Sitting of 25 February 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Northampton Gas Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Beccles Waterworks [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Belfast Harbour Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Cork Harbour Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Bristol Corporation Bill,
Order [20th February] referring the the Bill to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills read, and discharged.
Bill committed.

MEMBER SWORN.
Sir Thomas Royden, Borough of Bootle, took the Oath and signed the Roll.

DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
Return ordered "of Deaths in England and Wales in the year 1918 upon which a
1550
coroner's jury has returned a verdict of Death from Starvation or Death accelerated by Privation, together with observations furnished to the Local Government Board by boards of guardians with reference to cases included in the Return (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 96, of Session 1918)."—[Major Astor.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  PEACE CONFERENCE.

    ABYSSINIA.
    Mr. WIGNALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any I proposals have been made with regard to the future settlement of Africa which would entail interference with the independence or territorial integrity of Abyssinia;and whether the Government will support the policy of placing the independence and territorial integrity of this State under the guarantee of the League of Nations?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth):As questions concerning Abyssinia may, in connection with other African problems, occupy the attention of the Peace Conference, I regret that I am unable to make any statement on the subject.
    Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Is there any evidence that the independent State of Abyssinia desire the interference of the League of Nations?

    SOUTHERN DOBRUDJA.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that in Southern Dobrudja all Bulgar school teachers and priests are being turned out by the Roumanian authorities, and Bulgar libraries and books burnt; and will he state the form of local autonomy, if any, which the population is to be allowed to enjoy by its conquerors;(2) whether he will say to what nationality and to what religious faith the mass of the inhabitants of Southern Dobrudja belong; is he aware that the town of Kavarna consists of 4,000 inhabitants, of whom the Bulgars number 2,500, Turks 1,350, Greeks 150, and no Roumanians; and will he say why

    1551
    Southern Dobrudja has been handed over to Roumania without the knowledge or consent of the Peace Conference, and against the wish of its population?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The district referred to by the hon. and gallant Member is in the occupation of British troops, and I cannot accept as correct his description of the situation prevailing there. The Peace Conference is now concerned with the settlement of the problems of South-Eastern Europe, and I therefore regret that I am unable to make any further statement on this subject at present.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the Foreign Office ask for a special report to be made at once on what has actually happened?
    Mr. KILEY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us at the same time what British troops are doing in this part of the world?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH:I cannot make any further statement in regard to the latter question, but I will consider the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is he aware that there are large numbers of Roumanians at present in the Southern Dobrudja who were there before the War?
    Captain Earl WINTERTON:Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the recent War Roumania was our Ally and Bulgaria was our enemy?

    PEACE PRELIMINARIES.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he can, without detriment to the public interest, give an approximate date when the preliminaries of peace will be signed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I regret that I am not yet in a position to give even an approximate date.
    Mr. LAMBERT:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some dissatisfaction does exist at the delay in imposing peace terms upon Germany?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that dissatisfaction exists, but I am aware that every one, including our delegates, is most anxious to get peace at the earliest possible moment.

  M. NABOKOFF.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether M. Nabokoff, the Minister in the Czarist Legation in London, is still being supported with fundssupplied by the British Government; how much has he received in this way since March, 1917; on what date was the last payment made; what was the amount of this payment; what Government or authority in Russia does M. Nabokoff represent; whether he is recognised as Minister of an Allied or neutral State by the Foreign Office;and whether he has diplomatic relations with the British Government or with the Peace Conference or Allied Council in Paris?
  Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Before that question is answered, will the hon. Member explain what meaning is to be attached to the expression "Czarist Legation," seeing that the Czar and all his family have been massacred by the friends of the hon. Member opposite?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has no right to make a statement like that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] There is no question of withdrawing, but it is a very offensive observation to make.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: As stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to Mr. King on 8th May, 1918, M. Nabokoff is not personally being supported with funds supplied by the British Government. Payments have, however, been made for the upkeep of the Russian Diplomatic, Consular, and other services for dealing with Russian subjects and interests in this country, which it has been important to maintain during the course of the War. M. Nabokoff was the representative of the Provisional Russian Government which was recognised by the Allied Powers in 1917. He is now acting on behalf of the Omsk, Archangel, and Ekaterinodar Governments, with which His Majesty's Government are in direct relations. The answer to the last portion of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: If he represents these Governments, cannot they pay instead of the British taxpayer?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to give me notice of that question.

  PROHIBITION LAW (UNITED STATES)
  Mr. S. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is making diplomatic representations to the American State Department upon the question of compensation to British investors through the loss attendant on the spread of liquor prohibition in the States?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is no foundation for the Press reports that His Majesty's Government have made diplomatic representations to the United States Government on behalf of British investors who may suffer loss through the spread of prohibition in the United States.
  His Majesty's Chargé ďAffaires at Washington has, on the other hand, just reported that no provision has been made by United States Government for compensating brewers for any loss which they may incur in consequence of action taken by the Government in prohibiting the manufacture of wine, beer, and spirits.

  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make it an inflexible rule that British Consuls abroad, whether paid or not, shall be British subjects, and shall possess a knowledge not only of the English language but also of that of the country to which they are accredited?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): A clear distinction ought to be drawn between the salaried and unsalaried services. Officers in the paid Consular Service are British-born subjects, and this rule will of course be maintained. British-born subjects are also invariably appointed to unpaid posts in cases where they are the most suitable candidate available. In the past, Consular officers of alien nationality have only been appointed to posts where no suitable British subject was available and where the British interests involved would not have justified the appointment of a salaried officer, entailing a charge upon public funds for which no sufficient return could be expected. Such cases must arise in the future, but the selection of unpaid officers is safeguarded by Lord Robert Cecil's pledge of 22nd August, 1916.
  1554
  A high standard of at least two foreign languages was required of candidates for the paid Consular Service under the old examination, which was suspended on the outbreak of War. As soon as the examination is re-established the same proficiency will be demanded, and special facilities are devised to meet the case of Russia, the Near East and China and Japan, where the language question presents exceptional difficulty. A sound knowledge of one or more foreign language is now required by the Selection Committee of candidates for the salaried service, but it is not possible in present circumstances to expect candidates to bein a position to pass a formal examination. Promotions and transfers within the service have been and are influenced to a great extent by the language qualifications of the officers concerned.
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in caseswhere he finds it necessary to appoint to Vice-Consular posts men who are hot British subjects, and who are running ship chandlers' stores or businesses of that sort, he will take steps to prevent their hoisting the British flag over their stores and thus attracting British ship captains?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will do all in my power to prevent abuses of that kind.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SENIOR OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for War if he is preparedto consider an improvement in the conditions under which senior officers are thrown out of employment in order to facilitate the promotion of junior officers; and whether it is proposed that such senior officers, instead of being put on half-pay, shall be granted the full amount of retired pay?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): This question is under consideration.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Will my hon. Friend give me some idea, as this is a very urgent question and officers of senior ranks are being compelled to retire and thus are losing several hundreds a year, when a decision will be come to?
    Captain GUEST: The question is receiving urgent consideration.

    SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Prime Minister when the SelectCommittee to examine the whole question of pensions, promised by the Leader of the House on 20th November, 1918, will be appointed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions on this subject, and I hope to be ina position to make an early statement.
    Mr. FRANCE:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about ten days ago said that this Committee would be appointed immediately?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I was not aware of that fact.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    PAY, ALLOWANCES AND GRATUITIES.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state to what financial benefit is a soldier who joined the Army in October, 1914, entitled on now taking his discharge; for what period of time is he entitled to out-of-work pay; and, if he stays on in the Army of Occupation but declines to sign on for a year, will he receive the enhanced rates of pay under the now scheme from the 1st February last?
    Captain GUEST: A soldier who joined the Army in October, 1914, and is now demobilised, receives twenty-eight days'furlough with full Army pay and allowances, a suit of plain clothes or an allowance of 52s. 6d. in lieu, and a war gratuity of £25 or £15, according as he has, or has not, given service overseas, with higher rates for non-commissioned officers. Out-of-work donation is payable during the year following his demobilisation for a maximum of twenty-six weeks. If he does not re-engage voluntarily for a further period of service in the Army, but is definitely retained for service in the Army of Occupation, he draws the bonus under the new scheme as from the 1st February.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is the gratuity which is given on a man's leaving the Army reduced in the case of his having received certain moneys from the Post Office during his period of service in the Army?
    Captain GUEST: I should like to have notice of that.
    Major ENTWISTLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether gratuities for war service are to be based on acting rank providing the acting rank was held on active service for six or twelve months prior to the signing of the Armistice?
    Lieutenant-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of granting the gratuity based on the acting rank held by an officer when an officer has held such acting rank, with pay and allowances, for a period of not less than six months?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): As already stated, the whole question of acting rank as affecting gratuity, is under consideration.
    Major ENTWISTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cause of the delay in this matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The cause of the delay, if delay can be alleged, is the great congestion and pressure of business,and the complexity of the problems which have to be settled.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the War Office are not following the practice of the Ministry of Pensions?
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:Yes, Sir, and I have asked that the subject shall be reconsidered immediately by the financial authorities at the War Office.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering that soldiers who attested prior to the 1st January, 1916, were told at the time of attestation by the recruiting officer that they were soldiers as soon as they attested and drew one day's pay and ration allowance, and that, although not called up to join the Colours till a later date to suit the convenience of the War Office, these men consider that the authorities are not keeping faith with them in refusing to take their attestation into account for demobilisation under Army Order No. 55, of1919, and thus specially

    1557
    penalising them for their voluntary action in attesting, he will reconsider the question and permit these men to reckon their service from the date of attestation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The men referred to did not join the Colours until after the 1st January, 1916. The test adopted by the Government to determine whether a man shall be retained for the Armies of Occupation is length of service actually given to the State and not the liability to serve. Although the men in question mayhave attested prior to the 1st January, 1916, nevertheless they did not join the Colours for immediate or continuous service until a later date, and I regret that, in view of the requirements of the Armies of Occupation, special treatment cannot be granted to this very numerous class. I regret it is not possible to depart from a system which is recognised in the Army to be based on principles of fairness.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend realises the feeling that this breach of faith occasions amongst those men;and if this is not a question for settlement by the War Cabinet, but for a personal Order by himself, will he kindly reconsider this matter, and see if these men can be given priority?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I could only give these men release by finding other men to take their place. In whatever direction we advance, it is necessary to inflict hardship, and we have taken as a broad, simple line the men who joined for continuous service with the Colours after 1st January, 1916. If I had exempted this class who attested before, although they were not called up before, I would have had to put the date of the men retained back to an earlier period than 1st January, 1916, and that again would have caused other forms of hardship. I think, broadly speaking, the actual time spent with the Colours is the best test.
    Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say the approximate number of men involved?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not say offhand. Several hundreds of thousands of men.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of men not liable for service in the Armies of Occupation, priority of release is being granted to men who have been
    1558
    applied for by their pre-war or other employers in preference to proprietors of one-man businesses; and whether this state of affairs can be put right?
    Mr. CHURCHILLF I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Walsall on this subject yesterday. Proprietors of one-man businesses, for whom recommendations for special release were received by the War Office from the Ministry of Labour before the 1st February, 1919, receive the same priority as pivotal men registered by the War Office before that date; those not so recommended, but for whom release slips have been forwarded by the Ministry of Labour, receive the same priority as "slip" or "contact" men provided they are not liable for retention in the Armies of Occupation.

    STUDENTS.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for War if it is intended that Army Order XIV., of 29th January, 1919, shall supersede all previous understandings and announcements with regard to the prompt release of students who were called up for service during their university or professional training, and whose future depends upon their immediate release?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:I would refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Twickenham an this subject on Wednesday last, to the effect that the answer is in the affirmative, unless the men referred to are otherwise eligible for demobilisation under the provision of the Army Orders in question.
    Sir H. CRAIK:Is the right hon. Gentleman still prepared to give these privileges to students whose education has been interrupted and who were going to be released previous to the Order of 29th January?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:No, Sir. I regret I am not in a position to do that. If students were released apprentices would have to be released—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and perhaps it is very desirable that these should be released. They could only be released by retaining men who are fathers of families and old enough to be their fathers.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that arrangements were absolutely made,

    1559
    and that to some of the men release was granted, which now has been suddenly stopped after all arrangements had been made?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it is very probable that that is so. But owing to the War we are having to impose hardships on all sections of the community, andin the imposition of these it is desirable to draw the line where the hardships will be least.
    Sir P. MAGNUS:Having regard to the fact that a certain number of the students of institutions who joined the forces after January, 1916, have been allowed to return in order to continue their studies, may not the same facilities be granted to other similarly situated students?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:No, Sir. The practice of bringing out men irrespective of age or period of service at the front has seriously affected the discipline of the whole Army, and caused a feeling of general unrest, forcing us, at whatever hardship to individuals, to draw a hard-and-fast line, and to proceed in accordance with those considerations of age and service which can so readily be recognised by men of every rank in the Army.
    Captain A. SMITH: As a result of the War Office so dealing with their contracts these men have been punished?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that it is a question of anybody being punished. Men who are under thirty-sevenyears of age and who have joined the Colours since 1st January, 1916, are being retained;those who have not that qualification are being demobilised as fast as they possibly can be.

    SOLDIERS FROM OVERSEAS.
    Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dispersal officers are, in many cases, discharging non-commissioned officers and men from overseas serving in Imperial units under Group 45 A without satisfying themselves that such non-commissioned officers and men have sufficient means on which to live pending repatriation;whether, in view of the danger of such non-commissioned officers and men being stranded, he will give instructions that they may be given the opportunity of being transferred from Group 45 A to Group 45 B for immediate repatriation;
    1560
    whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in the West Indian Colonies at the delay in repatriating non-commissioned officers and men who gave up their work to join His Majesty's Forces, and are now urgently needed for the development of the trade and industries of those Colonies; and whether he will give instructions for the repatriation of such non-commissioned officers and men to be expedited?
    Captain GUEST:Non-commissioned officers and men who came from overseasand enlisted in the British Army are entitled under Army Order 300 of 1915, and Army Demobilisation Regulations, to elect to take a deferred passage on discharge or demobilisation provided that such passage is claimed within six months from the termination of their Army service. Those electing a deferred passage, i.e., Group 45 A, are notified before leaving their unit that they must be in a position to maintain themselves and their families and dependants (if any) after dispersal whilst awaiting embarkation, and even if they do elect for a deferred passage they are nevertheless given the option of transferring, if they so desire, to Group 45 B, i.e., to remain in the Service until passage is provided. On arrival at the dispersal station the personnel of Group 45 A are again asked and notified that their pay and allowances will cease at the expiration of the twenty-eight days' furlough, and areagain given the option of transferring to Group 45 B if they so desire. The majority of the battalions of the British West India Regiment are now concentrated at Taranto, and the remainder will be sent as soon as accommodation is available. Preparations are being completed for their return journey, and it is hoped that the embarkation will commence early next month. The shipping problem is a difficult one owing to the number of different islands in which the men are domiciled, which necessitates the sorting and regrouping of the men to suit the various ports at which they will be disembarked.
    Mr. MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these non-commissioned officers and men are unable, of themselves, to determine whether they have sufficient means to keep them pending the period of repatriation, and what I ask is that some special inquiry should be made into their cases by the dispersal officers in order to ascertain whether they have means at their disposal?
    Captain GUEST: I will take notice of that suggestion.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: Will the six months cover the men discharged twelve months ago?
    Captain GUEST: No, Sir; this deals only with the demobilisation scheme at present in force.

    PIVOTAL MEN.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Secretary for War whether he will give immediate attention to the applications for the release of pivotal men from the Army in the interests of the boot and shoe industry; and whether he will release all men for whom application is made with the promise of immediate employment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Men who have been certified by the Ministry of Labour and registered by the War Office as pivotal men before the 1st February, 1919, are being demobilised as quickly as possible. With regard to the second part of the question, I cannot undertake to entertain this proposal, unless these men are eligible for demobilisation under the recentArmy Orders making provision for the composition of the Armies of Occupation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that 40 per cent. of the pivotal men cannot be traced owing to the Army people not having their proper addresses?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:Very nearly two-fifths of the Army have been demobilised, and it is, therefore, fair to assume that two-fifths of the pivotal men must have been demobilised, and it is probably a much larger proportion. I think it would be very dangerous to reintroduce this pivotal system of demobilisation.

    AIR FORCE AND ARMY (DISTINCTION).
    Mr. WATERSONasked whether a man is regarded as fit for demobilisation providing his papers were through satisfactorily by 15th January, 1919; if so, whether he is aware that the same man is still being retained under an order issued on 7th February, 1919; if he will investigate the case, and, if proved correct, guarantee this man immediate release from the Army;and whether he is aware of the discontent prevalent owing to a distinction being drawn between the Air Force and the Army by the application of Army Order No. 14, of last January?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:It is not quite clear to what class of man the hon. Member is referring in the first part of his question. Unless the man has been certified by the Ministry of Labour as a civil demobiliser or pivotal man and registered as such by the War Office before the 1st February, 1919, his demobilisation would depend on his being eligible under the recent Army Orders making provisionfor the Armies of Occupation. As the hon. Member has not given particulars of the soldier referred to, it is impossible to investigate the case. The Army Order mentioned in the last part of the question does not apply to the Royal Air Force, members of which are subject to Air Force Regulations.
    Mr. WATERSON:Will the right hon. Gentleman take this case into immediate and earnest consideration if I send him all the particulars, and can he state the reason why the Air Force Regulations are so vastly different to the Army Regulations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:I shall be much obliged if the hon. Member will send me particulars of the case and I will have them looked into. Every effort is being made to make the Air Force Regulations to march in step with the War Office Regulations with regard to demobilisation. Certain diversities of practice had grown up before the two offices were made into one, and it is not possible to sweep away all the arrangements made under these diverse practices.

    OBSTETRIC SURGEONS.
    ViscountWOLMERasked whether it is a fact that among the medical officers now serving with the Armies of Occupation there are a number of obstetric surgeons and recognised specialists in infant welfare; and, if so, whether he will give instructions that these officers should be speedily demobilised so that their special knowledge shall find wider scope than is likely in their present employment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Individual medical officers are demobilised at the request of the Ministry of National Service and the selection does not rest with the military authorities. I may add, however, that the rate at which doctors of all kinds are being demobilised is by no means satisfactory, and I have given directions which I trust will result in a substantial acceleration.

    CRYSTAL PALACE DISPERSAL CAMP (GRATUITES).
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary for War whether he will make immediate inquiry into the tipping which is rife at the Crystal Palace dispersal camp, and by which soldiers who refuse such illegal exactions are being penalised?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:Instructions were issued some time ago that on no account are any tips or gratuities to be given to the personnel of a dispersal unit, and severe disciplinary action will be taken in any case which is proved of men givingor receiving tips or gratuities. Notices to this effect have been displayed in conspicuous places at all dispersal stations and military collecting places.

    MEN IN HOSPITAL.
    Mr. CAPEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that soldiers who have been in hospital for twenty-eight consecutive days are discharged from the Army, he will order the discharge of men who have been in military hospitals for a considerably longer period but who were under arrest when they fell ill?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:In view of the provisions of Section 46 of the Army Act, the demobilisation of soldiers in arrest awaiting disposal would not be possible.

    BRITISH SOLDIERS IN ITALY.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether there are men now serving in Italy who have not had leave for eighteen months and more; whether our men are now being brought back from Italy and in what numbers; and whether they will be granted home leave as soon as possible?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given on Tuesday last to a question on this subject asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, to the effect that, with the exception of one brigade the troops are being brought away at the rate of 600 a day.
    Sir J. BUTCHER:What arrangements are being made for giving home leave to men who have been serving for a considerable time in Italy without leave?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They are being brought home for demobilisation as far as I understand it.

  INCOME TAX.

    MEDICAL MEN IN ARMY HOSPITALS.
    Sir WATSON CHEYNEasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he has given personal consideration to the claim of medical men who, without holding commissions in the Army, have been and are engaged under the War office in service in Army hospitals to the special service rate of Income Tax; whether that claim is to be conceded; and,if not, on what specific ground is it refused?
    Captain GUEST: So far as the War Office is concerned, this is a question of complying with the law, and the action taken has been based on legal advice.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: Will the Government pay the reasonable costs of a test case?
    Captain GUEST: The matter will be more for the Treasury than for the War Office to decide.

    LORD CHANCELLORS' SALARIES AND PENSIONS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the salary of the Lord Chancellor and the pensions of ex-Lord Chancellors are entirely exempt from Income Tax or from Super-tax; and, if so, under what authority?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury):Neither the salary of the Lord Chancellor nor the pensions of the ex-Lord Chancellors are exempt from Income Tax.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: From the Super-tax?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly not!

    MARRIED WOMEN.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a married woman can claim repayment of the additional Income Tax she pays over that of an unmarried woman with the same income?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The income of a married woman is required by law to be aggregated with that of her husband for Income Tax purposes, and a married woman is not entitled to repayment of tax on the ground that the Income Tax payable in respect of her separate income is greater in amount than that paid by an unmarried woman with the same income.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON:Will my hon. Friend see that the grievance is remedied in the new Finance Bill?

    REPAYMENT.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked theChancellor of the Exchequer if he will simplify the present method of obtaining repayment of Income Tax for persons with limited incomes?
    Mr. BALDWIN:The machinery of repayment of Income Tax will be one of the subjects into which the forthcoming Royal Commission on the Income Tax will inquire.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is my hon. Friend going to wait before remedying these grievances until the Royal Commission has been appointed and has reported?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is not for me to anticipate the verdict of the Royal Commission.
    Sir C. HENRY: Is it to be a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee?
    Mr. BALDWIN: A Royal Commission.

  SOLDIERS' AGES (FALSE ATTESTATION).
  Captain Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it is a very common practice for soldiers upon enlistment for quite innocent reasons to give false ages; and whether, upon subsequent production of their birth certificate, the Army Council are prepared to sanction a soldier's officialage being corrected so that in all questions of demobilisation or promotion his real age shall count?
  Captain GUEST: I am aware of the practice mentioned in the first part of my Noble Friend's question. For promotion, age is irrelevant; with regard to demobilisation, orders have been issued to all Expeditionary Forces and Commands that the soldier's real age will be taken into consideration on his producing his birth certificate as evidence. This does not apply in the case of soldiers serving on normal attestations, with Colour service to complete, as they are not eligible for demobilisation.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    INDIA AND EASTERN STATIONS.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make the fuller statement promised last week, as to the return of soldiers who have served for long periods in the Eastern theatres of war?
    Mr. SIDNEY ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to release those Territorial battalions, including the Brecknocks, which were sent to India and other Eastern stations over four years ago, and which consequently have been more hardly treated as regards home leave than any other units?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The withdrawal of the personnel of the Territorial units from India and the Far East is a matter which has been receiving the earnest attention of the Army Council for some time past. Certain difficulties exist which are not present in the case of other overseas garrisons and Expeditionary Forces. The chief of these are:—

    1. The large proportion of personnel due for relief would result in the garrisons being reduced below a reasonable minimum of safety if the whole of such personnel were withdrawn without replacement.

    2. The danger to health which would result in moving troops in the tropics during the hot weather.

    In India it is of vital importance that a sufficiently strong garrison shall be maintained to ensure the preservation of internal order and to provide for the defence of the frontier. The British garrison is now being reduced to what is considered to be a bare sufficiency for these purposes. This will enable some thousands ofmen to be withdrawn at once to the United Kingdom and priority in this respect is being given to those who have suffered in health from the climate. The remainder must await relief by troops who are eligible for duty in the permanent garrisons overseas. These reliefs are being collected as rapidly as circumstances permit, but some time must necessarily elapse, since the personnel to form the drafts is mainly composed of those who re-enlist under conditions which entitle them to two or three months furloughbefore proceeding abroad. There is, therefore, no pros-

    1567
    pect in dispatching them before the hot weather commences in May. If all goes well it should be possible to complete all reliefs during the course of next autumn, but not before.
    With regard to Mesopotamia, the Territorial troops who were moved from India to that country will not return to India. They will be sent home direct as soon as transport can be made available, provided always that they are eligible for release under the terms of the ArmyOrders which have been published recently regarding the formation of the Armies of Occupation. Attention has been drawn to a promise given in 1914 to Territorial units then proceeding to India, when it was stated by Major-General Donald, on behalf of thelate Lord Kitchener, that these troops would be brought home before the end of the War. When the late Field-Marshal sent this message he could not possibly forsee a War of such long duration with the development of such conditions as now obtain. As has been stated, however, every endeavour is being made to bring home at the earliest possible date these Territorial troops who so willingly volunteered for duty overseas during the first critical period of the War.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Are we to understand that all men who have suffered in health through passing several hot summers in India will be brought home at once?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:Yes, Sir. About 20,000 men are being brought home, and it is hoped to bring them through the Red Sea before the hot weather sets in.
    Major O'NEILL: May I ask whether what the right hon. Gentleman has stated refers to the garrisons in Egypt and Palestine?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:I covered Mesopotamia, and what applies to Mesopotamia applies, with certain modifications, to the garrisons in Palestine and Egypt.
    Major O'NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the possibility of replacing British Indian troops now in Palestine and Egypt by units of the Egyptian Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a policy which could be pursued up to a certain point, but, obviously, only to a certain point.
    Major O'NEILL: Cannot you recruit the Egyptian Army further?
    Sir J. D. REES: Have arrangements been made to send home the families of these Territorial officers returned from India who, otherwise, would be exposed to the expense of keeping their wives and children in India?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; I should say that any scheme which brings home the father of the family would bring the family home as well.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of white troops which it is considered necessary to retain in India as a garrison?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Approximately the same number that was considered necessary before the War will be required there during this present period of the Armies of Occupation. It is possible that at a later date, when the world has settled down, a general review of the military situation may enable some alteration to be made.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Warin what way the discharge papers of conscientious objectors are marked in order to state faithfully the particular part they elected to play in the War?
    Captain GUEST: In view of the fact that the men mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend in his question are soldiers, their discharge certificates are completed in accordance with the King's Regulations.
    Mr. CAPEasked the Secretary of State for War whether George Thetford, No. 1790, No. 11th Eastern Non-Combatant Corps, has been seriously ill in hospital for thirteen weeks, and is at present at the Buffs'depot, Canterbury, awaiting court-martial; and whether, in view of the fact that the man has not yet recovered from pleurisy, he will release him from arrest?
    Captain GUEST: As it appears from the hon. Member's question that the soldier concerned has been discharged from hospital, the statement that he has not yet recovered from pleurisy is not understood. I would remind the hon. Member that no soldier can be tried by court-martial unless in the opinion of the medical authorities

    1569
    he is fit to take his trial. In view of this fact, and of the provisions of Section 46 of the Army Act, the question of his release from arrest is not one in which I can properly intervene.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (RE-ENLISTMENT).
    Mr. SWANasked the Secretary of State for War under what terms and conditions Civil servants can or must re-enlist for a further period of military service?
    Mr. BALDWIN: A Civil servant who is compulsorily retained with His Majesty's Forces will continue to enjoy the same benefits as before in regard to the payment of balance, counting of service for increment and pension, and return to the Civil Service on demobilisation. A Civil servant who, being otherwise eligible for demobilisation, prefers eitherto remain as a volunteer in the Army of Occupation or to re-enlist for a definite term of two, three, or four years under the Milner bounty scheme, will be regarded as on leave of absence from his Department without pay, the period counting neither for increment nor pension, but with a promise of reinstatement in the Civil Service at the end of his term of voluntary service with the same pay as at the date when he volunteered.

  ARMY RANK (INEQUALITIES).
  Major ENTWISTLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to remove, as previously promised, the existing inequalities in substantive rank, on the basis of seniority, between officers of the Territorial Forces and those of the Regular Army, and particularly in the Royal Garrison Artillery?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Promotion in the Territorial Force is now carried out on precisely the same lines as for the Regular Army, i.e., by seniority according to existing vacancies in an authorised establishment, provided, of course, the officer is recommended.

