.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
  SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
  LOCAL HEALTH COMMITTEES.
  LOCAL HEALTH COMMITTEES.
  INVALIDITY INSURANCE IN GERMANY.
  INVALIDITY INSURANCE IN GERMANY.
  Land Valuation (Costs).
  Land Valuation (Costs).
  Appeal Judges, House of Lords.
  Appeal Judges, House of Lords.
  Galway Technical Institute.
  Galway Technical Institute.
  Irish Speaking Inspectors.
  Irish Speaking Inspectors.
  Teachers' Average Attendance (Ireland).
  Teachers' Average Attendance (Ireland).
  Police Prosecutions (Listowel).
  Police Prosecutions (Listowel).
  Mullingar District Asylum.
  Mullingar District Asylum.
  Irish Reproductive Loan Fund (County Tipperary).
  Irish Reproductive Loan Fund (County Tipperary).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Congested Estates, County Tipperary.
  Congested Estates, County Tipperary.
  Harwich (Sailors' Home).
  Harwich (Sailors' Home).
  Soldiers' Ages.
  Soldiers' Ages.
  Llanelly Disturbances.
  Llanelly Disturbances.
  Ightham (Kent) School Accommodation.
  Ightham (Kent) School Accommodation.
  Farm Institute.
  Farm Institute.
  Boxing Contests.
  Boxing Contests.
  Workmen's Compensation.
  Workmen's Compensation.
  Preventive Detention (Circular).
  Preventive Detention (Circular).
  Warnham Staghounds.
  Warnham Staghounds.
  Fortune Telling.
  Fortune Telling.
  Flogging (Conviction at York Assizes).
  Flogging (Conviction at York Assizes).
  Shops Bill.
  Shops Bill.
  New Hebrides.
  New Hebrides.
  Italy and Turkey.
  Italy and Turkey.
  China (Railway Communications).
  China (Railway Communications).
  Salvation Army Colony (Boxted).
  Salvation Army Colony (Boxted).
  Vaccination Officers.
  Vaccination Officers.
  Cost of Poor Law Administration.
  Cost of Poor Law Administration.
  Thurles Fair (Railway Waggons).
  Thurles Fair (Railway Waggons).
  Post Office (Christmas Extra Hands).
  Post Office (Christmas Extra Hands).
  Croydon Post Office.
  Croydon Post Office.
  Post Office (Established Appointment).
  Post Office (Established Appointment).
  Rural Telephone Service.
  Rural Telephone Service.
  Scottish Government Officials.
  Scottish Government Officials.
  Scottish Appeals (Sheriff Principal).
  Scottish Appeals (Sheriff Principal).
  Release of Mrs. Ruby Cameron (Illness).
  Release of Mrs. Ruby Cameron (Illness).
  Board of Agriculture (New Offices).
  Board of Agriculture (New Offices).
  Royal Artillery Memorial.
  Royal Artillery Memorial.
Joshua Pritchard Lord Bishop of Llandaff —Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a copy of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Acts indicating the extensions and amendments thereof proposed by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill as introduced in the House of Lords (The Lord Pentland); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BRIDGE AND CAUSEWAY (GLOUCESTER) CHARITY BILL.
BIRKBY BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
HUMBASTONE WESLEY CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
EPPING CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords in lieu of the Amendment disagreed to by the Commons, agreed to.
PILKINGTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BRIDGE AND CAUSEWAY (GLOUCESTER) CHARITY BILL. (No. 217.)
BIRKBY BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 218.)
HUMBASTONE WESLEY CHAPEL, CHARITY BILL. (No. 219.)
EPPING CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 220.)
Read 1a, and to be printed.

CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 221.)