  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  Mr. SWANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will sympathetically consider the possibility of granting additional leave on furlough to all those
  1570
  men who have served in Egypt, Palestine, Salonika, and Mesopotamia without a period of home leave?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If my hon. Friend is referring to demobilisation furlough, this question was carefully considered, the period fixed being twenty-eight days, and it is regretted this decision cannot be reconsidered. In the ordinary leave the correct principle is that allowance shall be made for the journey to and from the theatre of operations in which the man is serving.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many cases of men who have had no home leave for over three years: will he see to that and have it altered?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: All such men will be sent home, not on leave, but for demobilisation as fast as physically possible.
  Mr. HURD: Would it be possible, in the demobilisation to have some period of leave corresponding to their last home leave?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is necessary. When the men come home we want them demobilised as quickly as possible. They have a certain period in which they are passing into civil life; after that the unemployment provisions applicable cover them.
  Mr. HURD: I was thinking of a money payment?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot make any promise as to that.

  ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

    REPATRIATED PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Secretary of State for War if men who have been prisoners of war and suffered much as a consequence are being forced into the Army of Occupation; and, if so, will he take steps to stop such a practice?
    Mr. SPOORasked the Secretary of State for War whether repatriated prisoners of war are to be retained in the Army; if so will they be sent overseas again; and whether in view of the sufferings of these men he will make an order that they shall be demobilised?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It would not be right to confer a privilege upon repatriated prisoners of war as against their comrades in the fighting line. It is not possible to appraise the relative suffering and hazards endured. If men are fit in bodily health they must be treated alike, according to the age and categories prescribed.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the War Office, give a denial to a statement that has appeared publicly that repatriated prisoners of war are entitled to demobilisation on expiry of their two-months'leave; and when will he be in a position to make the statement he promised the other day on the whole question of demobilisation as applied to repatriated prisoners?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my hon. Friend will see that what I have said covers the statement. We do propose, if the man is within the category retained—assuming Parliament approves of the retention of such categories—to utilise his services during the period of the Armies of Occupation, whether he is a fighting soldier at the present time, or whether he is a returned repatriated prisoner of war. I take this opportunity, amongst others, of making that fact public.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say definitely that the statement on the subject that has appeared in a great many papers is entirely wrong; it is to the effect that these repatriated prisoners have no special privileges as repatriated prisoners?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; that is the fact. Of course, their health must be most carefully examined here, for many of them have suffered much; but so have the men who have been fighting all the time in the lines.

  MOTOR REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
  Sir C. HENRYasked whether the work at Cippenham is being carried on in accordance with the same plans as when the scheme was embarked upon; and whether the entire acreage that was requisitioned for this purpose is being, or will be, utilised?
  Captain GUEST: The original plans have been generally adhered to, subject to certain modifications in the details of
  1572
  arrangement and construction of buildings; three large store sheds are omitted, and alterations to plans of quarters and barracks to suit civilian administration are now under discussion. I cannot say definitely whether all the land will be required eventually, but the whole acreage will certainly be fully utilised for some time to come.
  Sir RICHARD COOPER: Is it the intention of the Government to retain and maintain these works at Cippenham?
  Captain GUEST: There are three other questions on the Paper on this subject.
  Sir C. HENRYasked on what terms the contracts have been placed for the work that is being carried on at Cippenham; and whether all the contracts were placed by tender or any on the time and line basis or other conditions?
  Captain GUEST: Arrangements had been made to invite tenders from a limited number of firms,on the basis of repayment of cost, with a fee to include profit and superintendence. McAlpine and Sons, one of the invited firms, made a proposal to the effect that they would carry out the work at cost, and that the amount of the fee to be awarded to them should be settled by the Treasury Standing Committee on Contracts (Colwyn Committee) at the end of the work. The firm was considered to possess unusual qualifications for carrying out the work quickly and economically. The proposal was accepted thereforeas being most advantageous. The minor contracts in connection with the works were placed upon a lump sum basis, or, what is virtually the same, on a measurement basis, with the exception of two, where the only practicable method was a contract on the basis of cost.
  Sir C. HENRY: Am I to understand that as regards the contract of Messrs. McAlpine, the War Office has no knowledge at all of what it would amount to?
  Captain GUEST: I presume that as the War Office have undertaken a great many such contracts they must have had a fair idea of what it would cost.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: Can the hon. Member state whether the estimate of the War Office was the same as that given before the Expenditure Committee in the last Parliament?
  Captain GUEST: If my hon. Friend will put a question down on that subject, I will give him an answer.
  Sir C. HENRYasked when it may be anticipated that the work at Cippenham will be completed and, when completed, what is the intention as regards the use of these works; and whether they will be retained by the Governmnet or disposed of?
  Captain GUEST: Under normal conditions of labour, and subject to requirements remaining as at present, it is anticipated that the works at Cippenham will be completed about September next. It is intended to use the works for repair work, and they will be retained by the Government.
  Sir C. HENRY: Am I to understand that these will be national works?
  Captain GUEST: It is almost certain that they will be required for Government purposes. The Army are of opinion that they will require them, but nothing but time can settle that question.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any estimate of the money expended in this matter?
  Captain GUEST: If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will give him the figures.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what class of repairs these works will be required for?
  Captain GUEST: The next question covers that point.
  Sir C. HENRYasked whether inquiries have been instituted to ascertain if the capacity of motor works in this country is adequate to deal with the repairing of motor transport vehicles; and, if so, whether the works at Cippenham will be actually required?
  Captain GUEST: It is understood that a large number of motor transport vehicles will be dealt with at the motor works in this country under arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions. There will still remain a large number of vehicles of American and other makes which cannot be so dealt with, and the works at Cippenham will be fully occupied for several years in dealing with these.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there are over 2,000 motor repair works in this country, and would it not be better to distribute
  1574
  the men in those large Government centres among those different works so that the men may go back to the centres from which they originally came which will enable them to restart?
  Captain GUEST: The War Office will confer on this subject with the Minister of Munitions.
  Sir C. HENRY: Will the Secretary of State for War look into this matter, because it is one which is causing considerable agitation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have heard a reverberation of the agitation in the district concerned, and I am not unfamiliar with this question. The matter is now in the hands of Lord Inverforth, the new Minister of Munitions, and I am quite ready to confer with him on the subject.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from a small group of hon. Members who are interested in this question—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We really must get on with the questions on the Paper.

  ARMY HORSES (SURPLUS).
  Major COURTHOPEasked what steps, if any, are being taken to secure that adequate measures shall be taken to prevent cruelty to animals in those countries in which surplus Army horses and mules are being or will be sold?
  Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on Thursday last to a question on this subject put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York. I will circulate with the Official Report extracts from reports which have been received from the military authorities in Italy, Egypt, and Mesopotamia.
  The following are the Reports referred, to:

  ITALY.
  Average prices in pounds sterling, excluding animals sold to butcher, realised to date, namely, riders 63, light draught 69, heavy draught 96, pack horses 44, mules 52. Considered sufficient guarantee of good treatment by purchasers. Each animal sold with horse rug. Localauthorities only allow responsible persons to bid at sales. All animals sold are specially branded to enable British control. Local mayors have promised to hold frequent inspections. No cases of ill-treatment reported to date. Italian Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals assisting

  1575
  as number of animals sold is considerable, and their distribution covers wide area. Only perfectly fit animals, in good condition, sold; remainder, destroyed. High reserve price fixed to ensure good purchasers.

  EGYPT.
  Military Governors in Syria and Palestine safeguard treatment of animals by inspection in their respective areas. Treatment is reported as satisfactory. Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals supervises animals sold in Egypt, and an officer has been detailed to give special veterinary attention to any animals requiring such. Under these conditions, consider possibility ill-treatment negligible.
  MESOPOTAMIA.
  Firstly, animal institutes exist at Baghdad and Basra, and cases of cruelty to animalsare promptly taken up by political officers all over the country. Secondly, total number of animals sold in country not likely to exceed number of which country has been denuded. Thirdly, prices realised are very high, thus forming fair guarantee of goodtreatment. Fourthly, treatment of horses by Arabs is generally good.

  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (OUTFIT ALLOWANCES).
  30. Lieutenant-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that Territorial officers serving prior to the commencement of theWar were only allowed £20 outfit allowance, while those who have been gazetted since have been allowed £50; and whether officers serving before the War will be granted an increase in the gratuity payable on demobilisation?
  Captain GUEST: Officers appointed to the Territorial Force before mobilisation received an outfit grant of £20, if apappointed before April, 1913, and £40 if appointed after that date, subject, in the latter case, to their being in possession of full or mess dress. On mobilisation they received a grant of £7 10s. for camp kit, but as they were required in peace time to provide and maintain service dress no further grant for its provision was required. The £50 grant includes the £7 10s., and is applicable only to officers commissioned during the War. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  SOLDIERS' PAY BOOKS.
  Mr. WHITEasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst men serving in His
  1576
  Majesty's Forces, and also amongst discharged men, in respect to the amounts debited or credited to them in respect of pay; and whether he will immediately give instructions that in future every soldier, whether on home or foreign service, shall be provided with a pay book in which the amount he receives as pay shall be entered by the regimental paymaster, or his representative, when the payment is made?
  Captain GUEST: The complaints which reach the War Office regarding soldiers' accounts arecomparatively few, and I am not aware of any general dissatisfation amongst soldiers in the matter. If the hon. Member will furnish particulars of any such cases, I shall be glad to have them investigated. Pay books are in use for all soldiers serving inthe field. For other soldiers they are not necessary, as the man's account is balanced monthly and the balance notified to the company commander, from whom the man can always ascertain how he stands.
  Sir F. HALL: Is the same offer open to all, and will all cases receive consideration if they submit particulars?
  Captain GUEST: Most certainly.
  Mr. WHITEasked whether the promise to issue quarterly statements of accounts to all men in His Majesty's Forces is now in operation?
  Captain GUEST: This suggestion, was carefully considered some time ago, and was found impracticable. I am not aware that any promise such as the question suggests was ever given.

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
  Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Secretary of State for War the number of lieutenant-colonels and majors, Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial Force), who have been promoted since the promotion or seniority list was compiled last year?
  Captain GUEST: Twelve lieutenant-colonels, R.A.M.C. (T.F.), have been selected for promotion under the rules governing authorised increases in the establishment. Their names will be published in the "London Gazette"of 26th February. It is anticipated that the publication of the names of majors

  1577
  selected for promotion to the rank of lieutenant-colonel will take place within the next three weeks.
  Sir F. BLAKE: Are these promotions made by seniority coupled with recommendation or by selection?
  Captain GUEST: Selection.

  ARMY OFFICERS (RETIRING RANK).
  Lieutenant-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Regular officers were granted their majorities on the 1st September, 1915, after fifteen years'service and that Volunteer officers used to be given an honorary majority after the same length of service, he will consider the advisability of granting the honorary rank of major, on retirement from the Service, to those officers who have completed fifteen years'commissioned service but who, owing in most cases to their service not having been consecutive, have not reached the rank of major?
  Captain GUEST: Promotion to the rank of major in the Regular Army after fifteen years'service has been discontinued since 15th November last, and the grant of higher honorary rank in the Volunteers by virtue of completion of a specific period of service (fifteen years) ceased on the inception of the Territorial Force in 1908.

  WAR DECORATIONS (ITALIAN STAR).
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers who were engaged on the Italian front are entitled to wear the Italian Star and ribbon, or must they wait for a general order to that effect?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Commemorative war medals awarded by foreign Powers for service during this War are not permitted to be worn by officers or other ranks of the British military forces. The institution of the Allies medal obviates the exchange of commemorative war medals between the Allies.

  RIOT ACT.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether legislation will be
  1578
  considered with a view to substituting more rapid and efficient machinery than the reading of the Riot Act, so that the intention to use force is visible and audible to a riotous assembly, and so be the means of saving life and limb?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to reply to this question. The legal effect of a Proclamation under the Riot Act is not as suggested in the question, but is to make persons who fail to disperse within an hour guilty of a statutory felony. The question whether a bugle should be sounded before troops fire on a crowd has often been raised, but the military opinion has been against it. The officer in charge of the troops is required, if possible, to warn the crowd before firing.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the necessity of obtaining a pure milk supply; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation with that object?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am fully aware of the importance of the matter to which the hon. Member refers. The whole question of the milk supply is receiving careful consideration.

    MAIZE.
    Mr. W. NICHOLSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Food Controller's Department refuse to sell maize to anyone wishing to purchase it unless the purchaser will take in addition 10 per cent. of the quantity in foreign beans; whether this action is taken in consequence of an unfortunate transaction in beans by the Food Controller; and whether a practice which has been made a criminal offence in the case of a private trader will cease to have a place in the dealings of a public Department?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. G. H. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. The present position was fully stated in the

    1579
    answer given on 17th February to the hon. Member for East Sussex. I may add, however, that I anticipate that it may be possible for the arrangement of which the hon. Member complains to be withdrawn at an early date, and I hope to be able to make an announcement very shortly on the subject.

    FOOD MINISTRY (STAFF).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the inefficient organisation of the staff of the Food Ministry, as disclosed by Sir John Bradbury's Committee, has been remedied; and is the cost of this staff borne by the Vote of Credit or on the food controlled by the Department?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. If the hon. Member will refer to the Report in question, he will find it stated that the inspectors appointed by the Committee "gave it as their deliberate opinion that the Ministry of Food did not, so far as overhead charges were concerned, in regard to the commodities with which it deals, compare unfavourably with a large commercial firm," and that "viewing the Department as a whole, it appeared to them that it was conducted in a fair and businesslike way, having regard to the difficulties of the subject-matter and of getting together an efficient staff."As regards the last part of the question, selling prices are so arranged as to provide a margin sufficient to cover the estimated costs of the administration of the Ministry of Food.

  SPIRIT STOCKS.
  Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Prime Minister if there is in this country at the present time an amount of whisky sufficient to last between nine and eleven years at the ordinary rate of consumption; and if, under these circumstances, he will explain the action of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. There is no information as to duty-paid stocks, nor are there available separate records of stocks of whisky in bond as distinguished from other homemade spirits. The quantity of home-made spirits in bonded warehouses of the United Kingdom on 31st January last was
  1580
  113,788,000 proof gallons. Before the War requirements for consumption in this country, exports, ships' stores, manufacturing purposes, etc., amounted to about 50,000,000 proof gallons per annum. It would therefore appear that, exclusive of spirit manufactured since 31st January, 1919, the stocks are equal to about two and a quarter years'requirements for all purposes at the pre-war rate. As, however, the rate of duty has been doubled, and prices are much higher than before the War, it is not possible to say what the rate of consumption will be in future, when the present restrictions on clearances have been withdrawn. It must also be remembered that, under the Immature Spirits Act, not all the spirits in bond are available for immediate consumption.
  Sir A. FELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is fair that spirits should be exported in large quantities when old people in this country cannot get them?
  Mr. ROBERTS: An hon. Member asks whether this includes the figures for Ireland. It does. The other question is a matter of opinion.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform us why there is any restriction on the taking of whisky out of bond at the present time, seeing that the War is over?
  Mr. ROBERTS: That is a matter of policy not for me to determine.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how extremely unpopular it is to have a lot of liquor locked up?
  Mr. DEVLIN: As this is a matter of policy, could the Leader of the House give us an answer?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid not. I should require a good deal of notice.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to give us an answer as soon as possible?
  Colonel ASHLEY:asked the Prime Minister why the promise made by the Government in November and December last that spirits should be released for use in case of sickness when ordered by a medical man has not been carried out; is he aware that the chances of recovery in some cases of influenza and pneumonia is greatly diminished where stimulants are

  1581
  unobtainable; and whether, in view of the present serious increase of influenza and pneumonia cases, he will at once take steps to fulfil the promise given by the Government?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply to his question on Thursday last. I am glad to say, however, that the Cabinet have since decided that spirits shall now be released up to 75 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. of the quantities released in 1916, and that considerable additional quantities will, therefore, be available.
  Colonel ASHLEY: May I take it that steps will be taken to see that sick people are able to get whisky, and that publicans and others do not hold it up?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Endeavours will be made to see that this distribution is equitable.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. C. WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared, in view of thefact that the necessities of life have increased in price to the extent of 130 per cent., to recommend an immediate increase of 2s. 6d. a week to old age pensioners pending the Report of the Committee which it is proposed to appoint?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the negative. I may remind the hon. Member that 130 per cent. is the average increase in retail prices, not the increased cost of living, which was put by the Sumner Committee at 80 per cent. Old age pensions have already been increased since theWar in most cases by 50 per cent.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made in this House on 7th December, 1917, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, that prices of foodstuffs between July, 1914, and November, 1917, had increased by 106 per cent.; and has there been any reduction since then?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better give notice of that question.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this Committee will be ap-
  1582
  pointed—questions have been put down now for four weeks, and a promise has been given every time?
  Mr. WHITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many old age pensioners are on the verge of starvation on 7s. 6d. per week?
  Major HAYWARDasked the PrimeMinister whether the scope of the proposed inquiry into old age pensions will be so enlarged as to include the granting of pensions to the widows and young children of deceased workers for whom no other provision is made; and, if this is not possible, whether the Government, in the interest of national efficiency, will take other steps to see that the young children of deceased workers shall have secured to them a proper standard of maintenance and education apart from the Poor Law?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I am asking the President of the Local Government Board to consider the last part of the question.
  Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many widows have been left with large families and that they have to leave their children to the tender mercies of neighbours while they turn their hands to the washtub?
  Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the regulations made during the War, an old age pensioner may earn up to 30s. a week without prejudice to his pension; whether he is aware that, in many such cases, the pensions officer has taken away the pension book; and if he will say what steps a pensioner can take to secure the advantage of the regulation?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Action is not in general being taken for reduction or revocation of existing old age pension in consequence of the pensioners'earning increased wages during the War, so long as their wages and other means taken together do not exceed 30s. a week. Where the wages and other means exceed that limit, the pensioner is given the opportunity of surrendering his pension order book temporarily in lieu of action being taken for formal revocation of the pension; and if he elects to surrender it, the pension is not formally revoked, and the book can be restored if and when the circumstances justify it, without his

  1583
  having the trouble and delay of preferring a fresh claim. I am not aware that in any case the pension officer has taken away a pension book, except where the pensioner has elected to surrender it under the above arrangement. If any pensioner who has surrendered his book considers that he is entitled to the benefit of the concessions, he should apply in writing to the pension officer for its return. The matter will then be investigater, and if the pensioner is entitled to the benefit of the concessions the book will be returned at once.

  AFFORESTATION (PREPARATION OF BILL).
  Major COURTHOPEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that a large proportion of the timber of the United Kingdom has been felled for war purposes, and that many landowners are willing to replant their woods or to plant additional areas, but are waiting for the appointment of the proposed forest authority and the announcement of its policy; and whether the Government will introduce the legislation necessary to establish a forest authority with adequate powers and proceed with it without delay?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Board are aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. A Bill is being drafted for the purpose of carrying out many of the recommendations of the Forestry Sub-committee, of which the right hon. Member for the Camborne Division was the chairman.

  BRAZILIAN IMPORT DUTIES.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government, under the existing or prospective tariffs, are or will be in a position to take advantage of the new Brazilian preference which authorises a reduction of 20 per cent. in the import duties on goods from countries which make reciprocal customs concessions to Brazilian products?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend has asked
  1584
  me to reply to this question. The preference to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is not a new one, but has formed part of the Brazilian Budget law for many years past. Despite repeated representations to the Brazilian Government, it has not hitherto been found possible to secure the extension of the reduced tariff rates to the United Kingdom. I am unable to say what may be possible in the event of His Majesty's Government effecting a change of policy in this country.

  CAPITAL ISSUES.
  Mr. SITCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will furnish a Return showing the issues of capital sanctioned by the Treasury during 1918 and issues of capital similarly sanctioned since the beginning of the Armistice?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Ifear it is impossible for the staff to spare time for dealing with current applications to prepare a Return of this kind.
  Mr. SITCH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very great inconvenience that will be caused unless there is some Return of this kind under the new Regulations which prevent dealings in shares?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am not aware, but if the hon. Member will communicate with me I will look into the matter.

  CURRENCY AND FOREIGN EXCHANGES.
  Major O'NEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the conclusions arrived at by the Committee on Currency and Foreign Exchanges in their first interim Report; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to deal with the situation which has arisen by reason of the large issues of legal tender paper money made during the War?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave on Monday to the hon. Member for West Woolwich.
  Major O'NEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee in their Report, stated that the adoption of the main principle is a matter of vital neces-

  1585
  sity to the stability of the finances of this country. Is not the matter made still more pressing by the recent termination of hostilities, and owing to the fact that the export of bullion is now rendered more easy, and in the present unfavourable state of foreign exchanges, is it not possible that there may be undue strain—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer whether he can state the date on which the new Regulations concerning new capital issues will come into force, the composition of the Committee, and the number of panels in which they will work; and whether the Department of Overseas Trade and the Committee of the Stock Exchange will be represented on the Committee?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The new Regulation concerning capital issues came into force yesterday. Invitations to serve on the Committee have been issued, but until the replies have been received my right hon. Friend is not in a position to announce the composition of the Committee. Invitations have been addressed amongst others to a representative of overseas interests and to a former member of the Stock Ex-change Committee. It is proposed, inthe first instance, to constitute three panels. If the work is found to require an increase it will be made later.
  Earl WINTERTON: Can my hon. Friend state why an invitation has not been extended to the present Stock Exchange Committee?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am sorry I cannot answer that question.

  SELECTION.
    CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
    Sir Samuel Roberts reported from the Committee of Selection; that they had selected the following Twelve Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Six Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47: Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Brace, Mr. Macmaster, Mr. Mount, Mr. William Nicholson, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Rendall, Sir Samuel Roberts, Sir Watson Rutherford, Captain Albert Smith, Sir Archibald Williamson, and Mr. J. W. Wilson.
    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee A: Mr. Acland, Mr. Arnold, Captain Barnett, Mr. Briant, Mr. Cairns, Mr. Cautley, Major Sir Edward Coates, Major Colfox, Sir William Howell Davies, Mr. Gilbert, Sir Henry Harris. Mr. Hayday, Sir Charles Henry, Mr. Hinds, Mr. Hirst, Lientenant-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Hogge, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Mr. Stanley Johnson, Mr. Haydn Jones, Major Lane-Fox, Sir J. A. Lister, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Sir Francis Lowe, Major Christopher Lowther, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Manville, Mr. Marriott, Mr. Moles, Colonel Sir Henry Norris, Mr. Renwick, Mr. Thomas Richards, Sir Hallowell Rogers, Mr. Rose, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Sir Courtenay Warner, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. Wilson-Fox, and Mr. Robert Young.

    CHAIRMEN'S PANEL (APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS UNDER PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911).
    Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That, inpursuance of Section 1, sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. J. W. Wilson from the Chairmen's Panel, with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1918–19.
  Order [18th February] referring Navy (Supplementary Estimate), 1918–19, to the Committee of Supply read, and discharged.
  Navy (Supplementary Estimate), 1918–19, referred to a Standing Committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Commissioners.)
    His Majesty shall have power to appoint Commissioners, consisting of a chairman, who shall be a judge of the Supreme Court, a vice-chairman, and such other persons as His Majesty may think fit, for the purpose of inquiring into the position of, and conditions prevailing in, the coal industry, and in particular as to—

    (a) the wages and hours of work in the various grades of colliery workers, and whether and, if so, to what extent, and by what method, such wages should be increasedand hours reduced, regard being had to a reasonable standard of living amongst the colliery workers, and to the effect of such changes on the economic life of the country;

    (b) any inequalities between different grades of colliery workers as regards wages,hours of work, and other conditions, and whether and, if so, to what extent any of these inequalities are unjustifiable and capable of remedy;

    (c) the cost of production and distribution of coal, and the general organisation of the coalfield and the industry as a whole;

    (d) selling prices and profits in the coal industry;

    (e) the social conditions under which colliery workers carry on their industry;

    (f) any scheme that may be submitted to or formulated by the Commissioners for the future organisation of the coal industry, whether on the present basis, or on the basis of joint control, nationalisation, or any other basis;

    (g) the effect of the present incidence of, and practice in regard to, mining royalties and wayleaves upon the coal industry and the costof coal, and whether any and what changes in these respects are desirable;

    (h) the effect of proposals under the above heads upon the development of the coal industry and the economic life of the country.

    Mr. THOMAS RICHARDS: I beg to move after the word "conditions" ["inquiring into the position of, and conditions"] to insert the words "other than wages and hours of work."
    The object of this Amendment is to remove from the operations of this Commission the consideration of the question of hours and wages.This subject was so exhaustively discussed yesterday that I do not propose to occupy the time of the Committee other than to urge again that the Government should give consideration of the representations that were made
    1636
    yesterday. There is one word I may add which was not said yesterday, in order to allay the fears of the Committee as to the financial effects of these changes. The argument of the Prime Minister and of the hon. Members who supported the Government were largely based on our competitivecapacity with other countries, and the speeches assumed that the workers of the other countries were going to continue under pre-war conditions. We are assuming quite another phase of the question; we believe that none of the workmen in the countries which have taken part in the great War are going to be satisfied with the old order of things. One great European competitor in the South Wales coal trade was Germany. Is it to be assumed that German workmen are going to be content with pre-war conditions? Weare not assuming it. I remember that at our first International Conference of Miners German workmen gave a report of a man and his wife working in German mines for £49 a year. As the result of the International Miners'Conferences and the assistancewe were able to give to the German miners in forming themselves into a trade union, that condition of things was very much improved before the War broke out. None of us are desirous of seeing the present state of things continue in Germany. We hope they will soon settle down to some democratic form of government. If they do, we need not be afraid in this country of any competition we have to meet in the coal trade from Germany. I have no desire to labour the question, which was so exhaustively discussed yesterday, and I move the Amendment in the hope that the Government are prepared to find some way out of the difficulty.
    Sir EDGAR JONES: I am rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment in this particular form, because it would knockthe whole of the inquiry as to hours and wages not only out of this Bill but out of any other form of investigation. I quite understand that every Parliamentary opportunity is to be taken. I am not complaining of the principle, or that the right hon. Gentleman has taken his opportunity in this way, but it would be regrettable if this Amendment were carried in this form. I quite understand the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman—I have some sympathy with him—it is that we should get a decision on the question of the 35s. a week average earn-

    1637
    ings of the miner on the pre-war basis and on the 30 per cent. increase. Hon. Members want a decision on that before the Conference. That is the real point they desire to achieve. I should be very sorry that that should be achieved in a way that would block now a real radical inquiry in the way I want it undertaken into the whole question of wages and of conditions and hours that are wrapped up with the wage question. I would ask the Government one question on a little point of interpretation about which I am not sure. As I read the words, the Commissioners may take it either way, either that it was included or that it was excluded. What I should like to know from the Government is this: Whether the Commission, once they have brought in their Interim Report, which is the immediate thing that is wanted, and wanted in a short space of time, would then proceed to go into the whole question of the basis method on which wages are paid? The right hon. and hon.Gentlemen opposite know that for several years they have been ready, particularly in South Wales, to press very hard for a complete change from the method upon which wages are based and the method by which they are calculated. I remember a gentleman who is no longer with us, who was one of the greatest authorities on the coalfields of this country—Sir Arthur Markham, formerly Member for Mansfield—telling me many times that the system of payment in the South Wales coalfields, when considered in relation to the systems in other coalfields, was a system unintelligible to anybody, absolutely indefensible and a permanent source of unrest. Everybody will agree that the way it has grown up, patch upon patch, from the early days of the coalfield leaves us at the present time with an infinite source of friction from day to day between the individual workman and the individual official. That goes on all the year round. It is essential that the Government, now that they are about the matter, should deal with this, so that we shall not have it raised again in a year or two's time.
    I would refer to another point which has a very important bearing on the question
    of hours. The South Wales miners have absolutely refused, and on very strong grounds, to work more than one full working shift of eight hours. If, as a result of this Commission and, perhaps, with the creation of a better spirit, you can get out of this Bill two shifts of six hours, then, of course, the mine-owners will be in a much better position to deal with the question of wages, because, although their overhead charges would be the same, they would get twelve hours as against eight hours'production of coal. I am quite certain that the decision about hours will be very difficult and almost impossible, owing to the difficulty of the individual workman who in this shift finds he is messed up by the man in the next shift. With the present wage system in South Wales and the way it is constituted,I do not believe you will ever persuade the Welsh miners to give you the two shifts of six hours. It may be possible for this Commission, if they go into the question of the method of payment and try to bring about the rearrangement that is desired and give us a complete new settlement, to get such a system that will make it very much easier for us to persuade the South Wales miner to take his two shifts of six hours. I therefore hope that the Amendment will not be carried in this form, because the objectof hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be achieved by this particular Amendment.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I did not rise before because I thought that perhaps some other hon. Member would like to say something upon this Amendment. Really the question was threshed out yesterday, and I am quite sure my hon. Friends will not think me in the least discourteous if I do not repeat to-day what was said yesterday in answer to the proposal. It is not one which the Government can possibly accept. The matter was really decided yesterday, and therefore I am sure my right hon. Friend will not think me rude if I say nothing further about it.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 270.