THE ROAD BOARD.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEALTLIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEALTLIEU rose to call attention to the Report of the Road Board, and to ask His Majesty's Government if an official return of the number of motor cars, motor cycles, and commercial motor vehicles can be published annually.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for introducing this subject to-day, and I ask the House to listen for a moment or two to a few remarks I have to make on the First Report of the Road Board before I proceed to the definite Question which I have put down on the Notice Paper, which is to ask His Majesty's Government whether an official return can be published annually of the number of motor cars, motor cycles, and commercial motor vehicles. All of these are paying taxes, and most of the figures regarding them should, therefore, be obtainable from the Excise authorities. This being the first Report of the Road Board, it is, naturally, of great interest, not only to those who pay the taxes and to those who are interested in road matters, but also to the local authorities. Your Lordships will remember that when the Road Board was originally set up under the Budget of 1909, it was set up as part of the Development Board, and was contained in the same Bill as included the provisions for setting up that Board. But it is a Board Totally different from the Development Board, and it collects taxes from one class only—namely, from the users of mechanical vehicles; and it spends this money in co-operation with local authorities upon roads.
The first Report of the Road Board covers a period of thirteen and a-half months, and it is therefore rather difficult, in criticising some parts of the Report, to deal with it quite easily, because the financial periods dealt with are different from the periods dealt with in the body of the Report. For instance, the revenue which has been collected is only given up to March 31, the end of the financial year, for reasons which I perfectly understand; but the effect is that, as in other cases different periods are given, comparison is made somewhat difficult. I should like to say how much I congratulate the Road Board on their general policy. It is a perfectly right and fair policy for all concerned—namely, that they should not give grants to local authorities without the co-operation of those authorities.
They are quite right in not giving doles broadcast to local authorities unless those authorities have some interest, direct and pecuniary, in the spending of the money; and if it ever came about that the Road Board, through pressure of any kind were compelled to give grants other than in accordance with this principle, it would be a very bad thing for the Road Board fund, and would lead almost certainly to a great falling off in time proper way in which these grants are spent.
The revenue collected in the period dealt with in the Report amounted to £1,426,000, but I will assume, for the purposes of my argument this afternoon, that up to date at least £2,000,000 has been collected. The only complaint I have to make on the financial score is this, that the Road Board seems to have kept back some of the money before distributing to the local authorities, the exact cause for which is not apparent. For instance, until quite late in this year practically no money had been dispersed to local authorities. I do not know whether any great technical difficulties, either financial or engineering, prevented this; but only seventy-five per cent. of the grants promised have been paid. If that is due to a spirit of commendable caution, I have no fault to find. But I think the practice of the Road Board in investing large sums in Government securities pending the distribution of the money is a somewhat risky policy. Surely it would be better financially if that money were put on deposit in the Bank of England, or dealt with in such a way that the capital would remain untouched. I may remind the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government that if a European war supervened, or there was a financial crisis of magnitude, there would be a serious fall in Consols and other securities, and this might seriously deplete the funds of the Road Board.
In Ireland there appears to have been only £25,000 collected, a sum which seems to me totally inadequate. We all know that in Ireland the taxation set up under the Budget of 1909 in regard to mechanical vehicles is difficult to enforce. But it looks as if there had been slackness in Ireland in collecting the revenue, and it is common knowledge that there are motor-cars all over Ireland in respect of which taxes have not been paid. If that is so, I hope His Majesty's Government
280
will see that the revenue of the Road Board is properly collected in Ireland. There is a complaint in the body of the Report from Irish county councils that a sufficient sum has not been given to Ireland. I can see no ground for this. While a sum of £25,000 only was collected from Ireland, the sum of £150,000 was given back for the improvement of Irish roads. Most people—I am sure England would be glad to be in that position—would be pleased if they got back six times what they contributed. I fully realise that the trunk roads in Ireland need more attention than the trunk roads in England; but looking to the future and the possibility of Home Rule becoming law, the Irish Government must not expect that the motorists who possess cars in this country are always going to subsidise Ireland to the extent of £125,000 a year in future. The principle should be that where the money is raised there it should be largely spent.
From Scotland £73,000 was collected, in round figures, and Scotland got back £175,000, but there is better reason in the case of Scotland why more should be given. A large number of English cars use the Scottish roads in the autumn, and Scotland has on the whole tried to keep its roads up to a high standard of efficiency. The roads south of Perth are in many cases the admiration of English engineers. In the far northern counties they are not nearly so good, and the Road Board might devote attention to the county of Sutherland to see that money given there is wisely used. There is still a lingering prejudice there against mechanical vehicles. The county councils of the more northern counties have still a feeling that the money is wasted which is expended in making roads fit for mechanical vehicles.