    Division No. 5.]

    AYES.

    [3.59 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Cairns, John

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Edwards, C. (Bedwelty)

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Spoor, B. G.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Lunn, William

    Tootill, Robert

    Grundy, T. W.

    Onions, Alfred

    Waterson, A. E.

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Redmond, Captain William A.

    Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.

    Hartshorn, V.

    Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    Hayday, A.

    Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

    Hogge, J. M.

    Sitch, C. H.

    Smith and Mr. Tyson Wilson.

    Irving, Dan

    NOES.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Dennis, J. W.

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

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Dockrell, Sir M.

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Ainsworth, Capt. C.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Atkey, A. R.

    Edgar, Clifford

    Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

    Austin, Sir H.

    Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Barrie, C. C.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lowther, Col. C. (Lonsdale, Lancs.)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Lynn, R. J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Galbraith, Samuel

    M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)

    Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

    Bird, Alfred

    Glanville, Harold James

    Macmaster, Donald

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Glyn, Major R.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Gould, J. C.

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

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Grant, James Augustus

    Maddocks, Henry

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Greame, Major P. L.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Bowles, Col. H. F.

    Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Greig, Col. James William

    Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

    Bramsdon, Sir T.

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)

    Martin, A. E.

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Moles, Thomas

    Briant, F.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hallas, E.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Brittain, Sir Harry E.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

    Britton, G. B.

    Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morden, Col. H. Grant

    Brotherton, Col. Sir E. A.

    Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Morris, Richard

    Burdon, Col. Rowland

    Henderson, Major V. L.

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes

    Hennessy, Major G.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Henry, Sir Charles S. (Salop)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Campion, Col. W. R.

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

    Neal, Arthur

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Hinds, John

    Nelson, R. F. W. R.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, Harry (Stirling)

    Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Norris, Col. Sir Henry G.

    Clough, R.

    Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

    O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hurd, P. A.

    Palmer, Major G. M.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurst, Major G. B.

    Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

    Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Parker, James

    Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.

    Inskip, T. W. H.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Percy, Charles

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Johnstone, J.

    Perring, William George

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Jones, Sir E. R. (Merthyr)

    Philipps. Sir O. C. (Chester)

    Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Pickering, Col. Emil W.

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles.

    Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

    Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

    Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Pratt, John William

    Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)

    Kidd, James

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Purchase, H. G.

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rae, H. Norman

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Knights, Capt. H.

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Davison W. H. (Kensington)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Dean, Com. P. T.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    1640

    1641

    Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

    Simm, M. T.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

    Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Reid, D. D.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Renwick, G

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (York)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Rodger, A. K.

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

    Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

    Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

    Woolcock, W. J. U.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Thompson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)

    Townley, Maximillian G.

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    Seager, Sir William

    Waddington, R.

    Younger, Sir George

    Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John

    Walton, Sir Joseph (Barnsley)

    Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

    Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    F. Guest and Lord Edmund Talbot.

    Shortt, Right Hon. E.

    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, after the word "coal" ["coal industry, and in particular"], to insert the words "owning and producing."
    I do not propose to press this Amendment, but I want to have a statement from the Government that the Bill does cover these two different factors in the industry. I am afraid the Bill has hitherto been argued as one dealing solely with coal getting. If it is to exclude from the purview all inquiry into the powers of coal-owners of holding any gotten minerals and keeping those minerals unworked, then, I think, the chief advantage of this inquiry would fall to the ground. I will give an illustration of what I mean, which was told me by Sir Arthur Markham. He told me ten years ago now, but the illustration holds good now as much as it did then. He said, "I wanted to open up the coalfields under the Welbeck Abbey Estate, and I went to the Duke of Portland and offered him royalties which would have amounted to £50,000 a year. It was a fixed rent of £25,000, and the output would have been such as to produce £50,000 in royalties in a year. But the Duke declined to allow the estates to be worked, with the result that the coal was not got and the people who might have been employed getting the coal and the people who might have been using it were either not employed or unable to get it."That sort of thing hampers the coal-mining industry every bit as much as do high wages or short hours. You cannot carry on an inquiry relating solely to the question of the labour applied to the coal. You ought also to consider the powers of the owners of the coalfield to withhold it from the market. I want to be quite certain that the inquiry will consider the power of the people who own the coalfields to withhold the coal from use.
    1642
    The Duke of Portland was able to refuse to allow Sir Arthur Markham to work the coal because so long as he kept it idle he was neither taxed nor rated upon its value. Obviously, this Committee, if it comes to anything, will have to inquire whether or not a system of taxation and ratingwhich exempts ungotten minerals from all contribution to the State is a fit method of taxation or rating to be allowed to continue in the interests of the coal production of the country and the cheapness of that coal when it is produced. Therefore I move this Amendment pro forma because I want to know whether it is within the purview of the Commission or not to consider the terms under which the landowners are held to own the coal seams under their land.
    Mr. SHORTT: I think I can reassure my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think it advisable to insert these words. They might have a limiting effect rather than otherwise. With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend s intention, I think the inquiry into nationalisation covers it. It deals with the future of thecoal industry, and it involves the nationalisation of land, and of course the question how far coal-owners are able to hold back necessary coal and how far they are entitled to charge prohibitive prices in the way of royalties would be included. I think it is entirely covered under Sub-section 1 (f).
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not quite happy. Nationalisation has not been defined. I am still ignorant whether it means nationalisation of the pits already working or nationalisation of all the minerals in the country.
    Mr. SHORTT: I understand it to mean nationalisation of all minerals.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words
    "and whether and, if so, to what extent, and by what method, such wages should be increased and hours reduced, regard being had to a reasonable standard of living amongst the colliery workers, and to the effect of such changes on the economic life of the country."
    These words are redundant. In paragraph (a) it talks about "a reasonable standard of living," and in paragraph (e) of the same Clause,
    "the social conditions under which colliery workers carry on their industry—"
    one and the same thing. Again in paragraph (a),
    "such changes in the economic life of the country."
    In paragraph (h),
    "the effect of proposals under the above head which these changes will make on the economic life of the country."
    It is an obvious redundancy. But that is a small point. I am going to ask the Committee to have these words withdrawn on a bigger issue than that. The Prime Minister told us quie truly yesterday that this is not a dispute between the miner and the colliery-owner. It is not a dispute, again, between the miner and organised capital. It is to a certain extent, but we have to remember that organised capital is to a very great extent able to take care of itself. It is mobile. If it is persecuted it can go away. The great firm of Yarrow was hunted from London to the Clyde and from the Clyde to British Columbia. No doubt in course of time it will go from British Columbia to Shanghai, but in each and every case Yarrow's have managed to get a profit for their shareholders, because capital is mobile. Nor, again, is this a dispute between the miners representing one branch of organised labour and another great branch of organised labour, because we had it yesterday from both benches above the Gangway, "We stand by the miners."No, the dispute is between colliery workers, whether above or below ground, and the great middle section of the community—call them if you like the middle classes—those who have to use coal in their ordinary daily life and who are not organised. If the Government had really gone to the miners and the owners of collieries and arranged that the miners shouldget what they want, and the coal-owners should be allowed to charge 10s. or 12s., whatever it is, more for their coal to the private consumer, it would very nearly have signed its death warrant.
    The CHAIRMAN: This seems to have been a lost speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. It does not arise on the Amendment for which I called the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It seems to me really a question of the drafting of paragraph (a). The hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to propose to leave out all the words after "workers" in the second line of the paragraph.
    Major NEWMAN: The reason I want to have the words left out is that if they are left in it gives a wrong direction to the Commission. If any reasonable man read these lines he would certainly say they contain a direct direction to the Commission to report in a certain way. It is to have regard to a reasonable standard of living. What is a reasonable standard of living What is the datum line? A city clerk who goes off to his work at half-past eight inthe morning and gets there at half-past nine, after an hour's strap-hanging in 'bus, tube, or tram, and gets home at half-past six in the evening, earns £150 a year. The purchasing power of the sovereign has gone down by a half. Is that a reasonablestandard of living? The mine-worker gets, as I understand, anything from £5 to £7 a week. At any rate the Prime Minister told us yesterday he gets a minimum of 82s. to 83s., but if the evidence I have read is correct he gets a great deal more than that. At any rate he gets well over £200 a year. Surely on that he can maintain a reasonable standard of living, and it is easier for him to maintain that standard than it is for the clerk. Surely it is unfair that these words should be inserted. They are giving a direct incentive to the Commission to report in a certain way. We surely want to have the Commission made absolutely fair. We want to get for it the sympathy and the support not alone of the miners, not alone of the coal-owners, butof the general community. If the general community imagines that this is a biassed Commission it will have no confidence in its finding, and if these words are eliminated at any rate the general public will have some sort of confidence in them.
    Mr. SHORTT: I think if the hon. and gallant Gentleman applies his common sense to these words he will see that his fears are ungrounded. There is nothing in the Sub-section which directs the Commission as to the manner in which they

    1645
    are to report. It puts a plain question. It says, "You are to consider the wages and the hours worked by the various grades of workers." Then it tells them, "You are to consider whether the wages are to be increased." It may say, "No,"to that. If it says "Yes," it is to consider to what extent and in what method; and then there is the simple fact that it is to have regard to two things—the effect such changes as it may recommend may have on the cost of living and a reasonable standard of living among the colliers and the effect upon the economic life of the country. It is to go into the hours and the wages, and to inquire whether, having regard to a reasonable standard of living and to the effect it will have on the other industries of the country, it is right that there shouldbe an increase. If it recommends that an increase is not right, there the matter ends. If it recommends that it is right, then it must say to what extent and in what method. I think that is a perfectly plain question and it leaves the Commission an absolutely free hand, and there is no suggestion of hampering it in any way.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "method" ["and by what method"], to insert the words "of taxation or legislation or trade union action."
    I am quite confident from what I have heard to-day and yesterday that unless we insert here some words which will direct the Commission to inquire as to whether there is not some chance of altering the conditions by other means than legislation, we shall have direct action, or trade union action, absolutely ruled out. We have just voted on trade union action, and I never gave a vote with greater satisfaction in my life. I certainly think there can be a very strong case made out for a strong trade union desiring to regulate the hours of labour and the wages of labour itself without State interference. But I think this Commission might consider the problem of direct trade union action as apart from the collectivist action of the State by means of legislation. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the insertion of the words "methods of taxation."This is a vital question. I have illustrated just now the ease with which the owners of ungotten minerals could keep their minerals un-worked, thereby reducing the amount of
    1646
    coal produced and reducing the payment for labour, while at the same time increasing the price of coal, because if you reduce the supply you increase the price. There is another very pertinent thing for the Commission to consider. At the present time, owing to the somewhat light-hearted action of the 1910 Parliament, we have had imposed in this country a tax upon royalties. A royalty is a payment made for every ton of coal which is produced. If you put a tax upon royalties it checks the production and reduces the amount of coal produced, so that you have in this royalties tax a direct restriction upon production. What is the history of that tax? I am afraid the Home Secretary was not in the House then. Very few Members of the present Parliament were. I will tell the Committee what produced the tax.
    The CHAIRMAN: Now that the hon. and gallant Member has explained his Amendment, I would point out that it has got out of place. Paragraph (g) deals with this question. He has handed in an Amendment on that paragraph in order to raise the question of taxation. His Amendment is clearly out of place now.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Paragraph (g) deals with mining royalties and way-leaves. I submit that that is not the place to consider an alternative to the taxation of royalties and wayleaves. The taxation of royalties, as you must know, reduces production. If the taxation had been imposed as it was originally intended in the 1910 Act, and had been put upon ungotten minerals, whether used or not, it would have had a diametrically opposite effect and would have increased production. That is as well known to you as it was to any Member of the 1910 Parliament.
    The CHAIRMAN: I quite appreciate the hon. and gallant Member's point, but it must not slip into paragraph (a). The hon. Member had better bring it up as a separate paragraph.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Very well, Sir.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member has handed in a manuscript Amendment to come in at the end of paragraph (a), but that also is out of place. The new paragraph should come in at the end of paragraph (c). The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment at the end of paragraph (b) is permissible, I think.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words "by law or otherwise."
    My object in moving this Amendment is to give the Commission the wider powers of inquiring whether the evil conditions in the mining industry can be remedied by allowing natural laws to have effect instead of relying upon artificial restrictions upon hours or artificial increases in wages. That is the same point that I brought up elsewhere.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid this is also out of place. "By law or otherwise" would, I presume, mean by legal enactment or by agreement between the owners and the workers.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes; I might say the Whitley Council.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member's next Amendment at the beginning of paragraph (c), in which he wishes to insert the words "Rents, royalties, and wayleaves," again, is connected with the wrong paragraph. When we come to paragraph (g), which deals with royalties, wayleaves, etc., we can deal with that Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "of coal,"and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "in the coal industry or any industry commonly carried on in connection therewith or as ancillary or incidental thereto."
    The object of this Amendment is that there are certain industries which are incidental or ancillary to the coal industry, such as coking and other sorts of industry, and we are anxious that everything shall be included. We insert these words in order to ensure that the whole of the industries connected with coal owning and working should be included within the scope of the Commission. I am sure the Committee will agree that the scope of the Commission should be as complete as possible.
    Mr. BRACE: I welcome the Amendment of the Home Secretary, but I should like to know whether it means that the Commission will be able to inquire into the oil industry as to cost, and the cost of pit wood, and other things which are factors in depressing wages in some form or another. The cost of oil has increased considerably and the cost of pit wood and
    1648
    all the other things which go to make up the operations of the mining industry have greatly increased. Does the proposal mean that the Commission may inquire as to whether the oil factors, who supply the oil to the collieries are asking too exorbitant prices and making for themselves extravagant profits, or the suppliers of the pit wood are asking too great a price and leaving themselves too large a margin of profit? Does it mean that the Commission can inquire into all these things as part and parcel of the coal industry?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid that would mean opening too wide a scope for the inquiry. If one is to be able to inquire into the production of all the raw material which the colliery requires it would open the scope of the Commission for years and years. I cannot consent to that. There aremany collieries which have coke ovens, and so forth, and the idea is to include these incidental or ancillary operations for the purpose of considering the wages, hours, and other details, just as we should inquire into the wages, hours, and other detailsof the coal industry pure and simple. I can hardly be taken to have said that the question should be gone into as to whether the Norwegian owner of forests is charging too much for the timber sold for pit props. That would make far too large a scope for the Commission. I am afraid I cannot go quite so far as that.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I think we need not trouble ourselves about the profits on pit props and oil. When we get to normal times competition will rectify that as in the past.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider this matter. I understood from him that he was proposing his Amendment with the view of widening the scope of the Sub-section, but if his interpretation is right, it would mean that in one vital respect he is narrowing the scope of the Sub-section. I have profound sympathy with the point of view of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Brace). If you are giving the Commission power to inquire into the increase of wages and the reduction of hours, they will have to go a little beyond that to see where the cost of this increase of wages comes from. I have no hesitation in saying that there is a very large margin that could rightly be pulled back for the bene-

    1649
    fit of wages and hours in the mining industry from the perfectly prodigal and extortionate prices that have been charged for timber. As the Sub-section stands it is perfectly clear, without the Home Secretary's Amendment, that when the Commission have power to inquire into the cost of production of coal they can take into consideration all those increases which have taken place in the cost of stores, timber, etc. I am a little afraid of the interpretation of the Home Secretary, but I am not so much afraid of the wording of the Clause, because as I read it the Commission willinquire into the whole cost of production and distribution in the coal industry. I think those words are ample to cover an inquiry into the cost of timber, oil, explosives and other factors which have gone enormously to increase the cost of production ofcoal apart altogether from the question of wages. If there is any doubt in the Home Secretary's mind as to these powers, I would earnestly appeal to him to insert the necessary words in order that that inquiry should take place by the Commission.
    Mr. BRACE: I want to be quite clear on this point. Does the Home Secretary's proposal mean that the Commission would inquire into the ramifications of coking and the production of different by-products by industries incidental or ancillary to the coal industry?
    Mr.SHORTT: The intention is that, in addition to inquiring into the coaling operations of the industry, the Commission should also be able to go into the question of coking ovens and any other by-products ancillary to the coal industry. It would be impossible for this Commission if it found that the cost of timber was excessive to go into the whole timber industry, and to decide whether or not the Norwegian owners or the Scotch owners are charging too much. You cannot do that. The Commission could find as a fact and could say that the cost of timber and the cost of any other raw material which the coal industry requires is excessive, but they could not possibly do more than that. They could not go into the whole question of the raw material the colliery requires. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that where you have a colliery which is not only dealing in coal but a dealing in tar, coke, and other by-products, that that should be taken into consideration, that the workmen therein engaged should be included within the scope of the inquiry,
    1650
    and that the profits derived from those incidental industries should also be taken into consideration in connection with the profits of the colliery.
    Sir EDGAR JONES: It is important to know to what extent we are amplifying the scope of the original words, "cost of production and distribution of coal."That was one of the problems that were raised here yesterday. There is another, and that is the essential need for the miners to get authentic figures to explain where the difference goes between the price of coal at the pit mouth and the price at which it is sold to a poor working man in London. I understand that that was included in the original words, "cost of production and distribution of coal."I am not quite sure that you have covered that particular point in the words which you are now inserting. Would it not be necessary to put in the words "and trade"? I do not think that the average factor selling coal in London comes within the definition of "coal industry."
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: We must be clear as to the line of demarcation when we enter into the question of the production of coke and by-products. In some instances you have coke ovens in connection with the collieries. In other instances you have the coke ovensin connection with steel works. These coke ovens are intermingled with the collieries in Cumberland, while in South Wales you have the collieries and steel works combined, and the coke ovens are included in the steel workers'wages, and there is quite a different scale for the steel works and for the collieries. I do not know where you can draw the line of demarcation so far as finding out the cost is concerned.
    Mr. SHORTT: I must apologise to the Committee because they have not before them on the Order Paper the actual words of the Amendment. These words, taking coke ovens as an example, deal with coke ovens which are in connection with the collieries or ancilliary or incidental thereto. They are intended to cover the case of those coke ovens which are carried on in connection with collieries.
    Mr. CAIRNS: What was suggested just now is being done. Under an agreement between the owners and the miners in Northumberland, there is an award of

    1651
    ascertainment for the regulation of wages. Suppose three tons of coal made two tons of cokes and say three tons of coal are 24s. and two tons of coke are 30s., and suppose there is 2s. for labour, then 28s. would go into ascertainment. I do not know where this is going to lead us to. I understand that the suggestion was that all cognate industrial workers are going to be put into the inquiry, apart from the miner altogether. I know some collieries where the coal comes direct from the pit and by-products of all kinds are made from it. Some collieries have clay as well as coal, and the clay is manufactured into fire-bricks. That is put into the ascertainment as well. I desire to contradict a statement of one of the hon. Members in respect to the wages that are paid. These statements get into the Press and are not fair toour men. I got this week-end from a colliery that is working every day in the county of Northumberland figures showing that the average is not £1 a day but is 10s. 2d., and in some cases is much lower than that. I happen to be secretary to what is called the joint committee, and among our men are some who are getting as low as 4s. a day, and some as low as 6s. 8d. a day. It is not fair to say that our men are getting all the pay.
    Major NEWMANrose—
    Mr. CAIRNS: I beg your pardon. A good many people talk here who do not seem to understand what mining is at all.
    Major NEWMAN Major NEWMAN rose—[Hon. Members: "Order."]
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member will see how when he gets off the scent it is liable to lead to others following. The hon. Member should confine himself to the Amendment on the Paper.
    Mr. CAIRNS: I desired to understand what the Home Secretary was aiming at, and I thought that I might explain the point when I was up.
    Mr. SHORTT: I will explain again. As the Bill stands, the words "selling price and profits in the coal industry"might mean coal and coal alone. The profits of collieries and of mine-owners are not necessarily made out of coal alone, and the intention of this Amendment is to add to the inquiry those things like coke, or any other matter, which are a source of
    1652
    revenue, and a source of wages, and a source of everything else. This extends the scope of the inquiry so as to complete it by including everything which the mine produces.
    Sir E. JONES: The selling prices and profits in the coal industry in paragraph (d) is a very different matter from the cost of production and distribution of coal in paragraph (c). The Amendment would be quite right in the second paragraph, but here we shall have to go into it very carefully.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is a further Amendment to paragraph (d) of this Section.
    Sir E. JONES: How are you to draw the line, when you come to by-products, between collieries which are partially collieries and partially steel works, and others that are entirely collieries and others that are entirely steel works? I guite understand wanting to go into this, to get the cost of production of the coal at the pit-head. That is all right so far as paragraph (c) is concerned. I quite understand the Government also wanting to get the selling price and profits in the coal industry and all cognate things. That is all right so far as price and profits are concerned, but how are you going to work it for cost of production of tar, phenol, benzol, and their distribution afterwards? I would suggest that this Amendment be confined to paragraph (d).
    Sir C. WARNER: I do not think it necessary to include this Amendment here. I think that the Government will have ample power if they include it in paragraph (d). It is important on the question of general publicity and of giving the miners all information to have this Amendment. But if it is inserted here it will lead to grave difficulty in the Report of the Commission; whereas, if we wait until paragraph (d) it will serve all the purposes that are needed.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in what places he is going to introduce this Amendment? You have indicated, Sir, from the Chair that the Government have handed in further Amendments.
    The CHAIRMAN: There are only two.
    Mr. HOGGE: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will make it quite plain to which paragraphs these words are to be added.
    Mr. SHORTT: The position is this, (c) deals with the cost of production and distribution and organisation, and (d) with selling prices andprofits. Both of these deal with coal as the Bill stands. The proposal is, that as the cost of production of coal and the cost of distribution and organisation and the question of selling price and profits are mixed up with these by-products in both cases, the by-products should be brought within the scope of the inquiry, and it is therefore proposed in both cases that coal should be taken to include coke and other by-products in order that the inquiry may be as complete as possible.
    Major-General Sir N. MOORE: If we go on extending the scope of this inquiry, it seems to me very reasonable to ask why the cost of production here, for instance, is 18s. a ton as against 11s. in America. At the same time we might have some information as to why the cost of coalproduction in New South Wales was 8s. in 1911 and in 1915 was 7s. 7d., which is a decrease. What the House wants to know is, whether that is a question of better administration or improved machinery or what is the reason to account for this discrepancy? If we go on extending this to by-products, I dare say you will go as far as oil recovery and waste of coal, and then it is apparent that it will be absolutely impossible for the Commission to report in time. Reference has been made to what is the standard of living. That is defined in the Australian Arbitration Act—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is off the scent again.
    5.0 p.m.
    General MOORE: I have recently had the opportunity of being associated with a Committee of Inquiry connected withcoal production. We were able to prove conclusively that during the last five years the cost of coal production has gone up by 12s. 6d. Surely if the books are kept properly in the coal mining industry it will not be difficult for the Commission to arrive at the figures. What we want to find out by this Inquiry is the cost of coal at the pit's mouth, and I think it would be foolish to extend it until it gets to the coal cellar of the ordinary consumer.
    Brigadier-General HICKMAN: There is a very good precedent in this matter. When we started the coal control we carefully avoided having anything to do with coke or that sort of thing. If you really want to get a quick Report, there is no
    1654
    use in extending the inquiry. What you desire to know is about the coal industry proper.
    Mr. FRANCE: I would like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he is not really confusing two things when he proposes to introduce these words twice over. I think that the Committee as a whole desire very much to see this inquiry conducted very quickly and to see the question affecting wages and hours decided at the earliest possible moment. I have no interest in any sense in the matter except a very sympathetic desire to see everything that can be given to the miner given to him. But it seems to me, if you inquire into the cost of by-products and possibly into a question like that of collieries run by steel companies, you would be really confusing two things and not getting the coat of the coal at the pit-mouth. Some collieries only bring the coal to the pit-mouth and do not have other reductions of costs. You would therefore be getting two sets of costs, and that would be a mistake. In this first inquiry what you want is the cost at the pit mouth of the coal as it comes up and is sold, and as that affects the hours and wages of the men. The selling prices undoubtedly must be considered when you come to the question of nationalisation. Those and other questions may be gone into later, and that will be provided for byaccepting the Amendment at the second and not the first place in which it is introduced. I urge that course not in any sense to evade inquiry, but in order to make it more successful and quicker in its effects. If the argument is advanced that you will not get a proper result by that means, I should listen most respectfully to such an argument. What we want is the truth and the whole truth, and the best results would, I submit, be obtained by doing as I have suggested.
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend in the suggestion which he has made. The Commission may be trusted not to waste time on any inquiries which they find do not really affect the matter. In some cases the by-products are produced at the colliery as part of the colliery work and in the colliery precincts. All that must be gone into, and the Commission may be trusted to distinguish between coal companies run by steel works and others and equally trusted to distinguish as between the mine which runs something ancillary to the mine and

    1655
    that which does not. The Commission may be trusted to conduct the inquiry and to make their own investigations, and it is necessary that these words should be in both places in order that all the circumstances may be properly taken into account by theCommission.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, after paragraph (c), to insert as a new paragraph
    "(d) effect of coal control upon prices, wages, costs of production."
    I think the Committee will agree that it is very desirable to consider how coal control has affected coal prices, wages, and profits of the collieries. Little less than a year ago we had brought before the House by the Government a Bill for controlling the coal-mines of this country. One of the objects of that Bill was thatprosperous mines which were to continue their output or to increase it by getting a larger supply of labour were to hand over 15 per cent. of the excess profits to a pooling fund to be used to make good the profits of mines not worked to the full extent or closed down. Thus the poor mines were to be compensated for being closed down and controlled by the Government at the expense of the prosperous mines. When that Bill was going through the House we protested over and over again that the fund upon which the poor collieries would draw would be nothing like sufficient to compensate them, and that there would be a charge upon the taxpayers of the country in order to make good the compensation to those collieries which were suffering, or likely to suffer, fromthe coal control. We were assured when the Bill went through that this fund of 15 per cent. of the profits of the prosperous collieries was amply sufficient for its purpose, but that has not proved to be so. In the long run we generally find that these little balancing schemes somehow or other bring more profits to the profiteers. What happened in this case? It is true that the Government did not come upon the taxpayer to make good the loss, but what it did was to push up the price of coal and recoup the poor mines by increasing prices all round. Some hon. Members come down to this House and say, "These wicked workers will demand such big wages and short hours that up go the coal prices."
    1656
    But that is not the reason at all, but it is due to Government interference and control of the industry carried out on unsound lines in a manner which necessarily inflated the price to the consumer and strangled industry.
    I see a good many hon. Members opposite who are interested in the coal trade. I remember how they opposed the Coal Control Bill. They opposed it because it would interfere with the natural forces at work in the industry and strangle business and push up prices. That is exactly what it has done. They were perfectly right and I hope to have their supportfor this proposal to inquire as to how far that State control was in the interests of the public. The Government always say it is in the interests of the public, but it proved to be in the interests of the coal-owners. Everyone who has had experience of Government interference in an industry like this knows well enough as to how far that has been the principal cause of putting up the price of coal against the consumer and of practically ruining our export trade in this country. It would be ridiculous to have this inquiry solely into the hours and wages and the cost of pit-props or of by-products of the collieries, and to leave out of consideration the artificial inflation of the price of coal through the action of the Government. It is like all these things, directly the Government come in and pass an Act of Parliament and interfere with the natural laws of supply and demand, those natural laws come back and hit the Government and the public. This inquiry, if it is going to be anything but a farce, and one of the usual inquiries for the putting off of the settlement of the important question, ought to inquire into the success or failure of the scheme of controlling the output and the price of coal in this country.
    Mr. ARNOLD: So far as I can see, there is no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted by the Government, as I hope it will be. It really raises one of the most important points of the whole controversy, but one as to which the Prime Minister in the course of his remarks yesterday said nothing. He quoted the price of coal now, and suggested that the increase that has taken place since the beginning of the War was entirely due to the higher wages. That is not so. Many factors enter into the problem, and probably

    1657
    a considerable proportion is due to the financial arrangements made under the Coal Control Act. What we do not know is how much of the increased price of coal is due to the working of those financial arrangements. The Government ought to be able to tell us, but I am afraid they cannot, and my right hon. Friend ought, therefore, to accept this Amendment. I wish to call attention to the fact that there is no representative of the Board of Trade on the Government Bench. Neither the President nor the Parliamentary Secretary of the Boardof Trade is here, and I believe I am right in saying that throughout the whole of yesterday's sittings neither of those Gentlemen was here for a moment. I have a great respect for the Home Secretary, but, after all, he is not omniscient, and I do not expect him to be able to throw any very definite light upon this problem. The financial arrangements under the Coal Controller have had an effect on coal prices, and I say we ought to have the facts. To suggest that the increase is due only to higher wages as the Prime Minister suggested yesterday, is only to mislead the public, and it is also misleading the public to suggest, as the Prime Minister did, that if the demands of the miners are granted—and I hope they will be—the effect on production will be such that disaster will ensue. That is not so. What would mainly happen would be this, that the coal-owners'profits would be reduced. The coal-owners would get less and the men more, and thus the profits of the industry would be more fairly distributed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say that there is no need for specific reference in the Bill, and that it is not necessary, and that the Commission can report on this without specific reference. There is no reason why specific reference should not be put in, and I want the attention of the Commissioners to be specially directed to this question.
    Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I wish to support the Amendment. If we are to find out the truth about the cost of production, wages, profits, etc., we ought to know where the money goes if the price of coal is raised. Last year in June there was a rise in the wages of the men, or two rises of 1s. 6d. each, which came to 3s. a day, for the men, and the price of coal was raised 4s. a ton. The coal-owners were told by the Controller that if this more than covered the extra cost of wages he must have full accounts and the
    1658
    owners should have none of the profits; he would have them for himself. This is very important, because when hon. Gentlemen say that coal-owners are getting advantage out of the rise in the price of coal, that is a fallacy. No coal-owner can get a penny out of this rise of 4s. of last year. If there is any margin between the extra cost of the wages and the extra cost of the coal, it goesstraight to the Coal Controller. I know it does in my case, because I wrote a cheque the other day for the Controller, and I venture to suggest that you can have no complete inquiry into cost and wages without doing as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests in this Amendment.
    Sir J. WALTON: I consider that an inquiry into the full effects of the interference of the State into the coal trade is extremely necessary, and that we must ascertain that if we are to consider properly and with full knowledge any question of the nationalisation of the coal mines; but I hope that if this Amendment is accepted it will be clearly understood that it is not to interfere with the speedy action of the Commission in reporting as to wages and hours of labour, but that it is to beregarded as a question to be examined and investigated in connection with that of the nationalisation of the mines. I am glad the last speaker referred to the question of the 4s. a ton rise in the price of coal last year. The two advances in wages given by the Coal Controller of1s. 6d. per day amounted in each case to £22,000,000, or a total of £44,000,000. Four shillings a ton on an output of 250,000,000 a year is £50,000,000. Therefore the Coal Controller had a surplus over what theminers got of some £6,000,000 for departmental or other expenses. Certainly we were expressly told that whatever the surplus was, not one penny of it would go back into the pockets of the coal-owners.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Into whose pockets did it go?
    Sir J. WALTON: The Coal Controller's. He told the coal-owners that whatever there was over, it was to be paid back into the Coal Controller's Department, and I think that ought to be made perfectly clear. The coal-owners have got sins enough to answer of which they are guilty without being charged with those of which they are not guilty.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us if it is not proposed to pay some grant from that money which is going into the pockets of the Coal Controller to the collieries that are not earning profits?
    Sir J. WALTON: Not one penny is to come out of that fund to the collieries that are making losses instead of profits, and that have to be raised to the pre-war average. The whole of the money that will be given to these poorer collieries comes out of the special 15 per cent. levy on the whole coal trade, which is quite a separate matter—the 15 per cent. levy that they have to pay in addition to the usual 80 per cent. excess profits duty. The £6,000,000 istaken by the Coal Controller, and all that he has told us is that we shall not receive a penny of it. As to what he intends to do with the money, he has not made that clear. Unfortunately, the Coal Controller is not with us to-day, or we might have had an explanation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman not know that it is because the 15 per cent. levy was insufficient that this other sum was required to go to the poorer collieries?
    Sir J. WALTON: I am not aware that the 15 per cent. is insufficient.That remains to be shown. When the Bill passed through the House we were told that if it was insufficient, and a further sum was found to be necessary, the Government would introduce a proper Financial Resolution in this House and come openly to the Houseto make the deficit up at the expense of the taxpayers, and we certainly have been distinctly told that under no circumstances will one penny of the 4s. a ton come to the coal-owners. But my point in rising mainly was to say that it is essential, in considering any question of the nationalisation of coal mines, that we should have the fullest information as to what has been the actual effect of State interference in and control of the coal industry under the Coal Control Act. I therefore hope the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: Of course I should be very anxious to accept any Amendment which I thought really extended where it was proper the scope of the Inquiry, but I really cannot see how the Amendment now proposed does extend the scope of the Inquiry at all. May I put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved
    1660
    the Amendment that he may be confusing two things, confusing the words in the Bill which provide the subjects that may be inquired into, and putting words into the Bill which deal with the evidence that may be called before the Commission? Surely the whole conduct of the Coal Controller, the whole of the steps which he took, and the whole of the effects and results of those steps would be evidence under several of the heads of the subjects in the Bill. I should have thought it was impossible to inquire into the question of nationalisation without going into the question of our experience under the Coal Control Act. Equally, I should have thought you could not inquire into the conditions prevailing in the coal industry today in so far as they have regard to selling prices and so on, without going into the result of what the Coal Controller has done in the past few years. After all, the Coal Control Act is an emergency piece of legislation. It is a very important piece of evidence which the Commission will necessarily have regard to and consider when they are coming to a decision, but surely we do not want to burden the Bill by instructing the Commissioners as to what evidence they are to call. It is one thing to do that, and another thing to ensure that the subjects into which they are to inquire are properly provided for. It seems to me that the conduct and effect of what the Coal Controller has done is a matter of evidence, not a subject in itself; and while I am very anxious to meet my hon. and gallant Friend if he really thinks there is anything inadequate in the Bill, and if there is any subject which he thinks cannot be inquired into which he considers ought to be inquired into, it seems to me, as far as I understand the Amendment, that it does nothing but provide for evidence as apart from the subject. That I do not think it is wise to do in the Bill.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I still hold that my Amendment is desirable. We areinquiring into wayleaves and royalties, and here we have clear evidence that the Coal Controller has raised the price of coal 4s. and that this was a tax on the whole community by the Coal Controller. The price of coal at the present time is, to the extent of 4s. a ton, the result of the exercise of his power, and when we are going to consider whether the extra wages or shorter hours of labour are going to strangle industry, we must consider in ad-

    1661
    ditions to the wayleaves and royalties the effect of what the Coal Controller has done.
    Mr. SHORTT: So they will.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am afraid my right hon. Friend was not in the House when the Coal Control Bill went through, and I do not see the President of the Board of Trade here. I think he might agreeto the Amendment, so that an inquiry should be made into not only the bad but the unconstitutional practice of the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller at the same time as we are inquiring into the other factors which have gone to create this very highprice of coal.
    Mr. ARNOLD: The arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has just used really apply to all the paragraphs in this Clause. All we want is that this should be added, so that the attention of the Commissioners should be specifically directed tothis point. I think it is a reasonable request, and it is in harmony with the general structure of the Clause. I hope, therefore, he will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: At the end of paragraph (d), add the words
    "or any industry commonly carried on in connection therewith or as ancillary or incidental thereto."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (f), to leave out the words
    "whether on the present basis, or on the basis of joint control, rationalisation, or any other basis,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "on the basis of nationalisation."
    This Amendment, unlike the others we have just finished discussing, seeks to limit the scope of the inquiry. In moving it I have no intention of discussing itat great length, in view of the discussion we had at various stages of the question yesterday. We believe that coal is such a vital necessity to the industrial system of this country that it cannot any longer be allowed to remain in private hands. We believe that the production of this valuable raw material should be lifted out of the higgling of the market and put entirely in the hands of the State. We believe that if this course were followed, it would at the same time effect a great saving to the country by
    1662
    eliminating the coal owner—on fair terms of course—the royalty owner, and the middleman. In the course of these discussions we have been trying to discover where the extra money, as between the price at the pit head and delivery tothe consumer, say, in London, goes. It would eliminate all this, and whatever profit accrued from it would come to the State. In addition to being a source of revenue to the State, we believe that the adoption of the principle of nationalisation, so far as coal, royalties and wayleaves are concerned, would also be the means of avoiding a considerable amount of waste that is going on under present conditions. For instance, we have barriers of coal between properties belonging to one mining company and another, which means that a considerable amount of coal in the various parts of that coalfield cannot be worked. We have, again, seams, which the coal-owners do not consider profitable under present conditions, left in. Under a system of national ownership boththe barriers and the thin seams would be worked, and in that way we would avoid a considerable amount of the waste that is going on. We have also the waste that is brought about by the accumulations of water that are allowed to take place in the properties belonging to certain mining companies, making it impossible for other mining companies to work all the coal that is in their area. We also believe that if the industry were State-owned and worked on behalf of the State, we would be able to effect a considerable saving in the wastage of human life that takes place in the mining industry at present. Annually we have an average of something like 1,300 fatal accidents in the mining industry, and 150,000 more or less seriously injured. That is a heavy toll that is being paid by the mining population, and if any means can be taken to effect a saving in that alarming casualty list, it is well worth the consideration of this House and of the Government. We believe that nationalisation would enable us to reduce that casualty list to a considerable extent.
    Mr. LUNN: This is my first opportunity of rising in this House, and I pray its indulgence for a moment or two. I know a little about work in the pits, and about the feelings of the miners upon most of the questionsthat have been discussed in this House during the past two or three

    1663
    weeks. Thirty-five years of my life have been passed in or about the pits, and on this day my father is still a miner and so is my eldest son. So that I have some connection with this matter, and may be able to say a word or two as to what is the opinion of the mass of the workmen on this question, particularly in Yorkshire, where I have some connection with the Yorkshire Miners'Association. In this Sub-section we are now considering there is no explanation of what is meant by "joint control."If joint control as mentioned here means joint control between the present owners of the mines and the workmen in the mines, then I say that is a matter that will not appeal for one moment to, or receive any consideration from, the miners in this country. There is no miners'union that favours joint control with private ownership as we have it to-day. There is no miners' organisation that is prepared to give a moment's consideration to co-partnership as we understand it, and have had it explained, or to profit-sharing, as we know a little of it in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
    This Amendment is welcomed by the Members on these benches, by the Miners' Federation and by every separate part of that Federation, and it is one part of our programme that we are prepared to suspend awhile so that it may be fully inquired into. At the same time, we do not want the shuffling with the question that usually goes with Governments, and I suppose will with thisGovernment equally with any in the past, so that nothing may be reached until a long time to come in this matter. We are hoping to see the mines nationalised during the present Session of Parliament. There is no question which is so popular in miners' branches and upon programmes of miners'candidates as the nationalisation of the mines, and of the minerals and all in connection therewith. The discussion that took place a minute or two ago, I think, is very valuable, and I hope that inquiry will be made into the present control of the mines. Many Members of this House are anxious that control of industry should be removed. I believe most of them forget the fact that when this country was in danger—as we are now informed—when private ownership had failed to meet the country's requirements, then the Government took control of various forms of industry, including
    1664
    the mines, and since that time every trade union official, practically, in the mining industry, equally with, or more so than, the owners or their managers, have assisted in increasing the output at the collieries in the nation's interest. Whilst I do not care for the present system of control, I personally want to see the reins tightened very much, so that we may have public ownership and joint control, if such we should have, as between the nation and those who are engaged in the industry in the interests of the whole community.
    This is no particularly new idea. Ten years ago the present Prime Minister, in imposing in his Budget at that time a tax upon the mining royalties, hinted at the possibility of the mines and minerals being publicly owned by the nation. In 1912, the Labour party in the House at that time introduced a Bill for the nationalisation of the mines. I have never beenable to understand why it is necessary that a few individuals should own a natural product which is such a great national necessity as coal, and wring profit out of the workers, as they do to-day, by the ownership of that particular natural necessity. I have known, in my own experience, cases of the royalty-owner demanding an increase of a 1d. or 2d. a ton. The fact that he has done that, while the coal-owner was not in a position, or would not agree, to pay that amount, I know, has actually depopulated villages in my time. I do not say it would do so to-day.
    I hope, as a result of this inquiry, that we shall see no more of private ownership of the coal as it is, that mining royalties as now paid will be removed, and that the mines will be worked in the interest of the nation. I am sure that will be in the interest of the whole community. I am quite convinced of that. I believe it would bring about a good many economies. There are to-day thousands upon thousands of tons of coal, which will be needed in the nation's interest some day, that are now wasted as a result of private ownership. There is not the regard that should be paid to human life by the method of working the mines as they are worked to-day. Again, there has not been that development of machinery in the mines as would have been the case had the mines been held and worked by the nation. We realise that. I hope in the course of a week or two we shall see shorter hours established

    1665
    for mines, but I hope further we shall see a greater shortening of hours than the six hours now proposed.
    An HON. MEMBER: Not at all!
    Mr. LUNN: I am prepared to say that I am not a supporter of shorter hours because I want to see a greater output of coal under the present system of working. I know the miner works hard enough to-day. He takes everything out of himself every day he goes down the pit. I know he cannot do more than he is doing to-day. But I do realise that if the mines were owned by the people it would mean that the machinery would be increased, and when themachinery was increased in the mines more consideration would be given to the human machine than has been given up till now in the introduction of the ordinary machinery. If that machinery be introduced, I am sure it would mean a greater output than comes to-day from the mines. My idea of shorter hours is not simply because I want the men to work harder.
    I want to provide more opportunities for the miner's children than those given in the past. Some of us have had no opportunity of education whatever. We desire to see that our children have a better opportunity. We do not want to see them coming home tired and weary as we did as boys and as they do to-day, unfit to take advantage of the opportunities that are given even now. We want to see these opportunities and advantages provided, and that they may be able to take advantage of them, and make the best possible use of them. I hope and trust that this Amendment will be carried. I hope that the Labour party is prepared to carry this Amendment to a Division, because, personally, I believe it is the one question of importance. Whilst I know it is important to increase the men's wages at this moment, to give them an increase, and to improve their standard of living, and even to decrease their hours of work, we should all look beyond the particular idea of what is to our immediate advantage to what is to the advantage of the nation as a whole, and also to the advantage of the industry concerned. I hope, before very long, we shall see the mines of the nation owned by the nation and worked jointly by those in the industry. I am satisfied that will mean more saving of life in the mines. It will mean loss and less injury, more
    1666
    economy in the production of coal, more coal and cheaper coal for the people who are to-day unable to purchase coal, and also better conditions for those who work in the industry.
    Mr. SPOOR: I rise to support this Amendment, because I believe there is no aspect of the question that has been considered which is more important than the one which the Amendment covers. As previous speakers have remarked, the question of the nationalisation of mines and other industries is a question that is not to-day an academic one. It is one that has been considered for a very, very long period; so far as I know, for over twenty-years. Trade union congresses, year after year, have unanimously carried resolutions supporting the principle. It is not only, as the previous speaker have indicated, that during the stress of the last four and a half years, that the Government have realised that as private enterprise had broken down, altogether, it was absolutely necessary to secure some form of State control for the mining industry and other industries. As I have listened to the Debate I have had the feeling that this House has in some degree got out of touch with public opinion outside. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I listened about a week ago to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. In it he made an extremely interesting historic comparison betweenthe position of Parliament to-day and the position of Parliament over a century ago. He pointed out how curiously and how strangely the authority of Parliament in the country had apparently diminished. Certainly there appears to be a great deal of force in the argument he used. As one has listened to the discussion of yesterday and to-day one cannot help feeling that this House, to a great extent, is out of touch with the opinion of thinking men and women in the country. We were told by the Home Secretarylast night that there was some doubt in his mind as to what was meant by the principle of nationalisation. I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he might refer to some of his colleagues on the Government Benches. He might, for example, ask the Secretary of State for War, who has assured us within recent days that his experience at the Ministry of Munitions has almost completely converted him to nationalisation. He might also refer to some of the speeches of the Leader of the

    1667
    House during recent months in which the right hon. Gentleman has assured the country that the nationalisation of railway during the War had secured for the country a very real and considerable economy. He might, with advantage, refer to some of the early speeches of the present Prime Minister, who, as was pointed out yesterday, was committed entirely, in so far as speeches can commit anybody at all, to the principle of nationalisation. Moreover, I want to submit that this was a very vital issue at the last election.
    The Labour party got over two and a quarter million votes in 300 constituencies. Every Labour candidate who stood was pledged to the nationalisation of mines and railways. The people who voted for Labour men at the last Election voted with their eyes open and so voted because they were convinced of the wisdom, justice, and right of the application of this principle to our industries. I argue, and I think quite reasonably argue, that the existence of that huge vote does prove that there is a very solid body of opinion in the country in support of the nationalisation of an important industry like this. The fact is that commercial men in this country realise, no less than other classes realise, that the real truth is that private enterprise utterly collapsed during the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Government apparently realised that it had because they took very hasty steps to assume State control.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: That is where they made a great mistake.
    Mr. SPOOR: Private enterprise failed during the War. We are prepared to admit that those things which have been State controlled have not been controlled in the best possible manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are quite prepared to admit that: but we do say that the very stress of the situation demonstrated the imperative need for some form of real State control. In the course of this Debate we have heard a great deal, and quite rightly, about the rights of the community. The labour party is very seriously concerned for the rights of the community. As I listened to speakers, who apparently are opposed to the principle of nationalisation, and as I heard them urge that the community should be considered, I could not understand why they were not prepared to be logical. We want to consider the community. We want to
    1668
    consider the community so much that we say: "Let the community itself control this big industry." We realise that the difficulties which exist to-day, the injustices that are apparent to everybody, could be minimised enormously if this vast industry, as has been pointed out by speakers yesterday and to-day, which is absolutely vital to the nation's well-being was nationalised. We believe that the injustices which at present exist under the present system could be largely minimised if not entirely removed by a wise system of nationalisation. The principle, or, at any rate, the recognition of the principle of the right of the community to a voice in matters like this has already been conceded by this Government, or rather by the late Government. Up and down the country there have been established Whitley Councils. As. I read the Report of the Whitley Committee that met month after month what struck me about it was that, underlying the decisions finally arrived at, and, mark you, they were decisions subscribed to alike by the representatives of capital and labour—there was the recognition that in justice the community had a right to consideration. The very existence of the Whitley Report proved that there is beneath all these disputes common ground. We want to emphasise that principle. We want in this House to recognise that the community's need is the first consideration.
    6.0 P.M.
    I am a member of the Labour party. I am standing here, however, to-night to support this Amendment in the interest of a very much wider community than that represented by the Labour party. I say that this is not a matter that should be left to the joint control alone of worker and employers. We can quite understand that it might be to the advantage of both of them to have joint control and to force up prices and to secure larger wages at the expense of the community. But, as has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, there is not a single miners'organisation throughout the length and breadth of Britain that wants joint control. The fact of the matter is that the miners of this country are not a set of unreasonable men. They have lived under conditions that the men in no other industry has had to endure for very many years now. I heard an hon. Member yesterday say that he came to this House on the vote of the miners. I come from a mining division in which the mining vote

    1669
    enormously preponderates. But I come invited by the people of that constituency to support with all the strength I have the application of this principle of nationalisation to their industry. They realise, and other people realise, the inequalities of the matter—that the atmosphere of dissatisfaction, suspicion, and dispute that exists throughout this industry will never be removed so long as the industry remains in private control. Previous speakers have pointed out that vast economies can be effected in management and other directions. We have been asked how it was that the price of coal at the pit's mouth varied so enormously from the price of coal on sale in our cities, and in places like London. The Labour party believe that the middleman in the coal trade can be to a great extent eliminated, and that all the money that it requires for increased wages can be secured without imperilling the industry, or any industry, in this country. It is because I believe these things that I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment which has been put forward by the Leader of the Labour party. I would like to remind the House of what one of the speakers referred to yesterday, and that is the human side of this question. I live in a mining district. I know the wretched housing conditions that obtain there, and I know that no wage, however large, is enough to compensate for those conditions. I know more than that. The men working in the mines have been denied access to those departments of living where real life exists. The previous speaker referred to the demand being put forward for improved educational facilities and for a wider andlarger life for the children of the miners. Beneath the demand which is being made to-day by the miners there is really this cry for a very much fuller and better life than the working classes of this country have previously enjoyed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting pointed out last week that the working-class miner moves along simple lines, and it is quite understandable that the men who have to go down coal-mines and then come home to live in a miserable little hovel realise that they are suffering a terrible injustice. I have realised that the colliery interests have been very well and adequately represented. From this side of the House men have spoken who have worked in the mines themselves, and they have pleaded
    1670
    the cause of the miners. At the same time they realise, and we all do, that they are up against a very formidable proposition. I want this House to sink all considerations of a petty selfish character and view this matter as a very big national question and grant what the Labour party is asking, namely, an admission of the principle of nationalisation. The Government have already admitted that principle. We ask them to admit it here before going on with this Division. If the Government can see their way to admit this principle without committing themselves to any details as to its operation, it will contribute more to secure a condition of peace and security in the industrial world in the country than anything that they could possibly do. I have very much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    Captain KNIGHTS: It may seem somewhat a piece of impertinence that a new Member should suggest to the Government that they ought not to accept this Amendment, but as the representative of a thoroughly working-class constituency, I have been sitting here listening to the Prime Minister and other speakers, and I have concluded that a number of Amendments have been submitted to this Committee which are merely holding up this Bill which the Prime Minister has asked us to pass at once. The difficulties which are confronting the nation are to be considered by a Statutory Commission at once, and if the Amendment which is now proposed were accepted it means that the issue is prejudged. The Bill asks that it may be considered on the basis of nationalisation or otherwise, and surely it is good enough for hon. Members opposite to have got the word "nationalisation"into the Bill itself. Since coal control came in I have been acting as honorary overseer in the largest district under the Act, and my anxiety, standing between the working-class population and the miners is to see that the 300,000 souls committed to my care have not only coals to keep the factories going in order that they may get their wages, but also that they may have coals after the 15thof March to keep themselves alive in this weather. That is the issue before the nation, and the members of the Labour party opposite are jockeying the position. They are trying to get their claim in first and to get these wages fixed at once as a statutory matter before the Commission sits and makes its Report.

    1671
    The whole question of the value of a sovereign is in the melting-pot. No one can tell what wages will be worth in a short time because if there is no money coming in through lack of occupationthere is no food coming in. The whole question must be considered as representative of the whole of the nation. The coal industry is one of the fundamental industries governing the whole of the trade of this country, and as the Prime Minister very truly said, we depend upon our exports, and if we cannot produce at a price which will enable us to compete with countries overseas there will be unemployment. I make an appeal to any hon. Member who has got an Amendment on the Paper to get up and say, "I withdraw it,"and then this Bill may get through and we shall set up a Statutory Commission. If hon. Members opposite would do that the nation from end to end would put them on a much higher pedestal than they do now. By doing this they will admit the nation's necessity, and for the sake of a bare fortnight they should agree to put these matters before a Commission. What is the position of an umpire if he is called in to arbitrate between two people and one says, "You have my books and you can examine them," and the other one says, "No, you shall not."That is the position, and I appeal to those who have put down these Amendments to withdraw them, and give the Government the Bill they ask for straight away, and let us get on with the work of reconstruction and other Bills which are more important than this.
    Mr. SHORTT: I wish to express my congratulations to the last three hon. Members who have spoken. When the first two had spoken I felt that if I had been a member of the Commission I should almost have been converted to nationalisation, but when I heard the last of the three I somewhat altered my view. May I point out that we have nothing to do with nationalisation to-day? The point is whether nationalisation is to be one of the questions into which this Commissionis to inquire or not. I can quite understand hon. Members opposite saying that their minds are made up, and so they do not think it is necessary to have an inquiry, but do they suppose everybody in the country agrees with them? Is there not a large body to whom the nationalisation of mines is not a good thing. They are entitled to their view, and they
    1672
    are also entitled to put their view before this Commission of Inquiry. The whole point is not whether nationalisation is right or wrong, but whether itshould be inquired into. That is the one point before us, and I ask the Committee to keep to that point. Let us consider whether it is not a question which ought to be inquired into. If there be a strong case, then those who support this principle will get a Report in accordance with their view, but we should keep to the point whether this is a question which ought to be inquired into by the Commission. We are not concerned with the question whether it is right or wrong, but we are concerned in securing that every class of opinion shall have fair dealing before the Commission.
    Mr. BRACE: It may be putting it a little too high when I say that I was rather hopeful that the Government would have accepted our Amendment, but I certainly thought the right hon. Gentleman would have given it more sympathetic consideration. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Amendment put down in the name of my right hon. Friend was for the purpose of limiting the inquiry to within a reasonable period, and we feel that unless we can get the Commission pinned down to an inquiry into nationalisation alone we shall have to wait not for this Parliament, but for many Parliaments before we shall be able to deal with this industry in an effective way which will give satisfaction to the working section of the miners'industry. Therefore, without arguing the question of nationalisation, the whole point is that we demand an inquiry into the question of joint control or into the question of any other form of organisation of the industry, so that we may look forward to a Report within a reasonable period. I assure the House that it will not make for industrial peace if the Miners'Federation find this inquiry going on month after month and year after year, and it is because of our real fear that the men whom we represent may interpret the extension of the inquiry to mean so grave a delay that this Parliament may not be able to deal with the question that we have put down this Amendment. I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend didnot see his way to receive it more sympathetically. We must certainly divide upon it.
    Mr. SHORTT: I should, of course, have dealt with that particular point if it had been mentioned in the course of the

    1673
    speeches in support of this Amendment. It was not raised by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, and it was not taken up by any of those who spoke in support of it. I do not think that the Amendment will save any time at all. If you go into the future control and organisation of the minesbased upon nationalisation, you must compare that with the present basis and with other bases, and I really do not think therefore that any time would be gained. I am quite sure if time would be gained that we should do our best to accept the Amendment, but I do not think that it would be.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I am rather surprised that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to limit the scope of this inquiry, and are afraid of the Commission going into the question of the desirability of continuing the present state of affairs, or of joint control, or of nationalisation. Surely the more information that the country can get on this question the better. One right hon. Gentleman said that there was a large body of opinion in favour of nationalisation. I canassure him that there is a very large body of opinion which is against nationalisation. As far as I can judge, there is a larger body of opinion against it than in favour of it. Most people who have had any experience of nationalisation in other countrieshave come to the conclusion that nationalisation is a very expensive mode of carrying on business. One speaker said that State control during this War had been a great success. All I can say is that at every meeting that I addressed during the election Iwas asked if I would vote in favour of doing away with all State control at the very earliest moment possible. It was a burning question at the General Election. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the economies effected under State control. I do not think that it has been the experience of people generally that State control has meant economy; indeed, quite the reverse. I was rather amazed, as I am sure all hon. Members must have been, that it should have been said that this House was out of sympathy with the country. It has not taken it long to get out of sympathy, seeing that it has only been elected about a month. It was said by Members of the Labour party that the last Parliament was out of sympathy with the country, but when the Government appealed to the country they were told
    1674
    that they had no business to do so. It seems very difficult to please some people whatever course you take.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) said that one of the advantages of nationalisation would bethat the nation would work thin seams of coal which present owners thought it was not profitable to work. That does not look as if nationalisation would lead to economy in working. If you are going to work seams of coal which the present owners find it impossible to work at a profit, there will be a tremendous loss, because prices, so far as experts are concerned, are regulated by competition with other countries, and the difference will have to come out of the taxpayers'pockets. We have heard a great deal about the difference between the price at the pit and the price at which coal is sold in London. I only know that the prices charged by the collieries in South Wales, who send most of their coal to inland consumers, are regulated by the Limitation of Prices Act. They find that they are working at a heavy loss, and the Coal Controller has to make up their loss out of the Coal Control Fund. I fail to see, therefore, where their profit comes in between the selling price in London and the pit price. The PrimeMinister yesterday gave the pit price as 18s. I am at a loss to understand where he got that price. I have here the cost sheet of a typical colliery in South Wales, neither a particularly profitable one nor one doing very badly, and I find that the cost of labour alone for large steam coal is 24s. 4.62d. per ton. You have to add to the pit mouth's price of the coal railway freight to London, which before the War was about 9s. per. ton, and I suppose to-day is 13s. or 14s. per ton, and wagon hire and distribution charges. I cannot quite see where the profit comes from.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife spoke against the present system because it was affected by what he calls the higgle of the market. I fail to understand what he means by that sentence, or what he intends to convey. It has also been said that if you had State control you would have less than six hours. To-day men on the average are under ground eight and a half hours, and statistics have been taken out showing that they do not spendmore than six and a half hours at the working face. If you reduce the eight hours to six hours, it will