Now I pass to some general remarks about the Report of the Road Board. Reading what is in the Report, and having in mind also the debates which have taken place in various county and borough councils, I must first of all say that I think the claim of certain county councils to have grants of money without spending any of their own is not a sound one. In the case of the Norfolk County Council, I believe great indignation was expressed because the Road Board would not spend money without receiving a local contribution. I gather from the Report that the policy of the Road Board is that they will con-

281
tribute anything up to two-thirds or three-fourths of the expenditure if the local authority will provide the remainder, and that seems to me a reasonable policy. Local authorities also grumble at the cost of collection. Your Lordships will remember that when this new taxation was set up it was specially stipulated that £150,000 was to be set apart out of the estimated revenue of £750,000 a year, or twenty per cent., to take the place of the licence duties which had lapsed in consequence of the new form of taxation, so that local authorities already get, in addition to the grants they receive, £150,000 in lieu of the lapsed licence duties. Therefore I do not think that these authorities have any ground for complaint. Assuming for a moment that the complaint of county and borough councils that it is expensive and difficult to collect the licence money for motor-cars and motor vehicles generally is a good complaint, it would be better, possibly, to substitute a percentage to be paid to local authorities rather than the fixed sum of £150,000 a year. The effect of a percentage would be to quicken the sense of collection in the minds of the local authorities. When they get a fixed sum, whether they collect little or much, I do not think it appeals to them in the same way that it would if they were given a percentage on the amount collected. That is only human nature. I suggest that this percentage should be in the proportion originally fixed in the Budget—namely, twenty per cent.
To deal with one or two other questions. I would remark that the Road Board is to be congratulated on the general way in which the money has been spent. I know they had a temptation set before them to go into many new schemes of road building and to spend their money in various other ways, but they stuck in the main to what is a really sound policy—namely, the provision of a proper foundation for the roads of this country, a foundation which will enable the superstructure put upon it to carry the heavier traffic which the roads have to carry to-day. If some day they decide to build experimental roads, I hope it will be done after careful consideration. Primarily, we want to have our roads dustless and mudless before any ambitious schemes of this sort are entered into. No one who has motored about England and Scotland this year can have helped being struck with the
282
increase in the mileage of tarred roads. Already half of the villages which undoubtedly suffered from dust, and in the winter from mud splashing, have regained their position as places in which it is pleasant to live, and the poor people residing in these villages can now have their windows open in hot weather. I myself sincerely sympathise with people who suffer from the dust nuisance.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The dust is made by the motor-cars.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The noble Viscount says that the dust is made by the motor cars. It is raised by the motor-cars, but its existence is due to bad road-making. I think the next step of the Road Board should be to consider the question of by-pass roads. We all know the case of Coln brook and of Kingston. I take those two as instances of which your Lordships are well aware. In both cases an immense traffic has to pass through thoroughfares which are inadequate to carry that traffic, and there are many other such places. The whole of the traffic of time Bath road, leading to the West of England and South Wales, passes through Colnbrook. A speed limit has had to be fixed, and the thoroughfare here is ridiculously narrow and consequently very dangerous. The road originally was wide enough for this traffic, but encroachments have narrowed what used to be a fine thoroughfare before the existence of railways. In the case of Kingston we have there a very dangerous place filled with trams and ordinary local traffic, including motor lorry traffic. This traffic has to pass through the narrow streets of Kingston all through the summer when the streets are crowded, and the result is a very dangerous state of things. These are two cases in which the Road Board might well consider whether they could not construct experimental by-pass roads with advantage to the public. They have power to take land as well, and I am sure if the frontages were taken on each side of the newly-made road they would bring something back towards the cost.
I think a word ought to be said about London. The case of London, of course, is peculiar. Street widenings in London have depended largely on the question of trams. I am not going to

283
throw any stones at the London County Council, either the present Council or former Councils, but it is well known, and it is quite natural, as they are the owners of the biggest tramway system in this country, that they prefer to widen streets which affect their traffic. The result is that there are many roads which need to be widened, but of which, as they possess no tramway traffic, the County Council do not seem to desire to undertake the widening. This question of widenings will eventually have to be undertaken. The sooner it is done the better, for land all round London is increasing immensely in value, and the result is that in a few years' time the making of a great trunk road out of London will cost far more than it would to-day. It is to be hoped that the County Council will see their way to co-operate with the Road Board in this matter, and not look at it only from the point of view of tramways, because it is doubtful whether tramways will be the best means of locomotion in towns in the future.
The London General Omnibus Company this year have given an order for 10,000,000 gallons of petrol at 1½d. per gallon, which means that they are paying over £61,000 towards the funds of the Road Board; but this company do not get one penny advantage out of that taxation. Until the outskirts of London are reached—the London General Omnibus Company hardly run on any roads within the area touched by the Road Board—they will get practically no advantage out of this huge taxation which they pay. I am not quarrelling with the taxation. I believe the petrol tax is the easiest collected for the purpose, and I am not criticising it, but I do think when London pays such a large proportion of the total amount of revenue collected London should have more consideration than it gets at present in the spending of the money. But I agree that the London County Council must co-operate, and I hope that the hands of the Road Board will be strengthened in this direction, and that they will be able to come to some arrangement with the London County Council.
Now I come to the definite Question which I have placed on the Paper. It is the habit of many journals—I myself have done it on several occasions—to collect
284
statistics of the numbers of motor cars registered in this country from the various local authorities. There are about 250 of these authorities, and their returns may or may not be correct. I am not saying that the clerks to the county councils do not do their best to give correct returns, but it is very difficult for them to do so because cars continually change hands, and they have no correct list, at any rate of commercial vans, in their county. Then cars change hands from county to county. There is only one way of getting at the correct number, and that is from the number that pay the tax to the Excise authorities. If the noble Lord who will reply to my Question can give some hope that the Government will have an annual return compiled in the way that I have suggested on the Paper—namely, with the amount paid by each class of vehicle set down clearly—we should be able to say more or less how many vehicles of all sorts there are in the country and the amount of taxation paid by each. It would be a most useful return from many points of view. Clerks of local authorities have written to me saying that, although they have incurred expenditure on account of improvements with the sanction of the Road Board, they find it difficult to get the money promptly. Unless county councils have large revenues they have to undergo considerable inconvenience if they do not get the money promptly, and now that the grants in aid from the Exchequer have been diminished, it is a hardship on local authorities when they do not get the grants paid to them by the Road Board as soon as possible, and it involves them sometimes in interest on loans and difficulties of that kind.
In conclusion, may I say that I rose this afternoon, as the House will have understood, not with the intention of criticising harshly the Road Board, but of calling attention to various matters raised in their Report. I repeat that I think their general policy has been sound, but I think we may ask that in their next Report they should give more information than is given in the first Report. I recognise, of course, that the period covered in the first Report is a broken one, and that the Board had not got fully to work. I know that they are doing their best, and that there may be points later on to criticise which may be better now left untouched. I think, on the whole, we should try and strengthen

285
the hands of the Road Board, and give them more powers. I look forward to the time when the Road Board will be the embodiment of a national authority for national roads. Some day or other the trunk roads of this country must become national roads. Here is the machinery and the funds by which that can be carried out, and when that time comes perhaps the only part of Mr. Lloyd George's proposals in his famous Budget with which we shall all agree will be the part in which he set up the Road Board and provided funds for this purpose. I can assure His Majesty's Government that as far as motorists in general are concerned they are anxious to assist the Road Board to bring its labours to a favourable conclusion.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD or AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, I am sure there is no member of your Lordships' House who is more entitled than my noble friend who has just sat down to raise questions of the kind he has raised to-day, and no member of your Lordships' House speaks with greater weight than he does on these subjects. Therefore I am sure it will be a source of great gratification to the Road Board to know that their policy has met with the general approval of an authority so widely recognised on this subject as Lord Montagu. I think we may all agree that the work of the Road Board, as far as we have seen it at the present moment, does deserve the encomiums that it has received. It was a body set up to undertake an entirely new task. The Board are now well on in the second year of their work, and I should think that there is no bit of public work that has encountered such little criticism and has met with such general approval as the work that has been done by Sir George Gibb (the Chairman) and the other members of the Road Board.