    1675
    mean that men will only actually work four and a half hours, and if you reduce the hours below six the men will certainly only work about two or three hours at the working face. I do not know whether that is considered sufficient time, and whether that will not affect the price of coal very materially. There has been a lot said about the profits made. Before the War an average was taken in the collieries of South Wales over a term of years, and it showed only about 5 per cent. interest on the capital, without anything at all for sinking fund. Certain collieries were spoken of yesterday as having made big profits. It is lost sight of that for years and years they were worked at a loss.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I would remind the Committee that the Amendment before the House is whether the Bill should be limited to nationalisation or to the words in the Clause. The Debate has rather wandered, and I only wanted to warn the Committee that we cannot go on indefinitely discussing matters more appropriate to Second Reading.
    Sir C. CORY: I am going to bow to your ruling. I was led astray by previous speakers, and I thought it was only fair to reply to them. It would be a great drawback to limit the scope of this Bill to a mere inquiry into nationalisation.
    Mr. CLYNES: If the Home Secretary is making very brief speeches with the object of saving Parliamentary time, I hope he will forgive me for venturing the opinion that he is making the industrial situation rather more difficult by not going more fully into these matters. He is not saving the industrial situation by avoiding some fuller answer to the points which have been submitted from this side of the House. The whole case is not covered by the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the effect of this Amendment upon the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the matters as they come beforethe House in the light of the effect that they will have upon the whole industrial situation. The Bill apparently is especially submitted to Parliament because of the grave industrial situation in the country. It is from that standpoint that these Amendments ought to be treated and discussed. Probably to-morrow hundreds of thousands
    1676
    of workmen, including a large number of miners, will turn to see what the Government have had to say officially through the mouth of the Home Secretary on this Amendment,definitely asking that the Commission should not be empowered to investigate the question whether or not the mines should become national property. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We have had no definite statement upon that question from the right hon. Gentleman. We have been assured that the great work of reconstruction is to be undertaken by this Government, and that immense changes are to be set on foot so as to make this an entirely different country. We cannot have these immense changes if we are going to proceed upon lines which will substantially leave things as they are. Very many big alterations must take place, and in our view this is one of them.
    Coal is the foundation of practically all our other industries, and of all our great commercial undertakings. It is a commodity so socially necessary that we feel that it ought to be socially owned and controlled. I venture to say that if public opinion were sounded on this specific question it would be shown to be overwhelmingly in favour of making the mines the property of the nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I grant that the country has been quite recently consulted, but I submit to hon. Members opposite that if they had definitely told the electors in their constituencies that they would not vote in favour of the nationalisation of mines they would, at least, have had increased difficulties in getting returned to this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not want to exaggerate the point, but so far as one can judge from the Press, from conversation, and through all those mediums through which filters what we term public opinion, a great deal of popular approval of the miners' claim has been manifested. A reassuring statement from the Government on thepoint would, therefore, have a very close relation to the issues in dispute, and would go far in allaying some of that feeling in the minds of the miners that the Government have no sympathy whatever with what they conceive to be the source of many of the grievances from which they have suffered for many years. I submit tothe House that this above all other points is a question which ought not to be sublet, which ought not to be delegated to any outside body, but which should be

    1677
    dealt with by a big assembly like this Coming as we do fresh from the country surely we can claim to be able to deal with this question and to have from experience, and from our own knowledge the material wherewith to resolve in our own minds whether the mines should be the property of the nation or not.
    If we cannot have a definite opinion without investigation can we have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to what the attitude of the Government will be in the event of the view being expressed by the Commission that the nationalisation of the mines would have the effect of securingmore economical working and would enable the work to afford better conditions and wages for the miners. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to treat this matter in such sparse terms as he has done, and ought to have in mind the effect on theminers'attitude. This week and next may prove crucial weeks for the country for probably a good many months to come, and I should like some more sympathetic attitude, some more hope, some more reassuring statement made to us before we are obliged to carrythis matter into the Division Lobby. We know that we shall be beaten, but that is not the point. The mere record of the figures one way or the other will not alter the industrial temper at the moment, and if the right hon. Gentleman can say anything which will tend to lessen the feeling of soreness in the mind of Labour, then I think we shall not have pressed him in vain.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: There is no Member of this House who listens to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) with greater pleasure than I do. I think he very rarely speaks without illuminating the House. Yet I cannot but feel that this afternoon he has befogged the Committee in what he has just said. What is the position of hon. Members opposite in regard to this Amendment? As I understand it, theyare asking the Government and the Committee to rule out every solution of this question except the solution of nationalisation. They are not asking for an extension of the scope of this Commission, they are not asking for an extension of the scope of theinquiry, but they are asking us to exclude from the inquiry every solution except the one they personally desire. If that is not the meaning of the Amendment, I hope I may be told what the meaning is. They have turned round on the Government and have complained that it has
    1678
    given sympathetic hearing to the Amendment. I hope that the Government will very stoutly oppose it. I do not wish to enter into the merits of the question, because I believe the Committee is exceedingly anxious to divide; still lessdo I desire to Bay one word that could possibly exacerbate the feeling on either side. I am certain the less we speak on this question the better, and when we do speak we should say no word which could arouse passion on either side.
    May I just add this single word. I myself am very strongly indeed opposed to the solution proposed in this Amendment. I am opposed to it not only for the reasons which have been given by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, but I want to know from the hon. Members who are proposing this as a solution of the question whether they in their hearts can tell the Committee that it is a final solution of the question even from their own point of view. My own impression was, until to-day's Debate, that nationalisation was a backnumber in the Labour party or, at any rate, among those who are not members of the Labour party in this House but who are behind those members in the country. This agitation very largely proceeds not from the responsible leaders of labour opinion, not from those who represent Labour in this House, but from a certain body of extremists who hold views which are as much opposed to nationalisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I did not suppose I should obtain the assent of hon. Members opposite to that proposition, but my opinion is that the Members in this House who represent Labour have to reckon with a force which is not at this moment represented in this House—the force not of nationalisation, but of syndicalism, to which there has, however, beenno reference whatever in these Debates, although it is in the minds of everybody who has been discussing the question the afternoon. What I want to know from hon. Members opposite who are proposing this solution of nationalisation is whether, if we give it to them, they can deliver the goods?
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: Several speeches have been made from this side of the House which I should not like to be associated with at all. I personally am in favour of the nationalisation of mines, but I submit it is nota question for this Committee to decide now. The point we have

    1679
    to decide is whether the Amendment is necessary for the introduction of nationalisation under this Bill. Those of us Who are strongly in favour of the nationalisation of mines need not be afraid that the words in the Bill will bring undue delay, because it is absolutely clear that every other means will be suggested by its opponents the moment you propose nationalisation, and whether you put those means of controlling the mines down on the Paper as an instruction or not, will make very little difference. On the other hand, right hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed doubt of the sympathy of the Government on this subject. I listened with great care to the speeches of the Prime Minister yesterday, and I think I am not wrong in saying that that right hon. Gentleman expressed his intention of carrying out the recommendations of this Commission. If, therefore, those recommendations are, as I feel certain they will be, in favour of nationalisation, he will be enabled to carry them out in a way that he might not be if he declared himself in favour of it to-day.
    Are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen quite certain they could get a majority of the House, even with the help of the Prime Minister, if the question were put to the House as a whole? I am not quite sure. I do not know the composition of the new House. I could have told it in the old House, but we have many new Members and new thoughts, and we cannot say which way they are going. To them this question may be new, although it is not new to old politicians or to those who have been in touch with the miners. But nationalisation is new to a good many, even those who have miners in their constituencies; although they may have a good many miners there, they do not constitute the majority of the voters, and therefore we must go carefully and see that a solid foundation is given to the Government to press this matter, if they are to press it. I do not believe the Government will be able to do much with this House unless they have the evidence and the support of the Commission. Many of us would gladly vote with hon. and right hon. Members opposite on ordinary occasions, but we are pledged to see this Coalition Government through its difficulties till peace is signed. We are bound to stick together as one man until peace is signed. I deprecate any Division against the Government, even on important questions, until that day. But
    1680
    do not let anybody misinterpret our feelings. Do not let anybody think thateither the Government or the Coalition Members who support it are necessarily opposed to them on a question like this because they vote against it. There is the more important question of the united front which this country must still show, and I hope that will be remembered by every hon. Member, Labour or otherwise, until the day peace is signed.
    Mr. SWAN: I have listened to the Debate carefully, and I have not yet heard any reasons put forward by our Friends on the other side as to why the mines ought not to be nationalised. There are some things that we on these benches do not claim to have much knowledge upon.What we do claim to have knowledge upon are the conditions under which mines are worked. We believe that under private ownership of mines it is impossible to allay the unrest of the nation, or to produce the amount of coal required by the nation to satisfy either the demands of the consumers or the requirements of those who are working in and about the mines. In the nation's hour of need the private ownership of mines failed it. The result was that the Government was compelled to intervene and take over the control of the mines. Control, however, does not satisfy the miners, nor has it brought about a state of affairs which would satisfy the community. We therefore think the time has come when there ought to be not simply control but ownership by the nation, so that the mines may be worked by the nation for the benefit of the nation. We, as miners, are not putting this Amendment forward simply in order that the mines shall be worked under the control of the mine-workers for the benefit of the miners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is not our object in the least. One speaker opposite suggested that if we are to hold our own in the markets of the world there will have to be greater production. Well, we desire greater output, and we believe that if the mines were nationalised and the royalties and wayleaves dealt with also, great economies could be effected. If we are to hold our own in the markets of the world in competition with other nations, then the indemnities which are imposed upon the mines by way of royalties and wayleaves must be removed out of the way. That will remove a handicap that is imposed

    1681
    upon us at the present time. Again, if we want to effect the safety, security, and happiness of the miners, we suggest that the element of private interest must be eliminated. We believe that by State control of the mines great reforms can be effected in that direction. To-day that is impossible. We believe that by having national control the method of working the mines could be simplified. To-day what prevents the simplification and scientific working of the mines is the vested interest of royalties, wayleaves, and private ownership. They have to be removed out of the way.
    Again, we desire a better standard of living as mine workers. If there is one thing which condemns private ownership, it is the huge slums in which the mine workers have to live. We believe that if the mines were under national ownership that would go, and that the profits which now go to landowners, mine-owners and private individuals, would provide the miners with adequate homes in which to live. The mine-workers are discontented because they believe that during the War they were plundered by the high profits of the employing classes, and that they are now being plundered upon the political plane by control. The high profits might have been appropriated for the mine-workers or by the Government for the cost of the War and the cost of running the country. Instead of that being done the owners have been allowed to appropriate the profit and to invest it in loans, and we are again requested to pay 5s. tax, direct or indirect, upon the profits which accrued to them but which ought to have been utilised in another manner. If you are to effect the safety and security of the nation, if you want to solve the industrial problem, the mines must be taken over by the State and worked by the State for the benefit of the State. Then whatever reforms are made with regard to the introduction of machinery, instead of their being to the disadvantage of the miners they would be used to the benefit of the community. If the mines were owned by the nation it would be possible substantially to increase the output of coal, and the wages of the miners, and even to shorten the miners'hours to a greater degree than it is to-day, while the coal could be sold to the consumer at a lower figure. It is suggested that if the mines were taken over by the State you could reduce the hours of labour
    1682
    of the miners below the six hours' shift. I mentioned last night that in the county of Durham we have been working seven hours from bank to bank—one shift of seven hours and another of six hours. There is no utility either from the humanstandpoint or from the economic standpoint in having the men in the mines longer than is necessary. It is no use having a miner in the mine when in six hours you exploit all his energy. That is folly.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That is getting rather far away from the Amendment at present before us. We are not now discussing the merits of nationalisation. The only question is the scope of the inquiry, and whether it should be restricted by the terms of the Amendment or conducted on the wider terms of the Bill.
    Mr. SWAN: I thank you, Sir, for that correction. I was just leading up to show how the unrest can be allayed, and how we can retain the confidence of the mine-workers, and that is by getting the mines nationalised. The one thing upon which there is deep discontent in the mining industry is the present system of ownership, and these reforms can only be secured by nationalisation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to know, before I divide upon this most important Amendment, exactly what nationalisation is. Does it mean nationalising the minerals of this country or nationalising only the coal measures of this country, or does it mean having a bureaucratic department running each mine, with an official paid by the Government instead of the managers and the different mining companies? Or does it even mean nationalising the distribution of the coal of the country and the supersession of our invaluable Deputy-Chairman of Committees? What is meant by nationalisation, and, above all, what is the price you are going to pay? After all the talk about the virtues of State control as against individual control, the problem resolves itself largely into the question of pounds, shillings and pence—what are we to pay?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is going into the merits of nationalisation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not propose to go into the merits of the question but to say that it is impossible to consider this question without having the alternatives to nationalisation before us. Obviously,

    1683
    if it is a question of what you are going to pay for this monopoly, it is a question also of whether there are other ways of breaking a monopoly besides purchasing it at a very high price. I admit I have always hoped it would be possible to break the monopoly in other waysand that we could break the monopoly by taxing the value of the minerals, whether or not they were worked, but I am coming to believe that that common-sense solution is impracticable—impracticable because the vested interests are too strongly intrenched in this House. If it is impracticable to break the monopoly completely, let me urge those who are in favour of nationalisation to consider whether their policy could not be combined with the other policy so as to break the monopoly price the mine-owners would otherwise claim from the country for the privilege of selling their coal.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Agreed!
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I wish the bon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) did agree with me, because then we might get some useful articles on the subject in "John Bull."
    The CHAIRMAN: We must not now debate the pros and cons of the question of
    nationalisation. The only question before us is the terms of reference to this Commission.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I believe I have kept strictly within that.I was trying to show that the possibilities of taxation combined with nationalisation would lend an additional argument to keeping the words as they stand in the Bill, so that nationalisation, if it comes about, shall not be a nationalisation which may be expected to ruinthe finances of the country. Therefore I ask the Labour party not to divide on this question. I believe we may be driven to nationalisation in order to smash these vested interests, but let us keep the door open so that the Commission of Inquiry can consider not only the question of taxation, but, as an hon. Member opposite suggested, also the possibility of syndicalisation as an alternative—I think a thoroughly unsatisfactory alternative—to the solution of nationalisation and taxation.
    Question put, "That the words, 'whether on the present basis, or on the basis of joint control,' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 308; Noes, 50.

    Division No. 6.]

    AYES.

    [6.58 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Brassey, H. L. C.

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

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Briant, F.

    Dean, Com. P. T.

    Ainsworth, Capt. C.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Britton, G. B.

    Dennis, J. W.

    Armitage, Robert

    Brotherton, Col. Sir E. A.

    Denniss, Edmund R. B.

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

    Dixon, Captain H.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Burdon, Col. Rowland

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Austin, Sir H.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Edgar, Clifford

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

    Barker, Major R.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Barnett, Captain Richard W.

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Barrand, A. R.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Barrie, C. C.

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Clough, R.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.

    Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Geddes, Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

    Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Betterton, H. B.

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Birchall, Major J. D.

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Bird, Alfred

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Glyn, Major R.

    Blades, Sir George R.

    Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

    Grayson, Lieut.-Col. H. M.

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.

    Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.

    Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

    Greer, Harry

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page

    Greig, Col. James William

    Bowles, Col. H. F.

    Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

    Gretton, Col. John

    Bramsdon, Sir T.

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Guest, Major O. (Leices., Loughb'ro'.)

    Maddocks, Henry

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

    Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Hailwood, A.

    Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

    Samuel, A. L. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

    Hallas, E.

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Mason, Robert

    Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

    Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Samuels, Rt. Hon. A.W. (Dublin Univ.)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Mitchell, William Lane-

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Henderson, Major V. L.

    Moles, Thomas

    Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hennessy, Major G.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

    Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.

    Seager, Sir William

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Morden, Col. H. Grant

    Seddon, J. A.

    Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Shortt, Right Hon. E.

    Hinds, John

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hood, Joseph

    Murchison, C. K.

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Hope, Harry (Stirling)

    Murray, Lt.-Col. Hn. A. C. (Aberd'n.)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Murray, Hon. G (St. Rollox)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

    Neal, Arthur

    Sugdeh, Lieut. W. H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Nelson, R. F. W. R.

    Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)

    Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

    Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hudson, R. M.

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

    Hurd, P. A.

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

    Hurst, Major G. B.

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Thompson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Inskip, T. W. H.

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Norris, Col. Sir Henry G.

    Townley, Maximillian G.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Palmer, Major G. M.

    Waddington, R.

    Johnstone, J.

    Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Jones, Sir E. R. (Merthyr)

    Parker, James

    Walton, Sir Joseph (Barnsley)

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Kidd, James

    Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Knights, Capt. H.

    Pickering, Col. Emil W.

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

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

    Pratt, John William

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Rae, H. Norman

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Wilson, J. H. (South Shields)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

    Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr N.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Lorden, John William

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Rees, Captain J. Tudor-

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Reid, D. D.

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Lyle, C. E.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Lynn, R. J.

    Renwick, G.

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    Younger, Sir George

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

    Talbot and Captain Guest.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Lunn, William

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Arnold, Sydney

    Grundy, T. W.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    O'Grady, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hartshorn, V.

    Onions, Alfred

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hayday, A.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Redmond, Captain William A.

    Cairns, John

    Hirst, G. H.

    Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Hogge, J. M.

    Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Irving, Dan

    Sexton, James

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Sitch, C. H.

    1686

    1687

    Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

    Spoor, B. G.

    Tootill, Robert

    Swan, J. E. C

    Waterson, A. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Taylor, J. W (Chester-le-Street)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    T. Wilson and Mr. Griffiths.

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Wignall, James

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph (g), after the word "wayleaves" ["mining royalties and wayleaves"], to insert the words "and taxation."
    I wish to add taxation as one of the subjects which has got to be considered under paragraph (g). Paragraph (g) detailsthe different items which the Commission have to consider, namely, the effect of the present incidence of, and practice in regard to, mining royalties, wayleaves, and taxation for the coal industry. I need not repeat the arguments I have already used. Thequestion of taxation has a very material effect on the mining industry. At present our system of taxing royalties, if it does not actually reduce production, at any rate tends to reduce production. Because, if you base your taxation on what is produced, you obstruct that production, and thereby increase the price of the article produced. If, on the other hand, your taxation were based upon what was not produced, upon the raw materials that were left unworked, then the owners of these raw materials would have their hands forced by the taxation, and would be compelled to lease their coal measures, and would be prepared to work them. They would be forced to lease them at lower royalties than at the present time, because the pressure of taxation would drive their coal measure into the market. Surely this is a very pertinent question when the problem to be solved is how to to make coal cheaper, how to increase wages, and how to reduce hours. If you can double the demand for labour, by forcing all the unworked pits—the pits that are shut down—to be worked and by opening up the coal measures which are not being worked, thereby you create a natural demand for labour which increases naturally the strength of the trade unions and the wages obtained by them, and at the same time increases the production of the mines, lowers the royalties, and lowers the price of coal. That, it seems to me, is one of the subjects which should be considered by this Commission. I do hope that the Labour Members, who sit upon that Commission, will see that that point of view is not entirely slurred over. It is very easy to confine discussion to the questions of how far the consumer may be made to pay and how far he can stand the
    1688
    burden thrown upon him. But it is just as well that they should take also into consideration the question of how far they can stop the robbery of the consumer by those people who have the monopoly of the raw materials and who can force the people who use their raw materials to pay the price they choose to ask. The breaking down of monopoly is one of the best ways of benefiting the whole industry of the country. As long as you have these gigantic rings and cartels controlling the output of the coalfields and iron-fields of this country you are bound to have monopoly—that is private persons taxing not only the actual workers, but the whole industry of the country and the whole community. Therefore an inquiry which burkes that issue, an inquiry which deals merely with nationalisation apart from the basis upon which that nationalisation is to come about would be a futile and a frivolous inquiry made to shelter those vested interests.
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this. Judging from his speech, the Amendment will not inthe least effect what he desired to do, and indeed it is not necessary, because the powers are already in the Bill. It simply refers to taxation of the coal industry, and not of royalties or wayleaves. But the Committee is entitled to go into the whole organisation, and if it can be shown to the Committee that by the process of taxing mining royalties—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: By taxing royalties?
    Mr. SHORTT: By taxing the undeveloped coal, or whatever my hon. and gallant Friend wants to tax, you can forcethe mine-owner to develop his mine, well and good. The Commission can go into all of that as it stands. It would be very undesirable to have the taxation of one particular industry considered all by itself. The effect of taxation upon the industry, how far it is affecting prices or anything else, can be gone into as it is, but if the Amendment is put in it would involve an inquiry into taxation, not as a whole, not as it affects an industry, but as it affects a small part of one particular industry, whichis most undesirable.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope the Government will not adopt this non possumus attitude on the question of taxation of the coal industry. Obviously one of the questions which will also be brought up is the question of an export tax on coal. You have a great many pundits in political economy who think that by exporting coal we are bolstering up the industries of other countries, and will endeavour to recommend that coal may be reduced in price by the taxation of coal sent out of the country. A previous Government of that political complexion introduced a measure on those lines about fifteen years ago. You cannot say that taxation of the coal industry must not be inquired into, because it is probably the most important element in decidinghow the coal industry is to flourish in future. I am sorry the Government will not accept this Amendment. There is no earthly reason why it should not, except that it naturally wishes to protect the people who have sent it to power.
    Amendment negatived.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in paragraph (l), after the word "industry" ["development of the coal industry"], to insert the words
    "the individual consumer of coal."
    One or two statements have been made above the Gangway which will certainly very much increase the anxiety with which the average consumer of coal in this country—not the big steel magnate, but the ordinary man who consumes a few tons of coal a year, will regard the proposals of this Committee. We were told by the Home Secretary that the Prime Minister himself was somewhat in favour of nationalisation of coal mines, and we bad the statement of an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who apparently had received his Coalition ticket that he himself was in favour of the nationalisation of mines. That does not tend to quiet the fears which a good many people feel as to the result of this scheme on the price of coal to them in the future. Therefore, I suggest that in order to allay their anxiety as far as may be, we should definitely put into thisBill that the individual consumers of coal will be taken into consideration by the Commission. It is not in the Bill anywhere else. The standard of living of the miners is in and the condition of the economic life of the country is in, but there is nothing in to show exactly that the Commission need
    1690
    take into consideration exactly what effect the recommendations will have upon the price of coal to the consumer. It is only a small thing to put it in. It can do no harm except the extra cost of printing, and it will allay anxiety. I dare say it will be said that the ease of the individual consumer is covered by what is called the economic life of the country. That is a very vague term. The draftsman of the Bill is fond of it because he has put it in twice. But it is a vague term to cover the small man. Let us do what we can for him. After all, he is the defendant. The miners of the country are the plaintiffs. They say the defendants are getting too much out of coalmining, and the methods of labour, wages,and so on, which are not fair, and we the defendants must give them more. If that is the case, let us have our case as defendants considered as fully as ever we can. Let us direct the Commission specifically to consider the case of the small individual consumer.
    Mr. SHORTT: I really do not think these words are necessary. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was right when he foresaw that I would say that. They will have this effect, that in the construction of the Act, the words being inserted there, it will beheld that where the words "economic life of the country"appear in other places they do not cover the small consumer, because it would be argued at once that if they did it would not be necessary to put in the individual consumer in that place. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the whole object of putting in the words "economic life of the country" is to protect the consumer, and I think it does protect him. The term "economic life of the country"is used throughout the Bill, and if you put definite words in there it would be argued that they were not included within the term, "economic life of the country"in other places. The object which he has in mind, and which the Government has in mind, too, is better effected by leaving the words out.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have an Amendment handed in by the hon. Member (Mr. Clement Edwards) which does not appear to me to read here. The earlier words of the Clause are:
    "conditions prevailing in the coal industry and in particular as to."

    1691
    Then we come to paragraph (h), and he wishes to add a further paragraph as follows
    "and any other factors ancillary thereto."
    Those words are not particular but all-embracing, and would involve a contradiction in terms of the earlier words.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: In the course of the discussion this afternoon there has been a good deal of anxiety, both from one point of view and another, as to the extent of the powers of the Commission, and the Chairman might not find that he was in possession of the necessary authority to go a little outside into relevant matters. It is usual on most Royal Commissions to put in some comprehensive term in the event of the Commission finding its powers were not quite wide enough. It is only a question of getting the exact words. Could we not have the words "any facts ancillary or relevant to the foregoing Sub-section"?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly that would not do. After we have descended to the particular we cannot go back again to the general. It should have been put in earlier.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Commissioners.)
    (1) The Commissioners appointed under this Act (in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners") shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof, on the occasion of any action, in respect of the following matters:

    (a) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise; and

    (b) compelling the production of documents; and

    (c) punishing persons guilty of contempt;

    and a summons signed by one or more of the Commissioners may be substituted for and shall be equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents.

    (2) A warrant of committal to prison issued for the purpose of enforcing the powers conferred by this Section shall specify the prison to which the offender is to be committed, but shall not authorise the imprisonment of an offender fora period exceeding three months.

    (3) Persons interested in the inquiry shall not be entitled to appear before the Commissioners by counsel or solicitor unless it appears desirable to the Commissioners to allow any such appearance for special reasons.

    (4) The Commissioners may act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number, and three shall be a quorum.

    1692

    (5) Every document purporting to be an Order or other instrument issued by the Commissioners may be authenticated by the signature of any one or more of the Commissioners.

    (6) The Commissioners shall have power to appoint committees for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting to the Commissioners on any of the matters referred to the Commissioners under this Act, and any such Committee may include, if the Commissioners think fit, persons other than Commissioners, and the Commissioners may delegate to any such Committee, for the purposes of such inquiry and report, any of the powers conferred on the Commissioners under this Act.

    Major HAYWARD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "matters" ["in respect of the following matters"], to insert the words
    "the discovery, production and inspection of documents and for the purposes thereof the Commissioners shall have power to appoint and employ accountants and other experts to make such investigations and reports as the Commission shall order and."
    The Debate has revealed the fact that one very important matter which the Commissioners will have to deal with is the question of costs and wages, and upon no other matter has there already appeared a greater divergence of statement and of view. If this Amendment is accepted it will extend to the Commissioners greater facilities for ascertaining what those costs and wages are. I notice that in Clause 2,paragraph (2) the Commissioners will have power to compel the production of documents, but I gather that that is merely the ordinary power of compelling witnesses to produce documents. Something very much more than that is necessary. It is no use a witnessappearing and fetching a bundle of documents without the Commissioners having proper facilities for investigating them by expert accountants, and it is to give the Commissioners the power, which a litigant would have in an action at law, of investigatingthem and having them looked into by expert accountants, that I move this Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I should be very glad to accept the Amendment if my hon. and gallant Friend would change the words in this way, "discovery and production to the Commission of documents."I think the documents ought to remain under the control of the Commission. It is not a case of two parties to a lawsuit, but an inquiry to ascertain as far as possible what the facts are. I think, having regard to the very intimate nature of some

    1693
    of the documents it will nave to inspect and examine, it should be "discovery and production to the Commission."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: After the word "matters," insert the words
    "the discovery and production to the Commission of documents, and for the purposes thereof the Commissioners shall have power to appoint and employ accountants and other experts to make such investigations and reports as they shall order and."—[Major Hayward.]
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Publicity of Proceedings.)
    (1) The Commissioners may, in their discretion, refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present at any proceedings of the Commissioners during the hearing of evidence of matters which, but for this Act, could not be disclosed, but save as aforesaid, the sittings of the Commissioners at which evidence is taken shall be held in public; and a full and complete record in shorthand shall be kept of all evidence taken whether in public or in private.

    (2) If any person who is present at any proceedings of the Commissioners at which the public or any portion thereof are not allowed to be present discloses, without the authority of the Commissioners, either directly or indirectly, any thing that has taken place at those proceedings, he shall be liable to punishment for contempt of court.

    Mr. INSKIP: I beg to move, to leave out the words,
    "The Commissioners may, in their discretion, refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present atany proceedings of the Commissioners during the hearing of evidence of matters which, but for this Act, could not be disclosed, but save as aforesaid."
    My Amendment is designed to ensure the largest measure of publicity that is possible for the evidence taken before the Commissioners. The result of the last Amendment has rather made me fear that the right hon. Gentleman will not be disposed to accept this Amendment, because he spoke of the intimate nature of the documents and the evidence that will be produced before the Commission. I hope, however, that this Amendment will be accepted, and also my second Amendment. If my Amendments are accepted the Sub-section would read:
    "The sittings of the Commissioners at which evidence is taken shall be held in public; and a full and complete record in shorthand shall be kept of all evidence taken whether in public or in private.
    There are a few reasons why I think this Amendment is desirable. In the first place, it is exceedingly difficult for any Commission to keep entirely secret matters which are given in evidence before it. We
    1694
    have all had experience of the fact, that matters which were intended to be kept secret were not kept secret. If matters are given in evidence which are intended to be kept secret and which are not, and which are known to a few and not to the public, it creates distrust and doubt in the minds of those who have to discuss them, and in the minds of those who have to abide by the decision of a Commission as to the evidence given before which they are in the dark. Another reason is, that these materials which will be given in evidence will be required, I hope, by Parliament as well as by the Government. If this question is to be determined solely by the Government, and this House is to have no power of deliberation upon this question, it is for the Commissioners to receive certain parts of the evidence in secret and the Government and Commissioners alone should have access to that evidence. There is a last reason why I think this Amendment should be accepted. I hope this Commission is going to be a now departure in the sense that everybody is going to disclose the materials which the country requires for settling questions of this character. I do not know whether there is any prospect of these disputes between workmen and employers ever becoming impossible, but I am sure of one thing which will tend to that more than any, and that is, that everybody should disclose the information which is required to settle that which should be solely a matterof arithmetic—the right proportion which the workers and the capitalists should receive for the earnings in their industry. I shall vote for this Bill in any case, and I should vote for it with enthusiasm if I thought there would be nothing kept back from the public or this House, nothing kept secret, nothing hidden, but that everything should be laid bare for this House and the country to exercise judgment upon it.
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. There is no desire to keep anything back. It is not a question of making this a secret inquiry of any description. It merely gives discretion to the Commissioners, and I think having regard to the personnel of the Commission, when we know who the Chairman is, we can be perfectly satisfied that that discretion will be used carefully and wisely. Let me give my hon. Friend an example of the sort of thing that might happen. It might be necessary to arrive at an average of profits in a certain district, and for that

    1695
    purpose it might be necessary to go very closely into the individual profits of an individual, and the individual income of an individual, and to receive evidence in regard to these points. It might very well be perfectly fair to say: "We are not going to publish to the world the intimate facts regarding the individual, but we will publish to the world the general average which we get from the facts over the whole."It would be within the discretion of the Commission to do a thing of that sort. It is a pure question of discretion, and as speaking generally, the desire is to make this inquiry as public as can be, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. INSKIP: I am not thoroughly satisfied, but in view of the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Disclosure of Confidential Information.)
    A person examined as a witness or summoned to produce documents by the Commissioners shall not be excused from producing any document or giving any information on the ground that such document or information is secret or confidential, or is entitled or required to be withheld under Section two of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, or under the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, or the agreement thereto scheduled, and Section four of the last mentioned Act shall not apply to the Commissioners or any person concerned in the inquiry."
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move after the word "scheduled" to insert the words "or otherwise."
    These words are necessary because there are other methods by which secrecy is obtained apart from those that are mentioned in the Clause. For example, there are certain regulations under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and so on. The intention of these words is to ensure that nothing which gives secrecy as a matter of right shall be omitted from the powers of this Commission. This Amendment merely completes what the Clause is intended to do.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Reports.)
    Any Report of the Commissioners and any Minority Report shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and the Commissioners may, if they think fit, make interim
    1696
    Reports, and shall, as soon as practicable, make an interim Report on the questions of the wages and hours of work of colliery workers, and the Commissioners may publish, or cause to be published, from time to time, in such manner as they think fit, any information obtained or conclusions arrived at by them as the result or in the course of their inquiry.
    Provided that there shall not be included in any Report or publication made or authorised by the Commissioners any information obtained by them in the course of their inquiry as to any individual business (whether carried on by a person, firm or company) which but for this Act could not have been disclosed, nor shall any individual Commissioner or any person concerned in the inquiry disclose any such information.
    Mr. BRACE: I beg to move to leave out the words
    "as soon as practicable,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "on or before the 12th day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen."
    I feel extremely obligated to the Prime Minister for making it his duty to come down to the House to discuss with us this very important part of this very important Bill. We have been discussing the principle of an important question to-day, that of nationalisation. The question of nationalisation is important, but nationalisation is not pressing in the same sense that this questionis pressing. As the Committee will know, the Miners'Federation meets in conference to-morrow. It will meet in conference to receive the result of the ballot. The result of the ballot is a declaration by an enormous majority in favour of a strike. This Amendment is for the purpose of helping the conferenceto come to a conclusion which will avoid the disastrous result of withholding from the nation the driving power of the nation. My right hon. Friend, in his interview with the Miners' Federation, gave the 31st March as the earliest date upon which we might expect the Report upon the question of wages and hours. Last night we discussed this matter for some time, and my right hon. Friend was asked if he could not alter the date upon which we might expect to receive the interim Report from the 31st March to the 12th March. If we go into conference to-morrow with a declaration on the part of the Government that we should have an interim Report on the 12th March, we should be able to do our business in an entirely different atmosphere than if we have to go to the conference with no expectation of a report earlier than a date later than the ballot has decided that we are to take action as a federation.

    1697
    My right hon. Friend will know that my colleagues around me and myself desire to exercise ourselves in an effort to find a peaceful solution of this difficulty, and it is because we think a peaceful solution can be found in this direction that we have brought forward this Amendment, putting the 12th March as the date on which we should expect the Interim Report. My right hon. Friend last night, in a very weighty speech, gave reasons why we could not expect a Report by that date. He said the inquiry the investigation, must be of a somewhat prolonged character. On the question of the 30 per cent. it really does not require a prolonged investigation. If the miners were making an application for 30 per cent. upon a basis which would necessitate an inquiry into the cost of living, or upon a basis which would necessitate an inquiry into the price of coal, or an inquiry into profits, there would be substance in his argument. But the 30 per cent. application is made upon the basis of lifting the entire industry to a higher standard than the present standard. Therefore, upon its merits the 30 per cent. increase must be granted or refused. The whole point is this, Is the application a just one between interest and interest; is the application a just one as between the miners and the State? If my right hon. Friend can put up the argument—but he will not attempt to do so because he knows the problem too well—that the present position of the miners is a satisfactory one, then it would be most difficult for us to resist an inquiry which might lead up to the 31st March, but when it is common ground, when it has to be admitted by the Government, and when it must be admitted by this House and the country, as to the conditions of life of these men, the enormous service they render to the State, and the great sacrifice they make to produce the nation's coal, it must be admitted that their application is not unreasonable. Therefore, because the application is not unreasonable, and because it has to be decided upon facts and figures, not upon cost of living, and not upon profits or prices, I should have thought the Government without any inquiry would have been in a position to say yea or nay to that application.
    My right hon. Friend says there must be some kind of inquiry, that there are certain things we must inquire into as to
    1698
    the effect which the 30 per cent. advance in miners' wages would have upon the other industries of the country. I say very well, then, the inquiry is a limited one, and it is because the inquiry is so limited in character that I venture with confidence to put forward the proposition that when we ask the House of Commons to say that the 12th March is the date that we might expect the interim Report, we are giving sufficient time to that inquiry, and as a result our conference will not be asked to suspend the operation of the ballot to a date later than that which has been decided. I would have the Prime Minister and the House of Commons realise that the governing factor at to-morrow's Conference is not so much the desire of the Conference for a peaceful solution on a particular basis, but the result of the ballot, and unless we can go there with an overwhelming case for delay, then we shall stand discredited before our people, and a discredited body of leaders is of no value to the men they lead andof no value to the country of whom they form a part and whom they would like to serve. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept this Amendment and undertake that we shall have an interim Report presented upon the wages'question by the 12th March.
    I come to the question of hours. There also we stand or fall on a matter of principle. Is the six hours proposal illegitimate comparing the interest of the men with the interest of the State? The six-hours day is one of the things that they workers have been agitating for. They have come to the hard conclusion that inasmuch as other sections of the community who work upon the surface are having reduction of hours, the men who work in the mines ought as compared with eight on the surface to have six underground. As explained yesterday, six hours from bank to bank is broadly seven hours for the miners as compared with eight hours on the surface, and comparing like with like it is their opinion that eight hours on the surface is not greater than seven underground. Then if my right hon. Friend will appreciate that the six-hours application will have to be determined upon purely as a matter of principle, he will see at once that it will not require any prolonged inquiry for the Commission to report on this question. At any rate, I

    1699
    hold that with determination and under the skilful guidance of the distinguished Chairman, Sir John Sankey, the Commission in a fortnight could arrive at a conclusion.
    I am not unmindful of the fact that the introduction of a six hours' shift would require some careful surveying of the organisation of the collieries. I believe that a six hours'shift, when the whole industry will come to be reorganised upon that basis, will not mean any reduction in output. But I quite realise that some surveying of the problem will be necessary, but it is not an extensive survey that will be required, and in selecting 12th March as the date for a Report we think that we give the Commission sufficient time to make their Report. My right hon. Friend will see at once that what my colleagues and myself are working for under this Amendment is a reasonable opportunity at the Conference to-morrow to find a peaceful solution of this problem. Therefore I ask him to be frank with the House of Commons, and through the House of Commons to be frank with the Miners'Conference to-morrow. If the 12th March in his judgment is not a sufficient time, will he tell us what is the absolute limit he can work it into? The 31st March is a most extreme time. That figure, in my judgment, is indefensible for such an inquiry. I have put in the 12th March because that would enable us to get the Report and get a conference of the Miners' Federation before the 15th March arrives, which is the date decided by ballot for the Miners' Federation to move into action if they have got to fight.
    I pray that we shall not have such a result. I am afraid at the thought of the consequences. I am pressing this point most earnestly and most solemnly, for I feel that it will have such a bearing upon the result of to-morrow's Conference. The Prime Minister will not misunderstand my colleagues and myself when we say that when we put in the 12th March it is not our figure. It is a figure that has been forced upon us as the result of the ballot vote of the miner, and the situation that will arise on the 15th March. I do not want to prolong the argument. My right hon. Friend knows the position quite as well as we do. He is as anxious, to say the least of it, as we are, to find a peaceful solution. Therefore, when I move the 12th March, I do so under a great sense
    1700
    of duty to the Conference, which we have to meet to-morrow, and I make an appeal to him to be quite frank with us, and if he cannot meet us in our figure for the 12th, at least lethim tell us what is the nearest day to the 12th on which he thinks the Commission can report, so that we may be quite frank with our Conference, and get them to co-operate with us in the effort for a peaceful settlement rather than to have the shadow of industrial warfare hanging over the nation a moment longer than is necessary.
    Mr. THOMAS: I rise to say just a word in support of the very eloquent appeal of my right hon. Friend. I also want to tell the Committee an additional reason to show that all importance is attached to these dates. The position to-night has changed from what it was last night. The Committee will see the situation by to-morrow morning's papers, and I may as well tell it now. The position of the miners, railwaymen, and transport workers'executive this afternoon, after a very full and long discussion of the whole proceedings, was given unanimously that no one section was to settle this question without consultation and agreement with the others. That decision means that the miners will conduct their negotiations—I say conduct, because I hope we will not assume that even now negotiations are off. I hope that there will be further negotiations—the railwaymen will reopen their negotiations to-morrow, and then the transport workers will resume theirs. But no one of these three bodies will be in a position to make a separate agreement without a further conference of the whole three, and that conference is fixed to be held before the 1st March. The object of fixing the 12th of March briefly, is this: that on that date the miners'notices expire, and I want the Committee to understand that however difficult an official strike may be, a non-official strike will be worse, because there is always the grave danger in unofficial strikes of no one being able to control them.
    What the miners feel and said frankly this afternoon was, that they must be the body themselves to make a recommendation so far as suspension of notice is concerned. That is the all-important point. Therefore, I want the Prime Minister to realise that if it is impossible to give us a full Report by the 12th March it ought not to be difficult to

    1701
    give an interim Report on one side of the question. My right hon. Friend has referred to the question of nationalisation.It has been admitted in Debate that that is not only a most difficult question, but one which requires the most searching examination. But surely it ought not to be difficult for the Prime Minister to say that so far as the second half, if I may so call it of the Inquiry, that which relates to nationalisation, is concerned, it could form the basis of the final Report of the Commission, and that we could have an interim Report on these other two questions. I quite see the difficulty of the prime Minister altering this day, but I beg of him to realise what my right hon. Friend has said. There are people undoubtedly who are not so anxious for peace as others, but there are people who are anxious for peace. There are people in all these sections who know perfectly well that the conflict if it comes will be the most terrible that we can contemplate, and the responsibility on any man is terrible. Now it is for the Government to strengthen the hands of those who desire peace and who are striving for peace. It is for the Government to give us an opportunity of saying, "This is not camouflage. This is not an attempt merely to do the miners out of their claims. It is a genuine attempt to be as just with the miners as the Government want to be with the State as a whole."
    It is for all those reasons that I supplement the appeal of my right hon. Friend. I beg the Prime Minister to say here and now, that the 31st March is not the date. It is all very well to say that only sixteen days divide us, and that the men ought to wait those sixteen days. That is not the temper and feeling of the men.We could understand it if it were merely the House of Commons we were dealing with, but if the Government will show that they have a genuine anxiety to meet the miners on this particulardifficulty I am absolutely certain that it will go a long way to ease the situation. I do not think that it will be the last we shall hear of these matters in the House of Commons, but, so far as this claim is concerned, whatever the difference is on that side or this, whatever hard things may have been said by any Member against the Labour party or against Labour leaders, I do beg the Committee to realise that no Labour leader with any sense of responsibility would face
    1702
    the consequences of such a struggle as this with other than a very heavy heart. For this reason I make this further appeal to the Prime Minister.
    8.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): My right hon. Friends who have spoken have made a very earnest appeal to the Government to meet them in the matter of days, and, apart from the gravity of the situation, the two right hon. Gentlemen have sought so earnestly for peace that they are entitled to special consideration in dealing with an appeal such as they have put forth. I have hadthe advantage of consulting the eminent judge whom the Government intend to advise to preside over this Commission on this very question—this all-important question. Other questions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Abertiliery has said, maybe more important intrinsically, because they raise bigger and more permanent issues;but this is a more important question from the point of view of the removal of this immediate difficulty. Let me just state to the House the difficulties which presented themselves to Mr. Justice Sankey's mind. I asked him to go into the whole question in so far as the information at his disposal was concerned, and to examine the kind of questions which would come before him before he arrived at any decision. I have seen him in the course of the evening, and I shall be able to say before I sit down what his final view is on this subject. My right hon. Friend, I think, treats a little too lightly the special difficulties of even arriving at a provisional decision upon thesetwo issues. It is not a simple issue to decide whether you are going to increase by 30 per cent. an industry, the product of which enters into almost every other industry in the Kingdom; and it is not merely 30 per cent., because the curtailment of the hours of labour will decrease the output, and will increase the cost. Both of those are very important elements in the industries of the country—very important. Whereas you have the output per man of the American mines going up, for reasons that I need not examine—the perfection of machinery among other reasons—the output per man of the mines in this country has gone down steadily. Therefore, when you come to hours of labour, you have the double complication that if you are going

    1703
    to reduce the hours of labour, and to increase the wage, you will thereby add to the burden, and you will also be limiting the output, and both of those are very important elements in the industry of the country. No one can say that you ought in a hurry to come to a conclusion upon two such very weighty matters as those. The Chairman of the Commission has got to examine, first of all, what the effect is upon the industries of the country, and there he must take evidence from the representatives of those various industries. He must examine accounts, and perhaps balance sheets. Then the miners' representatives, whether they are on the Commission or whether they appear as witnesses, would put their counter-case. They will say "This is on the assumption that there is no saving." Very well; that is a matter that has got to be examined.
    I do not mean to say that you could in the time come to a conclusion upon all the various schemes of reconstruction of the industry and the utilisation of the resources of the mines. You cannot do that, but you could examine it far enough to be able to come to a fairly satisfactory decision as to whether you could increase the wages without damaging other industries, and the extent to which you could go. But that will take time. What time have you got in which to do it, on the assumption that we fix the 12th of March? I will assume for the sake of my argument that this Bill goes through to-night. I hope it will, and that it goes to another place; and I will also assume, although we haveno control over the proceedings of another House, that it goes, if you like, to-morrow through all its stages, and—I am taking the most favourable assumption—that the Royal Assent be given to it on Thursday. The miners meet to-morrow. Whichever way they decide, we should on Thursday be in a position to invite the members of the Commission, send letters or wires to the nominees, to those the Government intend to form part of the Commission, asking them whether they are prepared to serve. Take,again, the most favourable assumption that they all reply in the affirmative, although you might have one or two saying that for some business or other reason they cannot possibly serve, and that would be another complication; you could not possibly form your Commission before Friday at the earliest possible moment. Then you summon
    1704
    them, and I cannot see any prospect of your getting them together to begin business before Monday. They meet together and they decide procedure. There are preliminary questions which they have to decide, because until they come together, the Chairman has no right to exercise the powers which you have in this Bill to call upon the different parties to furnish accounts until the Commission as a whole decide.
    Let us assume thaton Monday they are able to come to a decision as to what accounts they propose to demand either from Government Departments or from the business concerns, and what witnesses they should bring forward. They cannot really get on very well with their work until the witnesses appear, and until the accounts are furnished. Monday is the 3rd of March, and the 5th of March would be about the first time they could begin to examine their witnesses. After examining your witnesses, you have got to discuss the points.It is too much to assume that they are all perfectly unanimous the moment they have heard a few witnesses, and you must allow time for discussion. And to put a date which cramps and crowds them, is really to prevent agreement. You might fail to come to anagreement on the first day, and get nearer on the second. My right hon. Friends are too experienced in negotiations not to know that it is much easier to come to terms if you are not too pressed to come to terms immediately. Therefore, from their own pointof view, which is also ours, to get a settlement that would be satisfactory to all parties, and which the nation as well as the miners and mine-owners, and all the other industries of the country, would feel to be just, and which would give confidence toall other industries—because that is important—it would be a misfortune to put a date there that the Commission themselves would feel made it difficult for them to come to a reasonable and wise solution.
    On these grounds, Mr. Justice Sankey is very much opposed to accepting the dates mentioned in my right hon. Friend's Amendment. It is very important in a case of this kind that no promise should be given for which there is not a reasonable prospect of its being redeemed. Sir John Sankey will not be sitting alone. A judge sitting absolutely alone, and having only to satisfy himself, and

    1705
    going through these accounts alone and seeing the witnesses himself, would take very much less time I do not know whether you will have twelve or fifteen members, but, whatever the numbers that will be on the Commission, each man will want to put his questions. At any rate they have the right to put questions, and they ought to feel that if they want any information they can put the questions, without the fear of wasting time and of precipitating a strike. The miners' representatives would feel that, and so would the mine-owners and the representatives of the Government.
    Therefore Sir John Sankey is of opinion that if he gave a promise for the 12th of March, it would be something he could not seea reasonable prospect of being able to redeem. Let me give exactly what he says after going into it very carefully He says it makes a great difference from the point of view of time whether the miners are on or not, and that stands to reason. If the miners are not on, the mine-owners cannot very well be on. You cannot have one party represented unless the other is represented, and it will be a different composition for the Commission. But that means that there will beno one there on the Commission who would have a direct acquaintance with the condition of the industry, and it would therefore take a longer time for the Commission to get at their work, and come to a conclusion. In his judgment he could save several daysif the miners were represented on the Commission, because then he would have the mine-owners as well. All would be there in the same room, and they could discuss the thing with knowledge, instead of having to send for experts every time a difficulty arose. There would be questions where the miners and mine-owners would be agreed, something about the working of a mine—whereas other men, not knowing anything about the mechanism of the industry, would say, "We are doubtful about this. We must send for somebody." And they would have to take evidence about something which would be simple to the miner and mine-owner, and which could be cleared up in five minutes.
    The conclusion to which Mr. Justice Sankey has therefore come is that the date he gives depends very largely on whether the miners will be on the Commission or not. If the miners are on the Commission,
    1706
    it would also include the mine-owners. Then barring accidents, barring circumstances which he cannot foresee and which in his judgment are unforseeable—if there were conditions of that sort, then the miners are members and would be able to judge themselves—he is prepared to give a guarantee to the Government that the Report will be in their hands on the 20th of March. He cannot givea definite undertaking, which he feels in his conscience he would be unable to redeem, of any date before the 20th of March, but on condition that the industry itself is represented on the Commission—barring events which he cannot foresee, and there is nothing foreseeable in his mind to prevent his doing so—he is prepared to give an undertaking to the Government, and he permits me to give that undertaking to the miners and mine-owners of the country and other industries, that on this condition, he will guarantee that the Report will be in the hands of the Government at some hour on the 20th of March.
    An HON. MEMBER: On these two points?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes; only on these two points. It will take a very much longer time to report on theother matters. The Government have met my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends behind me very substantially. Sir John Sankey has taken a great deal of trouble, realising the importance of getting an early Report, and he is prepared to put the whole of his strength and great capacity, not merely in having a just decision, but on having it at the earliest possible moment, and I trust my right hon. Friend will feel that the Government have been fair in the matter.
    Mr. BRACE: It would be not only ungracious but unfair for us not to acknowledge quite frankly how fully the Prime Minister has endeavoured to meet our situation. Of course, the Committee and the Prime Minister will understand that we are not clothed with anything like plenary authority as to what the conference will do, and I cannot commit my colleagues or myself in this House as to what may be the decision. I do feel that inasmuch as the Prime Minister has consulted Sir John Sankey that fact alone will have an important bearing, and indeed a very far-reaching influence upon the

    1707
    minds of the delegates who may assemble; and while I would have the Committee clearly to understand that I cannot accept the Prime Minister's statement as meeting our case, yet I feel that there is so much substance in it, and in fact such an ad mixture of fairness and a desire to come to a decision, that I must ask my colleagues to agree with me in asking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    CLAUSE 6 (Short Title) agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes after Eight o'clock.

  NATIONALISATION.
  NATIONALISATION.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (STAFF).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIRING ALLOWANCES).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIRING ALLOWANCES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CATTLE CHARGES.
  CATTLE CHARGES.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  CONTROL SYSTEM.
  CONTROL SYSTEM.
  CONDENSED MILK.
  CONDENSED MILK.
  DRIPPING.
  DRIPPING.
  CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.
  CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.
  WHISKY STOCKS.
  WHISKY STOCKS.
  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (OUTPUT AND DELIVERY) ORDER.
  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (OUTPUT AND DELIVERY) ORDER.
  AUXILIARY YACHT PATROLS (GRATUITIES).
  AUXILIARY YACHT PATROLS (GRATUITIES).
  CHAIN CABLE.
  CHAIN CABLE.
  FISHING VESSELS (RELEASE).
  FISHING VESSELS (RELEASE).
DEMOBILISATION.
  DEVON TERRITORIALS (INDIA).
  DEVON TERRITORIALS (INDIA).
  ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  TROOPS IN RUSSIA.
  TROOPS IN RUSSIA.
  OFFICERS' GRATUITIES.
  OFFICERS' GRATUITIES.
  ORDER OF RELEASE.
  ORDER OF RELEASE.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (REINSTATEMENT).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (REINSTATEMENT).
  TROOPS GUARDING GERMAN PRISONERS (GRATUITY).
  TROOPS GUARDING GERMAN PRISONERS (GRATUITY).
  SOUTHERN COMMAND.
  SOUTHERN COMMAND.
  SERVICE AWARDS (FIREMEN).
  SERVICE AWARDS (FIREMEN).
  OFFICER CADETS (COMMISSIONS).
  OFFICER CADETS (COMMISSIONS).
  ARMY QUARTERMASTERS' PAY.
  ARMY QUARTERMASTERS' PAY.
  QUARTERLY STOCK-TAKING BOARDS.
  QUARTERLY STOCK-TAKING BOARDS.
  MONEY EXCHANGE (RAILWAY STATION FACILITIES).
  MONEY EXCHANGE (RAILWAY STATION FACILITIES).
  OFFICERS' UNIFORM AND EQUIPMENT.
  OFFICERS' UNIFORM AND EQUIPMENT.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  MACHINES BURNT.
  MACHINES BURNT.
  MACHINES DISMANTLED OR DESTROYED.
  MACHINES DISMANTLED OR DESTROYED.
  DEMOBILISATION GRATUITY.
  DEMOBILISATION GRATUITY.
  CADETS IN EGYPT.
  CADETS IN EGYPT.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
  TYPEWRITERS.
  TYPEWRITERS.
  NATIONAL FACTORIES.
  NATIONAL FACTORIES.
MUNITIONS.
  CASUALTIES AND COMPENSATION.
  CASUALTIES AND COMPENSATION.
  AERONAUTICAL INSPECTION DEPARTMENT.
  AERONAUTICAL INSPECTION DEPARTMENT.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SPECIAL BENEFITS.
  SPECIAL BENEFITS.
  TEMPORARY BONUS.
  TEMPORARY BONUS.
  TUBERCULOUS SOLDIERS.
  TUBERCULOUS SOLDIERS.
  WARRANT OFFICERS' FAMILIES.
  WARRANT OFFICERS' FAMILIES.
  DISABLED OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
  DISABLED OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
  COMMUTATION.
  COMMUTATION.
  TOTAL INCAPACITY.
  TOTAL INCAPACITY.
  DISABLEMENT PENSION.
  DISABLEMENT PENSION.
  REPATRIATED OFFICERS (OUTFIT GRANTS).
  REPATRIATED OFFICERS (OUTFIT GRANTS).
  WIVES' ALLOWANCES.
  WIVES' ALLOWANCES.
  SHELL-SHOCK.
  SHELL-SHOCK.
  CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM).
  CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM).
  UGANDA GOVERNMENT RAILWAY.
  UGANDA GOVERNMENT RAILWAY.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (TRAINING).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (TRAINING).
  UNIVERSITIES (OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE).
  UNIVERSITIES (OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE).
  SECONDARY EDUCATION (SCHOLARSHIPS).
  SECONDARY EDUCATION (SCHOLARSHIPS).
  MEDICAL TRAINING.
  MEDICAL TRAINING.
  INFLUENZA.
  INFLUENZA.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  GERMANS (BRITISH FAMILIES).
  GERMANS (BRITISH FAMILIES).
  ALIENS (REPATRIATION).
  ALIENS (REPATRIATION).
  YOUNG PERSONS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).
  YOUNG PERSONS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  POLICE FORCES (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
  POLICE FORCES (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
  SUMMER TIME.
  SUMMER TIME.
  MINE-WORKERS (EYESIGHT).
  MINE-WORKERS (EYESIGHT).
HOUSING.
  PURCHASE FACILITIES.
  PURCHASE FACILITIES.
  STOKE HEATH "STRIKE."
  STOKE HEATH "STRIKE."
  LONDON SHORTAGE.
  LONDON SHORTAGE.
  MILITARY OCCUPATION.
  MILITARY OCCUPATION.
  NOTICES TO QUIT.
  NOTICES TO QUIT.
  NOTTINGHAM MILK SUPPLY.
  NOTTINGHAM MILK SUPPLY.
  BLIND PEOPLE (ASSISTANCE SCHEMES).
  BLIND PEOPLE (ASSISTANCE SCHEMES).
  QUALIFIED DENTISTS.
  QUALIFIED DENTISTS.
  RAILWAY FACILITIES (EASTER).
  RAILWAY FACILITIES (EASTER).
  RESTRICTED IMPORTS.
  RESTRICTED IMPORTS.
  SHOREHAM HARBOUR.
  SHOREHAM HARBOUR.
  FISHING HARBOURS (CONTROL).
  FISHING HARBOURS (CONTROL).
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.
  COAL MINES (OUTPUT).
  COAL MINES (OUTPUT).
  FORD MOTOR CARS.
  FORD MOTOR CARS.
  TOBACCO.
  TOBACCO.
  POSTAL SERVICES, HORNCASTLE.
  POSTAL SERVICES, HORNCASTLE.
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS (POST OFFICE).
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS (POST OFFICE).
PEACE CONFERENCE.
  DESTROYED SHIPPING.
  DESTROYED SHIPPING.
  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  SHIPPING TRAFFIC TO AMERICA.
  SHIPPING TRAFFIC TO AMERICA.
  SHIPBUILDING FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  SHIPBUILDING FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  INDIAN PASSAGE CHARGES.
  INDIAN PASSAGE CHARGES.
  SHIPPING FREIGHTS.
  SHIPPING FREIGHTS.
  STANDARD SHIPS.
  STANDARD SHIPS.
  BRITISH TONNAGE.
  BRITISH TONNAGE.
  BEE STOCKS (LOSS).
  BEE STOCKS (LOSS).
  LEA BAILEY (FOREST OF DEAN).
  LEA BAILEY (FOREST OF DEAN).
  TEACHERS' SALARIES (SCOTLAND).
  TEACHERS' SALARIES (SCOTLAND).
  SMALL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND).
  SMALL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND).
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  CONSULAR SERVICE.