The noble Lord raised the question of the Board's general policy. That is laid down quite clearly in their Report. They have, as they say, during these early stages in their career confined themselves rather to assisting a considerable number of smaller operations. As they themselves say, they think the most important thing, the thing that will do most good at the present time, is improving the surface of roads. The noble Lord suggested that
286
possibly they were not spending their money quite fast enough. As is clearly shown in their Report, although they are at the present time confining themselves to what I may call minor operations, they have in mind the fact that it will become necessary for them before very long to undertake larger works and works of greater importance, which will cause an expenditure of much larger sums of money; and while they are, on the one hand, keeping sufficient balance in hand to meet these bigger operations which they will no doubt undertake, at the same time they are spending as much money as can be profitably spent, subject to that proviso, on the general improvement; of the roads of the country.
I think there has been only one really serious criticism levelled at the Road Board, and that has come largely from county councils and their representatives, and I was glad to notice that the noble Lord did not in any way associate himself with that criticism. I refer to the contention that the Road Board should, for every improvement that it sanctions and is prepared to support, pay the whole of the cost, instead of paying, as it does at the present moment, seventy-five per cent. Paragraph 34 of the Report makes very clear the reasons why they have adopted that policy. They have taken the line which has been so often, and, I think, advantageously, taken in the case of the grant of Government money, that you get work done more economically and more carefully if the authority which has the spending of the money—in this case the local authority responsible for the road—does have to contribute a certain amount of the cost. And besides that, which I think is an undeniable advantage, they are also reinforced in that position by the general attitude which they have adopted in these cases. After all, the Road Board was never intended, I think, to relieve local authorities of the burden which has always been placed upon them of maintaining the roads; its view of its duty is that it should share with those local authorities the increasing burden of the maintenance of the roads caused by motor traffic.
The noble Lord raised what I suppose is probably the largest, most expensive, and most difficult problem which is going to confront the Road Board, and that is the problem of what is going to be done in the

287
case of London. As the noble Lord will see from the Report, the Road Board are by no means neglecting London at the present moment. The problem of what is the best thing to do with London, as you will see from paragraph 27, is engaging their attention, and, as they say themselves, anything which you are going to do in London which is to be of a satisfactory nature will require a policy of concentrated effort and assistance. That is obviously one of the big works which will have to be taken in hand in the future, and which will cost an enormous sum of money. It is impossible to say what it will cost, and I think the Road Board would have laid themselves open to the fair criticism, had they started in the early days of their career with a big scheme for London, that they were embarking upon a somewhat rash policy by taking the biggest and most difficult problems first.
Then there is the question of Ireland. I think we have some reason to agree with what the noble Lord said. There is strong ground for suspecting that there are a considerable number of Irish cars in respect of which licences are not paid at the present time. Of course, the position in Ireland is very different from the position in England. Ireland is a happy country where until motor car licences were instituted nobody had to pay any of what are known as establishment licences—licences on carriages, dogs, and so on—which are in England and Wales collected by the local authorities. Therefore the Irish county councils and county borough councils had no previous experience at all of the collection of these taxes. It was entirely new work which was being thrown upon them. In these circumstances one has to make a certain amount of allowance for the fact that they have not, perhaps, been able to straightway do their work in the manner in which we hope it will be done. The Treasury are well aware of that, and are moving in the matter. The Irish Local Government Board has called the attention of the local authorities to what their duties are in this matter, and I think there is under discussion a proposal that possibly the services of the Irish Constabulary, which is not on the same footing as the police in this country, might be enlisted where necessary in this work. Therefore we have every reason for hoping that a considerable improvement will be shown in this respect in the future.