LORD SINHA OF RAIPUR.
Sir Satyendra Prasanna Sinha, Knight, Under-Secretary of State for India, having been created Baron SINHA of Raipur in the Presidency of Bengal—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

BANKERS' GUARANTEE TRUST (TRANSFER) BILL. [H.L.]
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L]
HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION GAS BILL. [H.L.]
LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
POOLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
ST. JUST (FALMOUTH) OCEAN WHARVES AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THAMES OCEAN-WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in rising to make the Motion which stands in my name I venture to hope that it will be received with general agreement by your Lordships. It seems that last Wednesday, when we were debating this supremely important subject, the general desire of the House was to proceed with the discussion and conclude it at as early a date as possible. There is on the Paper for to-day a Bill in the name of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which raises points of considerable importance. There is also a Question in the name of my noble friend Lord Gainford, and one by my noble friend the Marquess of Lincolnshire.
282
I hope and believe that these noble Lords will be willing to postpone their Motions until after the debate on industrial unrest. I trust that, although there are some important speeches to be made, the remainder of that debate will not occupy a great deal of time, and that there will be plenty of opportunity for the remaining business on the Paper to be transacted in spite of the precedence given to my noble friend's Motion.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting; and that the adjourned debate on the Motion of Lord Buckmaster relating to industrial unrest have precedence of the Notices and other Order of the Day.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD GAINFORD: I have a Question on the Paper which I have already postponed once, but in order to meet the convenience of your Lordships I am quite prepared to postpone it again. I notice that there is a cognate subject to be raised to-morrow by Lord Sudeley, and if it is convenient I will raise my Question tomorrow.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): With regard to Lord Sudeley's Question on the Paper for to-morrow, I am not quite sure whether the information will be ready to reply as fully as my noble friend would desire; but I think it would be well, as it is not an urgent question, that Lord Sudeley's Motion and Lord Gainford's motion should be taken together to-morrow. We can then survey the position of these public museums from all points of view.
LORD GAINFORD: I will put my Motion down for to-morrow.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If you please. I understand that the noble and learned Lord on the cross-benches is quite prepared to agree with the view of the Leader of the Opposition, and in these circumstances I imagine that your Lordships will accept Lord Crewe's Motion. Now that we are discussing the question of business, may I say that it is expected that the Bill setting up a Commission to inquire into the conditions of coal-mining will pass through the House of Commons to-day. It was hoped that it might have got through the other House yesterday, but

283
in any case it is expected to pass through its final stages to-night. I therefore give notice that to-morrow I shall ask your Lordships to suspend the Standing Orders to enable the Bill to be passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House at to-morrow's sitting in order to get the Royal Assent at the earliest possible moment.
On Question. Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL UNREST.
Debate on the Motion of Lord BUCKMASTER—viz., "That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the present industrial and economic conditions—" resumed (according to Order).
EARL RUSSELL: I think your Lordships will agree that, since this debate was initiated by Lord Buckmaster, among the two most interesting speeches delivered to this House were those by Lord Leverhulme and Viscount Haldane, though from perhaps somewhat different points of view. The speech of Lord Leverhulme, I think, was a relief to the House generally, and to those of us who have been having our flesh made to creep by gloomy pictures of industrial unrest, by the spirit of optimism which pervaded it. I think it was a consolation to us to feel that at any rate so far as his experience went he did not think the British workman to be at all unreasonable, or that adjustment with him in labour troubles was impossible. He rather felt that most of his demands had a good deal to be said for them, and that if met in a reasonable spirit he would behave reasonably to his employers. Perhaps it was a little more optimistic in tone because he had not, in his own particular business, been brought so much into contact with the engineering trades, which are responsible for a good deal of the trouble and unrest.
My noble friend Viscount Haldane reminded the House that it was not quite certain how much we should be able to teach labour in this matter. He was dealing with several speeches that have been made which contained a suggestion, not that everything would be all right, but that we should go a considerable distance towards making everything all right if we could get labour to understand really
284
the facts of the case. He reminded the House that labour was, in fact, fairly well informed on this subject—I venture to think probably rather better informed than most of your Lordships—and that there were to be obtained within a few minutes of this House pamphlets and other productions of the Fabian Society and more serious works by persons of academic distinction, which deal with these labour problems exhaustively and give to labour a great deal more knowledge than perhaps from the selfish capitalist point of view it is convenient that labour should have. If I may say so, perhaps the chief use of a debate of the character we have been having is not to educate labour, but to educate your Lordships and politicians. I think it is important that we should learn what we certainly do not know—that is, what are the grievances of labour, and what there is at the back of the demands which appear in the newspapers as labour unrest, and which in some cases are reflected in strikes.
I propose to deal for a few moments with the causes of labour unrest, and I should like to say, by way of preface, that I associate myself entirely with what was said by Lord Buckmaster in initiating this debate, that labour as a whole is certainly not anarchic or revolutionary. I think we may rely upon labour to be as sound as we generally are in this country in matters of this sort. That being so, I would deprecate in any of these controversies the use of Bolshevik or Bolshevism as applied to any section of our own community. That word is associated—and rightly associated—with excesses of the most terrible and horrible description, with uncivilised and savage actions, and I should be sorry to think—and I do not think—that any section of my countrymen, however extreme, are anxious to be associated with actions of that kind. Therefore, even when we are complaining of extreme action, we should try and avoid the use of a foreign word implying a foreign and Russian state of mind which I think is entirely alien to any section of the British people. I am not quite so optimistic as Lord Leverhulme who went so far as to say that there was no such thing as a revolutionary British workman, and that none of them were anarchical syndicalists. Some of them certainly are; some of them go to great extremes, but generally do not let us introduce these foreign words with which to tar some of our own countrymen who quite

285
possibly may prove amenable to reason, and who in any case I am convinced are not anxious to run a course of bloodshed through the country.
I think that the cause of labour unrest is not a thing of yesterday, not a thing of last year, not a thing even of the war, but that it dates back for at least a generation. It dates back, my Lords, to the time, really more than a generation ago, when industryas we know it now began in this country, and when employers and capitalists recklessly and thriftlessly took to using and exploiting the manhood of this country for the purpose of making profits, when the old doctrine of industrial competition took no account whatever of the lives and bodies of the working men who made those profits and who carried on those industries. We exploited in those days—it is useless to deny it—the lives of these people, and this has to some extent come to be realised. It is not forgiven, and I do not think it is likely to be forgotten. What was the life of the working man? Your Lordships heard what Lord Leverhulme told you about two classes of men in a cotton district, I think it was—the bow-legged and knock-kneed. But what was the useful life of the working man in those days? It began perhaps at eighteen, and finished perhaps at forty-five or possibly fifty. And, from the point of view of the employer—and I think we might well say from the point of view of the State also—did anybody care what happened to him either before he began his work or after he had finished it? He was used, and he was then thrown aside on to the scrap heap of society, very often driven to the workhouse to end his days. We all recognise now that that is a state of things which is not good from the purely selfish capitalists' point of view, but much more so is it not good from the ethical or moral point of view. Moreover, what we now recognise as the duty of the State is that it is an immoral proceeding which the State should rot countenance, a proceeding which does not make for the well-being and for the prosperity of the country as a whole. Out of these men so employed we made large profits, and to this day large profits are made out of the employment of workmen by the diversion to the employer or capitalist, or whatever you like to call him, of a proportion of the earnings of each man so that the one man at the head of the business draws a large profit from the labour of those employed in the business.
286
I do not subscribe for a moment to the doctrine of Marx that labour and labour alone is the source of all wealth. I am rather apt to think in these days, or at any rate in this country, that labour itself has begun to recognise that that is not a complete statement of the case, and that many other things besides mere manual labour are required before you can produce wealth in a country. But I think that labour has realised that it is a very important and essential contributing cause to the production of wealth, and it intends to have a fair share of that wealth. Consider the question of conditions. Your Lordships have had some extracts read to you already during this debate on housing conditions as they existed quite recently, and you know something from the Army statistics about the general health of the proletariat of the country. It is not a thing for us to reflect upon with pride that those who have been known as the governing classes of this country for so many years have only been able to produce, or have been content to allow to continue to exist, a state of things in which insanitary hovels are regarded as proper places in which to house a man who is contributing to the nation's wealth, in which his health is neglected, in which a large portion of the population is attacked with tuberculosis and other diseases, and in which the opportunities of the working class for recreation have been unduly limited. These things have happened in the past. To some extent they happen to-day, and I think it is the culmination of all these things which has produced the present state of labour unrest and the present demand on the part of labour.
We have had sweated industries. Your Lordships quite well remember the example of the chainmakers who before the war, even after all that had been done for them, were still receiving a miserable wage. The labourer has not had that amount of leisure for recreation, that amount of opportunity for advancement, which a wise and paternal Government would have given him. We have put up with the existence of slums in our great cities. We have passed Acts of Parliament about them comparatively recently, but we have done very little more than the passing of these Acts. We have not, each one of us separately and all of us collectively, said that we will not tolerate that state of things any longer, that we will not sit down com-

287
fortably under it, that we will not regard it as possible to live our own lives while such things co-exist with our lives.
Look at the conditions before the war of low wages and housing—15 s. a week, and I believe in some counties even less, for a man to bring up his wife and family upon, and to support life. Is that a thing on which we can reflect with any degree of pride and satisfaction? But that was not altered voluntarily by the governing class—by the class which had the money. That it was not is something, I think, which redounds to our discredit, and a fact for which I believe we are now suffering. Housing in the country was in most cases inadequate, in many cases quite insanitary; and if I am told—as I may be told by subsequent speakers—that there have been many excellent landlords who have built many good cottages, who have had model villages and things of that sort, I frankly and fully admit it. There have been individuals—I am glad to think a growing class of individuals—whose own conscience has been so shocked by this state of things that they have even been prepared to remedy it at their own expense, regardless of the fact of whether it was profitable to do so or not. But that is not quite my point. My point is rather that the cummunity as a whole has remained selfishly happy and contented with its own enjoyments and with its own leisure, while things of that sort were allowed to go on unchecked. These, I think, are the things for which labour finds it difficult to forgive the capitalist class.
Did capital and did the community ever really wake up to its responsibility, and ever really take these matters in hand except under pressure and under threats? There has been good will, there have been good words and good intentions, but have those who have control of those conditions made serious efforts to alter them until They were forced to do so? Has every pulpit occupied by every parson resounded with denunciations of that sort of thing in every parish Sunday after Sunday until it was remedied? Has every politician, whenever he has spoken, said "I will not consider that my work is done until those who work for this country are properly treated and properly housed? No, my Lords, we know that that has not happened; we know that, in spite of philanthropists, and in spite of a good deal that has been done, the general social
288
sense of the community has not really been pricked and stirred to such an extent as would make it take active and definite action. And I think it is for that supine content that we are very largely suffering to-day.
I do not think that the reason why we did not do these things was due to ill-will on our part; in fact, I think I may say that, with regard to the majority of landowners, certainly with regard to a great many of what may be called capitalists among the industrial classes, it was not due to ill-will. Nor do I think that it was due altogether to mere laziness; but it was due to what we as a nation suffer from a great deal, and that is a want of imagination, a want of picturing to ourselves conditions with which we are not immediately familiar and with which we do not come directly into contact. There is none of your Lordships, on seeing such things as you read about in Reports, but will say "This must be remedied; I cannot sleep comfortably unless it is corrected. "I think we all feel like that But when a thing is not before us we do not think about it. We are content to think of labour as of a man who checks his time on by a clock in the morning and cheeks it off in the evening; and, for the rest, we do not much know, we do not much care; we merely hope he will come back next morning. I think it is things like that, coupled with the increasing independence caused by the war, and coupled with that general sense of upheaval which no doubt is present in the world at large, that has led to the stormy sea of unrest which surrounds us to-day.
What was the panacea which we were offered on the first night of this debate in the speech by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whom we have recently welcomed to this House? So far as I could make out, it consisted shortly in this, "Trust the Government. We have not had much time, but every remediable wrong will b3 righted; trust the Government." That seemed to me a little like an invitation which we used to hear in nursery days, about opening your mouth and shutting your eyes and seeing what would come to you. Labour, I think, has got a little beyond being invited to trust a Government, or to trust a Commission, or to trust any body of people, however eminent or however well meaning.
The King's Speech contained what seemed to me some very significant words

289
with regard to the spirit in which this has to be met, with regard to the putting aside of vested interests and vested prejudices and really shaking ourselves free of those traditions, meeting it in a new and a broad spirit. When I considered who was responsible for the phraseology I could not help feeling that some of those to whom sentiments of that kind would normally appear to be alien must have been rather terrified and rather frightened before they gave their assent to phrases of that character; and I only hope that the history of this Parliament will succeed in persuading the masses that those phrases are genuine, that they will be lived up to, and that they do express the spirit of this House of Commons. I should not have guessed it. I should not have guessed it from the composition of this House, and I should not have guessed it from the speeches which were made during the Election. Many unfortunate things were said—some of them by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack himself; and I think that the people were promised many things which will not be performed, and were led astray in some directions in which that leading astray, will probably cause trouble later. I do not know who in the labour world trusts either the present Prime Minister or the present House of Commons. I think, if they did, there would be a better hope for the future. I wish that they did.
As a symptom of the sort of feeling of unrest and independence of which I spoke, and of the way in which it is growing, I would mention what struck me as rather significant. I purchased the other day on a bookstall one of those illustrated magazines which one gets in order to while away an hour on a railway journey—a magazine which one has never hitherto associated with labour questions, or serious questions of any sort, and in which one certainly has not expected to find any indication of anything resembling a social revolution. In the pages of this normally harmless magazine I found an article about "The Black-coated Man," an article which said with great vehemence—
"Mr. Black-coated Man, we have done with you. You stayed at home; you did not suffer the risks of the war. You were our master; you made the money while we sweated and toiled. We have finished with you, Mr. Black-coated Man; we are coming back, and coming into our own."
The article was, I think I may fairly say, revolutionary in sentiment, and it was
290
somewhat significant, that in an organ of that kind we should find sentiments of that sort expressed.
I think it is not so much labour that wants education (although a great deal of education is wanted there, too) as it is the class of capitalists and the governing bodies of this country themselves. Our newspapers do not give—practically never give—a fair representation of labour conditions or of any labour dispute. The chief organ of this country, The Times, has lately changed that policy, and has had, I think I am right, in saying more than one leading article advocating that the cause of labour should be presented quite as strongly and quite as clearly as the case of the capitalist. That is a sign of the times, but it is a rare and a novel thing; the ordinary paper that is read by the man in the train, the ordinary paper that is read by the clerk in the street, or going home in the evening, has seldom, indeed hardly ever, anything but a sneer for any demand of labour, or anything but a gibe at the attitude of labour, or its method of demanding something new. Labour can no longer be met with sneers and with gibes, and it would be well that these journals, which belong to and are controlled by the capitalist class, should seriously give their mind to dealing with these questions as if they were questions at least equally important with the franchise or something of that kind.
A great deal depends on the point of view with which these things are approached, and I think one very useful thing about this debate has been that, so far as I can charge my memory, not one single noble Lord who has taken part in it has in any way flouted the claims of labour, or has in any way treated labour as a whole as being an irresponsible and unreasonable body of men. That, I think, is a very useful feature of this debate, and will have a good effect. But when I say labour should be educated, how can you educate a distrustful labour? How can you educate a person who does not believe a word you say to him? How can you educate a person who sees in every agreement you make—and not altogether, I am sorry to say, without reason in the past—some loop-hole, some way in which he thinks he is going to be done later. Look at the tube strike the other day. There was untold inconvenience to millions; and why? Because the men understood

291
they were to have something which the actual written letter, perhaps, did not give them. That appears to have been, so far as I can make it out—although I share the difficulty of my noble friend on the Front Bench—the principal reason of that strike.
And Labour feels this. It feels that when new arrangements are made about piece-work, about hours, about any sort of settlement, it is always running a risk of being in some way gerrymandered. It suspects your Statutes; it suspects, I fear, your Commissions. I see that it is divided even against the Bill which is now before Parliament. Then there is a complaint that the crisis has come upon us suddenly; that we are taken unprepared; that it has been unreasonable in the point of view of time. I do not think that this complaint is well founded. I believe that many of the demands that are now being put forward have been put forward not only for months but in many cases for years; that they are not novel; that they are not a surprise; and that the material with which to answer them—be it by granting them, or be it by saying that they are impossible to be granted—could be, ought to have been, should have been, ready in the Government's possession the moment they were challenged.
Let us consider the question of the coal-miners, which is, perhaps, the most urgent of the problems before us. We are all agreed, I think, that work of that character is arduous, unpleasant, and, more than that dangerous both to life and to limb. So much is that so, that I have been told to-day that many of those who before the war worked in coal mines, having had an experience above ground, are unwilling and reluctant to return to those conditions. We shall none of us deny that. The noble Earl, Lord Brassey, who spoke from this bench, told your Lordships that he himself knew the conditions. If that is so, we shall all agree that an industry of that character should have as short hours and as adequate remuneration as it is possible to give it. The demands which they made have been made for some time. I do not think that on the whole the Government would be prepared to say that the leaders of the coal-miners have been unreasonable. I read with great care, as no doubt all your Lordships did, that very interesting discussion which took place between the Prime Minister and Mr. Smillie; and the effect
292
that it left upon my mind was that Mr. Smillie's answer was, "You ask us now at the last moment to hold our hands, and you say it is unreasonable that we should not hold our hands for a fortnight. But my answer to that is that these demands have been before you for some time; that you have never given any serious attention to them unless you were forced and unless you were pressed to do so; and that if you now ask me to hold my hand I do not feel any confidence that you will give any attention to them in the future, or those behind me do not feel any confidence that you will do so."
That is how I read the situation. Whether I am right or whether I am wrong, I do not know. But if that is so, if this Commission is unable to report in time—and really on a subject of this character I do not know how any useful Report can be produced in a few days—if those for whom Mr. Smillie is responsible, but who, after all, have the control, are not amenable to his advice—for I believe that the leaders of the miners would anxiously advise them to avoid precipitating a conflict—but if they prove not amenable to that advice we shall have upon us a strike of a very serious character, not only a strike of a very serious character to industry itself, not only of a serious character from the actual privations to which it will lead, from the loss of business to which it will lead and the injury it will do to the country, but of a very serious character because we do not know how such a strike may spread and what will be its end. I think that everything that can be done should be done to avert such a calamity. I hope and believe that the Government fully recognise the seriousness of it, and that they will do all they can. But I think they have to be blamed to some extent for supineness and inertia in the past for not foreseeing this situation, for not getting ready to answer demands which are not altogether novel.
There is one matter on which I think the Government could do something. I believe—there seems to be a general belief—that if the Government were prepared to announce the nationalisation of the coal-mining industry in this country, this would so far satisfy the miners that at any rate they would be willing to hold their hands until the whole question were looked into and fully investigated. I must assume that the Government have

293
considered that; but I am of opinion that we are entitled to ask whether they do take that view or whether they do not.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: They have told you exactly what they think.
EARL RUSSELL: if we are told that this is a matter which will be discussed by the Commission, then I should respectfully demur to that. Nationalisation is not a question of fact to be found by a Commission; it is a question of high policy to be decided by the Government of the day; it is for them to come to the decision, and not for anybody else. But if it be true that the taking and the announcement of such a decision would avert this threatened calamity, then I think the Government would be very ill-advised not to take that step.
The other suggestion which I have seen made in the Press is sonic kind of joint working arrangement between the coal-owners and the coal-miners, a kind of profit-sharing enterprise on a large scale. I do not for a moment believe that an arrangement of that sort will work well; I do not for a moment believe that the men will think they are being treated fairly under it; there are so many things which they do not know and which they will find it difficult to check. But whether that be so or not, one thing I think we can all say with certainty—namely, that such a system obviously could not be as economical, and therefore as beneficial, for the country as a system of unified control and unified management of all the coal pits in the country for a common national purpose.
It may be said that such a scheme is Socialism. Well, my Lords, what many of the workers are asking for is Socialism. What many of them are asking for is that the whole of the material of industry should be placed in the hands of the State; that the right of any man to work should be dependent on the caprice of no individual employer or company. But they are not pressing you for it yet on a universal scale; and you may be wise to give it in instances of this sort, if thereby you will succeed in doing something which is economical and beneficial, and which will avert such a great danger as is now before us. I should like to ask, when it is said—as no doubt it will be said by those who speak for the Government—that all these
294
matters have been fully considered and gone into carefully from every point of view, whether among those Fabian pamphlets I have mentioned there has ever been seriously considered by a Government Department, and worked out with facts and figures, a book called "How to Pay for the War," which suggests the nationalisation, amongst others, of the coal industry and of the railway industry? A perfectly clear suggestion is made there by which the hope is held out that these industries by amalgamation may make such economies as will enable them to pay larger wages and to have a surplus over towards the payment for the war. That statement may be true or it may not be true; it may be a chimera.
Several NOBLE LORDS: It is not true.
EARL RUSSELL: Noble Lords, who have no doubt worked out the facts and figures, say it is not true. What I desire to ask is whether His Majesty's Government have ever thought it worth while to examine a statement of that sort which is put forward by a very considerable section of the community and which is believed in by a very large section of the community; because if they have not considered it, then I think they have been rather blind to a matter which ought to have been one of the first things considered with facts and figures by a Department; they ought to have been prepared with an answer if it is not true.
There is another point as to which we have had no definite announcement from the Government, but I think it is a thing which might be mentioned at some time or other, and that is the super-power schemes for the use of coal. If coal is to cost so very much more, does it follow necessarily, as I think was said last night in another place, that no industry can be run and all must suffer? Is it not possible, by the constitution of these schemes of generating power at the pit head, or the economical use of coal, to make it go a longer way? I do not think any definite announcement has been made as to whether the Government are going to put these schemes in hand, and whether, if they are put in hand, they will be private or national enterprises.
Now, my Lords, as to the railways. Happily the unrest there has for the moment subsided. Several times in this

295
debate we have asked, and neither of the Government speakers has answered, a question as to the nationalisation of the railways. I will put this question once more. Is the utterance of Mr. Winston Churchill during the Election adopted or not by the Government as official? Are the railways to be nationalised or not? If they are, I think the sooner an announcement is made the better. Some ingenious analyses were made of capital profits, and notably among others by Lord Emmott—the matter was also touched upon by Lord Leverhulme—with a view of showing that the workman would have been much worse off if he had taken the excess profits rather than an increase of wages. He also made the point that only about £100,000,000 of extra profits went into the pockets of the capitalists. I do not think the workman cares about that. He says "You have made £450,000,000 extra profit, and I do not care whether the Government took it or it went into your pocket." I do not think that it is an answer to deal with the matter on a financial basis; nor do I think we can always deal with the matter on a question of percentages or a question of gross profit. The workman is inclined to think, now-a-days, that the share to which he is entitled in industry is a very much larger share than he has received in the past, and not only is he inclined to think it but employers very largely, I believe, recognise that he means to get it, and that a condition of the employers survival is that the workman should get it in the easiest way and with the least possible friction.
Social revolution has come, and it is impossible to meet it with any sort of chicanery or smooth words, and still less is it possible to meet, it with anything in the shape of force. If once we recognise this and then face the facts, I think we shall have some chance of doing better than if we continue to live in a world that is past and to apply remedies that are no longer adequate. The capitalist mind itself must undergo revolution, in order to march with the times. Exploiting has come to an end. The remedy is greater efficiency and increased production. Nothing is more true than what was said by Lord Leverhulme and others—namely, that we do not produce anything like what we ought to do per man and pet machine and factory in this country. Our economic position, we recognise, is as bad as it can be. Wealth has been destroyed by thou-
296
sands of millions and has to be replaced, and it can only be replaced by work, hard work, and only in these conditions by increased production. This is a question very largely, as Lord Haldane said, of mind in industry, but the workman must also do his share. He must recognise that unemployment is not going to be destroyed by the sort of fallacious remedy he adopts, of working half time himself in order that there may be work for others. That sort of thing makes the country poorer; and it is an argument based on the same kind of fallacy as that which possesses the mind of the Tariff Reformer.
The economic position of the country is a very serious one. The pre-war budget, roughly speaking, was £200,000,000; the post-war budget will be, roughly speaking, £800,000,000. Where is that additional £600,000,000 to come from? It cannot conic out of labour, except to a very small extent. It must come from us, the capitalist class, who have the money, and it cannot come out of us, the capitalist class, unless you have a revival of industry—shipping going to and fro full, factories and warehouses full, and everything going at full pressure in the industries of this country. For otherwise we shall have no money to pay any taxation, no matter what our nominal possessions may be. We must all work with a new spirit and with a sense of communal responsibility. The thunders of the Defence of the Realm Act have frequently been directed against those who say anything about recruiting. We shall do well to direct, not the official and legal thunder, but the moral thunder against anybody who thinks that labour can be dealt with by lip service, or by any sort of sneer against workmen, upon whom we all have to rely in the last resort for the restoration of this country to a condition of prosperity. If labour problems are dealt with in this way, and if labour once feels it can trust those whom it is entitled to trust and those responsible for the Government of the country, we shall have made a great advance towards the solution of unrest in general.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, speaking with eloquence, and if I may say so with the clarity which is even better than eloquence, the noble Earl has said that no member of this House who has taken part in this debate has, so far, uttered an unsympathetic word towards the claims of labour. I hope to do nothing

297
to disturb that good record. In what I propose to say I shall be seeking at all events to improve it. I hold no brief for the Government, but it is to be remembered in the present situation that we have before us the claims of the miners and other industrial groups on the one hand and upon the other hand the claims of the great unorganised mass of the majority of the population; and for that great unorganised body of persons we have no champion, no protagonist, no advocate, except the actual Government of the day. It is for them to put forward arguments, to produce facts, to exercise if possible the persuasion which alone can bring an end to our present troubles.
Since this debate was opened by the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord on the bench below me, the great fact which has happened is one which has given us much reason to think, and that is that by, I think, a majority of five to one the miners have voted in favour of a strike, and that we are told this is substantially a large proportional vote of the total number of persons that might have been polled. I could wish that the speech of the noble Lord who opened the debate had done more to promote the appeasement which might have averted that result. What I mean when I say this is that I could have wished that he had not represented the Government as having met the demands of the miners merely with dialectics and an attempt to score off what they had said. I think that was not just.
I have looked again, as I had looked before, at the only two documents of which that could have been said. On February 13 there appeared the case of the Government for instituting the inquiry with which they proposed to meet the demands of the miners. On February 17, I think, there appeared the complaint of the Minister of Labour that the ballot paper put before the miners to enable them to make their choice did not fairly represent the issue as between the two contending parties. I say—and nothing will change my opinion—that from the beginning to the end of either of those documents there was not. a single provocative word. They dealt with the highest and most important matters of substance, and they dealt with them temperately and in a conciliatory manner. If I am to be told that there was something in the tone or in the language which left an impression, all I can say is
298
that I think the occasion was not one to be auscultating for hidden tones, or to be so particular in discovering a sense which actually was not there.
Various noble Lords and others who have taken part in industrial debates lately have sought to trace the causes of industrial unrest. The noble Lord who began this debate assigned only two, think. He spoke of the promises during the Election that the German indemnity was going to pay a large proportion of our war debt. I do not know whether those things were said so crudely as that, but I am bound to say I think it is rather far fetched to attribute our industrial discontent to anything of the kind. There was a complaint also of the time and manner of taking a General Election. I really do not know when the General Election could have been taken except when it was taken, if I am to be told that that is part of the causes contributing to the present industrial discontent. We had made an unexampled effort in the middle of a great war to extend our franchise. Sonic politicians forget that when you extend the franchise you thereby impliedly condemn as insufficient the representative character of the House of Commons that you have got. You could not have held your new elections before the new registers were completed, and it was highly desirable that you should not go into the Peace Conference which was immediately to come on with nothing at your back but an unrepresentative House of Commons.
I turn to what I think are more likely to be the true causes of industrial unrest. I come to the speech of Mr. Thomas in the House of Commons. It would be possible to entertain you, were it worthy of the occasion, with the misuse—the constant, misuse—in political dialectics of the word "labour"; but in speaking of Mr. Thomas we know we are speaking of a real Labour Member who can tell us at first hand what it is to belong to a particular class. The first cause that he assigned was the existing unemployment. I am speaking of the debate on February 13, and, in connection therewith, of his statement that the unemployment grant had been in some cases withdrawn upon the mere pretext that an offer of employment had been refused which amounted to no better than an offer of sweated employment. None of your Lordships wishes the unemployment