288
The noble Lord called attention to how disproportionate the contribution of Ireland was to the amount which it receives it is quite true that Ireland does receive from the Road Board a good deal more than it finds in the way of money derived from licences, but the noble Lord left out one thing, and that is the amount derived from motor spirit. We have no available figures on that point, because a great deal of motor spirit comes into England and pays the Excise duty here and is afterwards sent over to Ireland. But that does not alter the fact that Ireland does receive a great deal more money from the Road Board than it pays.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU I took into consideration the point to which the noble Lord has referred. The figures are—£14,907 from motor spirit duties in Ireland, and £17,452 from motor cars.
LORD LUCAS: I think that is quite true of spirit which is brought directly into Ireland and pays duty there. But there is a good deal of spirit which pays duty in England and is afterwards taken across to Ireland, and which, therefore, does not appear in those figures. It is not a very important point anyhow.
Then I come to the question of delay in payment. We would be very glad if the noble Lord would give us further information about that. I understand that the general policy of the Road Board is to pay a portion of the grant in advance as soon as the council are ready to commence work, and they have had no complaints as to lack of promptness on their part in making the further payments. They would be the last people in the world to want to put local authorities in a difficulty in the matter, and any complaint of the sort that was brought forward would, I am sure, receive prompt consideration from them.
I now come to the last point which the noble Lord raised—the question of numbers. The noble Lord probably knows the numbers that are published in the Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs and Excise, but that information, of course, does not give all that the noble Lord wants. It gives motor cycles, motor cars, and hackney motors, and the numbers of those are as follows. There are 48,857 motor cycles, 75,617 motor cars, and 33,199

289
hackney motors, the term "hackney motor" including the ordinary taxi-cab and such things as motor 'buses and tramcars, and no differentiation is actually made. They are not classified in that sense, though Table 92 of I he Report does give them by weights; and it is stated in the Blue-book that it has not been found possible at present to show separately the several kinds of hackney motor carriages in use. But, generally speaking, motor omnibuses are to be found in column 5, which gives the hackney motors which exceed two tons but do not exceed five tons, and their number is given as 1,887. Motor cabs and tramcars are included in column 3. That column is one ton or under, or exceeding five tons," and their number is 22,720.
With regard to commercial motors—that is, motors which do not pay an annual licence—I am afraid it is impossible to supply any sufficient data at all. As these motors do not pay an annual licence they are only registered once in their existence, and they are not necessarily removed from the register when their life comes to an end and they are broken up. One could, no doubt, get from the registering authorities the numbers of commercial motors that have been registered, but it would not help very much, because one would never know how many of them have ceased to exist. Therefore I am afraid, with regard to commercial motors, we cannot give the noble Lord what lie wants, but with regard to other motors we do at the present moment receive from the local authorities who collect the licence duties a return of the number of motors and the duties that they have paid; so that it would be quite possible to publish, if the noble Lord wanted it, a statement as to the number of motor cars by counties, and, secondly, the number of different classes which pay the different scales of licence duty. I understand that that would largely meet the point which the noble Lord raises. I think I have replied on most of the points to which the noble Lord has called attention. I can assure him that the Road Board will be only too ready to consider the points which he has raised in his speech, and I am sure, as I said at the beginning, that it will be a source of gratification to them to know that in the noble Lord's view they are, as we all think, conducting their work in a most admirable fashion.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my noble friend behind me (Lord Montagu) no doubt approaches this subject with great knowledge from the point of view of those who own and use motor cars and those who are interested in the development of motor traffic on our roads. But listening, to his speech, I confess it appeared to me that he gave no sufficient consideration, if any consideration at all, to the views of those who approach it from a different standpoint—namely, the county councils, which represent those who have to pay the main burden of maintaining the roads, and persons using the roads who are not fortunate enough to be owners of motor cars. I think the speech of my noble friend was based upon an entirely wrong assumption. Re secured to assume that, however great and rapid the traffic on our roads might be, the main cost of maintaining the roads ought still to fall on the ratepayers. The history of turnpike trusts shows that tins view was not accepted when roads had to be practically re-made for stage coach traffic, and it cannot be accepted now. There is, no doubt, a small contribution now made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards the cost of maintaining our roads, and the tax imposed upon motors and upon petrol is a slight addition to that contribution, but in my mind it is not nearly enough, and this whole subject, as motor traffic develops, will have to be entirely reconsidered by the Government of the day with a view to a much greater share of the maintenance of the roads being imposed in some way or other on the general public and on those who use the roads for this rapid and heavy traffic.
My noble friend has complimented the Road board on the way in which they have carried out their duties. I have no desire whatever to criticise them. They had a difficult task to perform, and they have judged as between the competing claims of different parts of the country for assistance, I have no doubt, with great fairness and generally upon proper lines. Where a suggestion has been made to them for making a new road, or for lowering a hill, or for cutting off corners, or for widening a road, they have been perfectly right in maintaining the principle that the locality should bear a certain proportion of the cost of the improvement, because such improvements are for the benefit of all classes of traffic over the roads. But I cannot take that view where it is

291
a question of improving the surface of the road by tarring or otherwise in order to get rid of the dust nuisance. The dust nuisance is solely due to motors. I ventured to tell my noble friend when he was speaking that the motors make the dust. At any rate, they raise it. There was no such nuisance before the invention of motors as there is now, where cottages in village streets and villas close to main roads near London are rendered simply uninhabitable by dust raised by motors. Therefore do think that the funds derived from the taxation of motors or petrol ought to bear the entire cost of the improvement of the surface which is necessary to prevent the nuisance which the motors cause, instead of imposing the burden on the ratepayers; in other words, I would suggest that the Road Board ought to make grants for such purposes without requiring a contribution from the locality.
I know that Parliament has laid clown in the Act under which the Road Board works the principle that these taxes upon motors and petrol are not intended to relieve the ratepayers of any burden that previously fell upon them. I voted against that, and I do not think it was a fair principle to accept; but it has been accepted, and I do not wish to argue that question now. I do, however, wish to say that I do not think motors are sufficiently taxed at present considering the mischief they do to the roads, and I hope that the Road Board will reconsider, with regard to the surface of roads, their rule of requiring a local contribution before they contribute anything to that purpose.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULTEIU: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord opposite for so fully answering my Question and for the return which he proposes to give. Although it does not give all the information I should like to have, it goes a long way in that direction. With regard to what the noble Viscount has just said, I think he must have forgotten that in the old coaching days dust existed to an even greater extent than it does to-day, as the pictures and records of the time show. There was dust in those days on every main road where there was much traffic. I fully admit that motor cars raise dust, and they are now paying, quite rightly, for the alleviation of this nuisance. With regard to the claim of the county councils, I think the noble Viscount forgets that in addition to the actual
292
grants of the Road Board county councils get the £150,000 I mentioned, and they received out of the Exchequer grant last Year a sum of £11000,000.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Not for roads.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: If that grant had been divided, as it was prior to 1888, when county councils were set up, and a certain sum ear-marked for road purposes, that sum would have amounted to £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 at least, which is a considerable sum paid by the general taxpayer apart from the local ratepayer for the upkeep of roads. I do not know whether the noble Lord would suggest that motor traffic should pay the whole cost in respect of roads. I would point out that all other traffic has increased, and—
LORD LUCAS: I stated that the line adopted by the Road Board is that they should share the cost.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I was referring at the moment to the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, who contended that county councils had not received proper treatment. I submit that on the whole they have. I am a member of a highway committee of a county council and also a large ratepayer, and therefore I can look upon the matter from both points of view.
LORD LUCAS: Before the subject drops, I would like to qualify one thing I said. In Scotland these licence duties are collected by the Excise and Customs authorities and not by the local authorities, and they are not, consequently, collected on a county basis. Therefore in regard to Scotland I think we shall find that it is not possible to give the returns by counties.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Monday next.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Monday next.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.