299
grant to be taken away on any such ground as that. He spoke of "profiteering" and of high prices. I do not profess to be able to deal so well as much better qualified persons, such as Lord Leverhulme and Lord Emmott have dealt, with such matters as the profits of the Maypole Dairy Company or the Lancashire cotton spinners. At all events, an answer has been forthcoming. Mr. Thomas spoke of the secrecy which attended the negotiations. It has also been pointed out that not only has secrecy attended the deliberations of the Government, but that a great deal of secrecy attended the deliberations of the miners themselves before they agreed on this programme and determined to force it upon the community. We do not know now whether the decision was unanimous, or, if it were not unanimous, in what proportion the voting took place, although an invitation by certain newspapers was made quite prominent that these facts should be told the public.
Mr. Thomas went on to say that there was dissatisfaction because the Whitley Councils have not been put into existence. I hope they will be. They have been brought into existence in some cases already, but we must not hope for too much from them because, after all, they will amount to very little more when brought to the fullest action than did the Conciliation Boards which, your Lordships may remember, were in existence at the time of, and even before, the railway strike of 1911. They were blown away by that strike at a breath, and not a thought was given to the possibility of resorting to them by way of averting the strike of that year. Mr. Thomas said that the working classes were disappointed because they had not a share in the management of industrial concerns. I, for one, should like to see them have a share in management. I believe that if railway men took their seats on the boards of railway companies they would learn something to their advantage; directors would learn something to their advantage, and the public would reap much to its advantage. He complained also that concessions, when made, were made in a grudging manner, and in connection with that he spoke of the five minutes for washing hands that used to form a part of the conditions of the railway men's work which had been interfered with in some way in the new so-called eight hours' arrangements. That is important, no doubt. Incidentally, I think it is important that
300
your Lordships should know that that point of five minutes did not enter at all into the question between the employers and employed in connection with the Tube Railway Companies where the strike took place the other day.
I think I have read the whole of the grievances that were put forward in the debate by Mr. Thomas when he had the opportunity, and was probably interested, to say all that he could say. It is possible to think of some other causes. There is another very important cause, and that is the incitements to unrest. There is a Conference sitting which is doing its best at Paris to make impossible in future wars between nations, and what one finds so shocking is that even amongst (and I might say especially amongst) those in this country who have been most forward to condemn wars between nations you find men—not all of them Britishers, some of them foreigners, but some, I am sorry to say, countrymen of ours—who are apparently ready to begin a war between classes at home, and indeed ready to wade in the blood and tears of their fellow-countrymen for no more noble a purpose than to have a clean slate on which to write their new constitution.
I do not know whether your Lordships saw a letter in The Times from Sir Lynden Macassey, whom I quote as having a special experience of industrial disputes. He says he knows of the existence of attempts to poison the minds of the young in what are called socialistic Sunday schools—
Question—Who is your enemy? Answer—The employer.
I cannot believe that the future deliberations of the League of Nations, seeking to prevent war, will not probably have something to say to the future efforts of German politicians to foment hatred of England in German schools. I am told that even up to quite recent times in America a not very complimentary form of the account of British behaviour in past wars and diplomacy is put before children in American elementary schools. We ourselves pay considerable and substantial sums of money in order to have books put before the children in Irish schools which actively teach disloyalty to, and hatred of, British policy and Government. I think there is a very proper and fruitful field for efforts to prevent international strike and internal discontent between classes in the future.

301
At the risk of making my list perhaps a confusion of causes and effects, let me add also the phenomena which we now see too plainly, the general discontent and suspicion which seem to actuate large sections of the industrial classes towards democratic systems, towards Parliamentary institutions, towards, of course, a fortiori, all employer classes, towards arbitrations, towards commissions of inquiry, and towards Ministers and Ministries, even when the latter are recruited from the ranks of so-called Labour men themselves.
I really think we can do no more than put our trust in what Viscount Haldane said, which is to make these things more and more a matter of the mind. It is really a question of confidence and of knowledge, whereby alone you can counteract the kind of distrust I have mentioned. We have got somehow or other to mitigate this class consciousness, and teach if we can conceptions of citizenship, and indeed it has to be said of humanity—and it is not alone to the working classes that humanity has to be taught. The noble Earl who spoke last referred to the doctrines of certain superior persons in the nineteenth century. Those doctrines were very persistently held. Mr. Disraeli condemned them, and he was put down with patronising smiles by the superior persons. The significant thing is that the political successors of those who held these doctrines are now among those who wish to put them on one side. I thank my stars that throughout my whole political career I have never belonged to a political party of exact thinkers. When you have on the one hand a party, or a set of doctrines, you may call it the Manchester School or laisser faire. which says you must leave everything to the free play of economic forces, you then know that what is proposed is to leave everything to the free play of man's vilest passions. I never have been, and never will be, a party to that kind of doctrine, and that is what I meant when I spoke of the politics of humanity. If you go and make your set of political doctrines one which squares with all the mathematical theories in books, you will find you have left out the one thing you ought to have kept in—the plain simple thing which is called human nature. In that way alone I believe we shall arrive at something like conciliation, and we may be able to induce that larger production by which alone we can escape national bankruptcy and thereby reach that popular contentment, which at
302
the lowest estimate is the interest of all political parties and is the only sound basis of national welfare.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, this very important debate has served to emphasise the earnest desire of all members of this House that every grievance of what is called labour shall be removed in so far as it is humanly possible, and that a larger share of profits shall be granted to labour in all cases where profits are produced. I suppose that the criticism of this debate will be that there have been not many practical proposals made for remedying the evils which we all feel so strongly, and I am afraid this is inevitable because the causes are so many and there are so many untoward circumstances at the present moment that are combined to bring about the unrest which is threatening our national solvency.
I am doubtful if the physiological effects of the overstrain during the war have been sufficiently considered. On three or four occasions during the war I ventured to draw attention to the excessive hours which the people were working in munition factories, and to the fact that the output was being diminished. Latterly there would seem to have been an improvement, but after more than three years of war Sir George Newman's Committee reported in these words—
"Taking the country as a whole, it would seem that the munition workers in general have been allowed to reach a stage of reduced efficiency and lowered health which might have been avoided without reduction of output by attention to the details of daily and weekly rests. The signs of fatigue are now more noticeable in the case of managers and foremen, and these practical results are probably more serious than in the case of the workmen."
These are very grave words, and you will note that the overstrain seems to have fallen more heavily on the non-manual workers. It is impossible that the effects of this overstrain of brain, nerve, and muscle are not enduring up to the present, and they must help to account for the irritable mentality which we see so plainly and must also create favourable conditions for revolutionary propaganda. Working hours can in most cases be reduced and working conditions improved by applying the knowledge we now possess, and this can be done without reducing wages, with actually increasing wages, if only every worker will put forth his full efforts during the limited time which has been calculated

303
to secure him from the effects of cumulative industrial fatigue. In some kinds of work six hours is quite enough, but there are other occupations in which six hours would hardly be sufficient to keep the man in good mental and bodily health.
I read the interesting speech of Lord Leverhulme with great attention, but I confess there are some passages in it which did not in any way convince me. I am quite certain that the noble Lord is right in all that he says when he speaks from his great experience, but I think he rather forgets the very favourable circumstances under which his business is carried on. He is working now, I believe, on a capital of £60,000,000. He has a partial monopoly in a product of prime necessity alike in peace and war, and he is able to employ machinery to a very large extent, so that, like Mr. Ford, he can do some things which are really not possible in less favoured enterprises. But I should like to say that that great business which he has built up is a striking example of the immense benefit which capital, wisely and generously used, can confer upon what is called labour. Working hours and some other matters of great importance must, I believe, be settled in groups of similar industries by a frank and free conference between employers and employed. It is not only inhuman, but it is economically disastrous, to keep hours which can possibly inflict permanent injury to the health of the worker, and the advantage of shorter hours honestly worked, giving time for healthful and improving recreation, is inestimable.
It seems to me that the psychological causes of unrest are in a great measure due to misunderstandings that have destroyed the mutual confidence which ought to exist between employers and employees. There are some economical fallacies on both sides, and both sides need education in certain respects. It is a great advantage of this debate that it has laid throughout great stress on the vital importance of getting at facts and making facts known. The Royal Commission which is about to be set up will ascertain facts which are not known to the Government, not known to the coal-owners, and not known to the workers—facts of great importance in the coal industry. But that is only one case in which more information is required. We shall, I hope, from that Commission get the knowledge we wish in order to
304
do justice to the coal workers. Everybody wishes to do them the fullest justice possible, but we must know the facts before we are in a position to pronounce judgment. This National Conference which is to begin on Thursday should throw a fresh light on much that is still obscure, and ought to help to remove some misconceptions. I only wish that this National Conference could have been suggested some time previously.
Another source of psychological unrest is the belief in profiteering going on upon a vast scale. That belief is widely held, and it is quite naturally the cause of bitter resentment. No one defends profiteering, but some of the profits which fall under that head have automatically risen out of the control which it has been necessary for the Government to exercise during the war. The high prices of food at the present time are certainly the cause of unrest, and I hope that the Government as soon as possible will take steps to reduce those prices. Then, as Lord Emmott suggested, the Government might give figures which would reduce matters to something like true proportions. I believe that it would be found that profiteering is confined to not very many persons, and that for every non-manual worker who has made large sums during the war there will be a great number of persons who have been pinched by the war, and who will remain pinched to the end of their lives. But, my Lords, these people are not organised, they have not complained, and we have never heard their voices raised. Again, figures could be given showing the immense part which capital has played during the war, and proving that but for accumulation, which after all is what capital is, the Germans must have beaten us. Lastly, it might be explained how very large the number of capitalists is in this country, and how many capitalists are persons of very small means, in many cases with incomes which range considerably below the earnings of the skilled artisan. I hope that the Government will carefully consider the question of making public certain basic financial and economical facts, such as those which the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, so earnestly pressed for the other day. But it is necessary to take special means that your facts shall be made known, and that they shall reach the classes which are now in danger of being misled.

305
One most important suggestion was made by Lord Islington, who proposed that the Whitley Councils should be statutory. I am afraid that I do not agree as to that, but I believe that the Government might make a very strong appeal to employers and to employed themselves to set up Councils with the least delay, and they might at once in the undertakings which they are themselves controlling set them up without further delay. The effect would be to enable workers to have a real voice in settling the conditions of their employment, and I believe that we all think that there is nothing so urgent at the present day as to bring the employer and the employed together in a Council.
I cannot help thinking that some speakers in this debate have not, perhaps, realised how serious the revolutionary movement is. It was going on long before the war, and it has received an immense impetus since the war. As the noble Lord who has just sat down pointed out, socialist Sunday school were at work for many years before the war, teaching the doctrine of the red revolution to quite little children, and many thousands of men and women in this country have been induced to believe that the employer is the real enemy, and that if only all capital were destroyed universal prosperity would at once follow. Let me quote the words used in a leaflet which was widely circulated by the National Socialist Party about two years ago—circulated not only among the poorer classes but also among our soldiers. These are the words—
"Millions of you are now armed, trained, and disciplined. You have the power if you have the will to sweep away your enslavers for ever. Then take final control of your country, and all that it contains. Wealth may be made as plentiful as water if you will but seize the enormous engines for making goods at the disposal of man in society."
That is a dangerous appeal to the passions of ignorant people, and the sad thing about it is that it is so absolutely false.
I could quote many more appeals of that kind. We cannot expect our workers to have studied the French Revolution, to which the noble Earl the Chancellor of the Duchy referred the other day. In Russia exactly the theories which were tried in the French Revolution have again been put to the test, with the result, as we all know, of murder, ruin of the working classes, and starvation on a large scale in a country which has food enough to support itself.
306
In Russia a deliberate attempt is being made to kill off the comparatively small class which could in time rebuild a new Russia on the ruins which the Bolsheviks have brought about, and that was the object of the Germans in carefully selecting Lenin from other competitors in Switzerland and sending him to Russia. Apart from these frightful atrocities which are really unrivalled even in darkest Africa, the whole thing is so tragically stupid.
Surely it is a serious portent in this country that the achievements of the Bolsheviks are acclaimed and some of our people are directly called upon to imitate them. The other day there was a large meeting in the Albert Hall. The object was to protest against any interference with the activities of the Soviets, which apparently are believed to be setting up a sort of earthly paradise for the working man. Violent speeches were made on that occasion, Bolshevism was cheered, and the Red Flag was constantly in evidence. At that meeting Mr. Zangwill is reported to have said—
"Bolshevism is only Socialism in a hurry."
That is perfectly true, but I think a good many Socialists will not relish that truth. Does such a meeting as that mean simply the existence of gross ignorance of the plain facts which the noble Earl has stated in this House? Or does it mean that there is a real wish on the part of a certain minority of people for bloodshed and civil war? If it means the first, then surely full publicity of the terrible situation in Russia is urgently needed. Because we must remember that all these atrocities are being denied. This is what a paper which preaches revolution said last week—
"The tearing and raging propaganda against the Bolsheviks was started in the Press and on the platform. No slander was too vile, no calumny too mean, for them. Tales of murder or outrage, of nationalisation of women, were coolly invented in the newspaper offices, and all this was done to create an atmosphere."
We have evidence of these facts from all sorts of sources—not from Russian sources only, but from Englishmen like Colonel Ward, who have seen atrocities with their own eyes, and then we have the deliberate statements of Lenin and Trotsky themselves. The facts should be made known as widely as possible. But if there are people—and there are some among us—who really are preaching doctrines of murder and civil war, then surely the doings of these people ought to be carefully watched at the present time.

307
The democracy of America apparently proposes to take special steps against revolutionary propaganda and to prevent the display of the Red Flag, which since the French Revolution has been the emblem of murder and violence. Revolutions are always made, as history teaches us, by very small minorities, and these minorities become reinforced by masses of ignorant people who are led astray, either by excitement or by predatory instincts, into actions which become irreparable.
Meanwhile this industrial unrest is causing unemployment among us. It is shaking our national credit, and it is adding to the tremendous difficulties of the recovery of our overseas trade. I do not think it is quite sufficiently recognised by our workers that our overseas trade is vital. Without the overseas trade these islands could not maintain the population that we have at present. I agree with Lord Emmot that our financial position is appalling, but I do not think that it is desperate at the present moment. We won our great victory solely because we maintained our national unity throughout the war. We can rebuild our prosperity if we maintain that national unity, and if there is effort and sacrifice on the part of all classes. There is no other way to reconstruction.
And there is before us a great historical example. France was beaten to her knees in 1870–71, and directly peace came she was faced with a Bolshevist rising in Paris which led to atrocities just like those which are being perpetrated in Petrograd to-day. France was also shorn of two fine provinces and was burdened with the heavy cost of the war and with an indemnity which was deliberately calculated with a view to crippling her national life. Then France sternly repressed the Commune and set herself to the task of reconstruction, and by sheer hard work and by thrift she succeeded in a very few years. I believe that the people of this country in victory—their greatest victory—will show themselves as wise, as sane, and as patriotic as did the French people in the days of crushing defeat.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I hesitate after so many able speeches to intervene in this discussion. I cannot speak as an expert; I can only
308
speak as one whose work makes him familiar with all sorts and conditions of men in the industrial North of England, and who knows a great deal of what is passing through the minds of those men. At this stage of a prolonged but most interesting and important debate it would be tedious to attempt to resume the discussion of the causes of the present so-called unrest, and if I do so it is only to lead up to the main point which I shall endeavour to put before your Lordships, which is this—that it is not enough for us at the present grave juncture in the industrial history of this country to analyse the causes of unrest and disturbance, or to remedy isolated grievances, but to recognise plainly, frankly, and courageously that the time has come when we must prepare the way for the introduction of a new spirit and system into industry as a whole.
What I think is most mistaken is the idea that this unrest is directly due to what is called the strain upon the national nerves brought about by the tension of the war. It has already been pointed out by several
noble Lords that unrest was acute and menacing before the war, or even the threat of war, had burst upon our national life. In 1913, I think, 1,497 strikes were begun, as compared with 531 in 1910. No doubt there were many who supposed that after the war and after the comradeship which had been established among all classes, and not least among employers and employed, there would be a wholly different attitude in the industrial world, and that we should be allowed to begin the absolutely essential stage of increased production in the spirit of good will and common fellowship, created and deepened by the experiences of the war. In some respects I believe that that has taken place. I believe that there is, in spite of economic tension, a better personal feeling between employer and employed at the present time than there has been for a very long time. But what it is important for us to remember is that the utmost possible good will, personal regard, gratitude, even in some cases affection, between masters and men does not in the least blunt the determination of the men to do what they can to change a system which is quite independent of those kindlier personal relations.
There are three ways, I think, in which the war has definitely affected the spirit of the present industrial unrest. In the first place, as we must have all recognised,

309
workmen who have gone through sacrifices so great with a spirit of such splendid tenacity and patriotic service are very naturally determined (though it was not for this object that they waged the war) that, having wrought so much, they shall be entitled to a larger and fuller share in the rewards of industry than they have had in the past. In the second place, there is no question that the whole class of workers have been stirred and roused by the promises so freely given of a better England. I do not think that this was ever intended to be merely an election cry. I believe there is no one in your Lordships' House, even the least emotional and demonstrative, who did not feel during the war that almost the one thing that would make up for the sacrifices which had been offered throughout was the creation of a better England. But the great masses of our working people are fearful lest in the stress, which they recognise to be inevitable, of greatly increased production rendered necessary by the war, the hopes and desires of that better industrial England should be forgotten. In my judgment one of the reasons why strikes have been proposed and organised on so large a scale is that these workers can give, so to speak, forcible and dramatic notice to the community that no pressure of production will be allowed to put aside these claims, not here and there to an addition of wages or a shortening of hours, but to a different and better industrial England in the days that are to come.
In the third place, I think there is no doubt that the great bulk of our workers—not extreme men only, but in my experience some of the quietest, most thrifty, and steadiest of workmen—are profoundly stirred by the upheaval of new forces in every part of Europe, and, indeed, of the world. I think it would be quite untrue, as a great many noble Lords have already said, to suggest that there is any kind of desire in any responsible section of British workmen, even the most extreme, to imitate the barbarous and unspeakable methods of Russian Bolshevism. But I believe that there is, far more widely diffused than perhaps we appreciate, a great common emotion in the minds of the working classes, both here and elsewhere, which leads them to think and to say to one another that the hour has struck when a definite and united movement must be made for a reconstruction of the whole
310
basis of national industry, that this time must not be allowed to lapse but that it must be seized. Therefore what I would venture to press upon your Lordships is that, so far as one can judge a very complicated situation, holding great strikes in their hands is intended to be an announcement to the whole community, to all classes within it, that the great bulk of our workers, thoughtful responsible men, are determined that there shall be no return to the industrial condition which marked the nineteenth century.
I do not think that any of us could feel that this was an unnatural determination. Allusion has already been made more than once in this debate to the conditions under which great numbers of our working citizens were living before the outbreak of the war. Allusion was made to the condition of housing to a large extent in that part of Scotland where admittedly at the present time the feeling is most bitter and extreme. But your Lordships will remember that even more emphatic testimony was borne to the condition of housing, not so much in regard to overcrowding as in regard to sheer squalor and hideousness, in the case of the miners in South Wales. I do not propose to say another word about that. But even as regards wage-earning before the war it would be the greatest mistake to suppose that, in spite of the advances that had been made in real let alone nominal wages before the war, there was anything like a widespread sufficiency of life among masses of decent and hardworking people.
Take, for instance, such admitted facts as these in the figures of eight great staple industries in 1907—cotton, woollen, worsted, tailoring, boot and shoe, building, public utility services, engineering, shipbuilding, and railways. In each of these eight staple industries more than one-third of the adult male workers were earning less than 30 s. a week; in two industries the proportion earning less than 30 s. a week was over two-thirds, and in three others more than one-half. Or to take another simple and concrete instance—mentioned because it is the result of careful and scientific investigation—of four industrial towns. In Northampton, Warrington, Reading, and Stanley it was found that taken together under one-third of the working classes, or 32 per cent., were earning prior to the war less than 32 s. a week; and in one town, 29 per cent., or

311
more than a quarter, were in receipt of an income so low as to be insufficient as to provide the necessaries of healthy physical existence. I could go on piling up the list, but it is enough to say that I do not think there is any one of us—as indeed Lord Russell has said in his most able speech—who does not share with the great bulk of our workers the conviction that in some way or other it is true that a new era must come, and that to that industrial condition permitted in the midst of all the growth of wealth and luxury and comfort in this country in the nineteenth century there is and can be no return.
What I wish to emphasise to your Lordships to-night is that we should make a great mistake if we supposed that the great mass of our thoughtful workers desire a mere increase in the comforts of life, a mere increase in the rate of wages, or a mere shortening of the hours of labour. I do not think anything was more truly said in the admirable speech of Lord Leverhulme the other day than when he said we must remember that the workman is not a machine to be kept well oiled by high wages and smoothly running by good housing. Nor is he a person who is going to be deflected from loyalty to what he believes to be the claim of the class to which he belongs by the most kindly interest in his welfare that may be taken by individual employers, or by the amenities which in the ample kindness of their hearts they provide for their work-people. As I said before, that certainly gives him a great personal regard for his employer, but it does not affect his belief that the system itself and his place in it needs seriously amending. In other words, it is the human element in this matter which is, after all, fundamental. The feeling among our working people, and indeed among an increasing section of our employers, is that what was wrong in the characteristic tone and spirit of industry in the nineteenth century was that it dehumanised workers, and that what is needed in this twentieth century is a reversal of the process, and a steady attempt to humanise workers in the whole system of industry in which they are engaged.
Let me give what I thought, when I heard it, was a good illustration of that psychological element which underlies the unrest. At a great engineering works in the North, when shorter hours were introduced, the management very naturally
312
were anxious to get the largest possible output out of the shorter hours, and accordingly gave orders that the moment the clock struck the hour for opening the shops the iron gates were to be shut on whoever happened to be outside. Hitherto there had always been an allowance made of a few minutes for the men to enter. The result was that a large number of the men came, as usual, a few minutes after the hour, and found the iron gates clanged in their faces. The men struck. The management said, "We suppose this is due to the slackers." "No," said the union representatives, "the men who have struck are the best and most industrious of the workers. They have struck because they feel it is an indignity which they do not want to suffer that the gates should be shut in their faces, and they should be sent home to Their wives to tell them that they have lost a shift." And the representatives added, "When men are late in the office, or directors are late, there may be expostulations but the gates are not shut in their faces." That is a sign that there is this human element behind all these economic arrangements. In other words, what the workers ask is that their position in industry shall be something comparable to that position of responsibility and trust which is given to them in the citizenship of the country.
I dare say your Lordships have noticed some words used in a letter to The Times newspaper the other day by Lord Robert Cecil. With those words I would venture to associate myself. He said—
"I am convinced that I am speaking the opinions of many others in all classes. It is unreasonable to ask the working man to accept his employers view as to what is a fair wage and what are fair conditions of labour unless he is given, not only full opportunity for assuring himself of all the relevant facts in the case, but also some share in the management of those matters which are of even greater importance to labour than to capital."
I believe that what we have to do primarily is to acknowledge the justice of this demand, that industry shall in its characteristic system and features no longer reflect autocracy, with all its efficiency, benefits, and success, but much more closely reflect democracy, with all its risks and imperfections, yet with the status which it gives to human nature.
I think there are three ways in which this would largely meet the difficulties expressed in this debate. Everywhere it has been

313
acknowledged that there is a grievous misunderstanding between labour and capital. It is deep and sometimes it seems to be invincible. The truth is that the representatives of each seem to be living in different worlds, and when one passes, as in former days (and frequently even now to a large extent) I have been able to do, from the one to the other, it is just as if you pass from one continent to another. There is no lack of kindliness and good will and interest. It is lack of imagination and intimate knowledge of the circumstances of daily life. The miners, for instance, live in a world completely isolated and apart. As a rule their communities are distinct from any other class, or even any other trade, and they live, move, and have their being in a world exclusively confined to miners and their families. It is not unnatural, in these circumstances, that their whole outlook is conditioned by the limited range of their daily vision. It is not much otherwise with a large part of the world of employers. I am not speaking of those who have addressed your Lordships' House, but of the typical employer world. Of course, in a manner, they know their men and are able to boast that all their lives they have known how to deal with working men, but they have dealt with them from the point of view of the management of the works, and not from the point of view of those who really understand where is the pinch, sometimes of want and often of indignity, with which the workers have had to deal.
As there are two worlds, so there are two literatures. The Press which one sees is different from the Press which the other world sees, and when you read both, as I have tried to do, it is almost impossible to suppose that you are perusing literature which professes to be dealing with the same subject. Of course, a great deal of this misunderstanding can only be removed if we can overcome that division of class, in residence and occupation and interests, which occurred in that century of mingled prosperity, and I had almost said shame, which has passed. Even now it might be possible in the mining communities, and elsewhere, if it is backed up by recognition of the need of partnership in industry, to create such social intercourse between different classes as existed in sport and which did so much to promote good fellowship in country life.
What I want to point out is that this misunderstanding can only really be re-
314
moved in one way. It will not be removed by repeating, publishing, and propaganding those, to me, most striking figures about profits and profiteering laid before this House by Lord Emmott. And I am sorry to say that the reason is just that which was indicated by Lord Russell—namely, that somehow or other these men, thoughtful and reasonable men, do not trust the statements, and that the reason they do not trust them is that they and their fathers listened to those statements made about every single advance in wages or reduction of hours during the whole of the last century; that hardly has any attempt been made to get an increase of wage or a shortening of hours but they were told on all sides that it would ruin industry and drive capital out of the country. Therefore, I do not myself attach much importance to a propaganda of figures and economics based upon them.
But there is one method and the only method which holds any prospect of success, and that is the method of education, not by that kind of propaganda but by responsibility and experience. Get these men with their masters round the table where they discuss day by day and week by week not merely causes of dispute but the whole business in which they are engaged; get them together and let them listen to the kind of conversation which Lord Leverhulme outlined in his speech the other day; get them to know side by side what are the real facts of the business; then you will find that these men are intelligent enough to understand. But they must get at the facts because they are partners, not because they are told to remain quiet and trust the Government or take the figures as they are given by the employers. I hope I have not put the point too strongly, but I am sure that is the only way economically to overcome the misunderstanding which all speakers have mentioned.
Every speaker in this debate has been agreed as to the absolute need of increased output. No words are needed to emphasise that point. It is vital and fundamental to the whole future history of this country. Everything depends upon it. Because everything depends upon it, it becomes a question of first-rate importance how is it to be secured? And the answer is obvious. It can only be secured by the good will of the worker. It cannot be secured—in spite of what has been said, partly I think

315
by Viscount Haldane—only by greater application of science and by greater skill in management. These things are good and necessary, but it can only really be carried out if the worker will co-operate. It depends upon his good will. And he will not give his good will in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. He will only give his good will to this demand for increased output℄the force and justice of which he recognises as much as anybody℄if he has some means of being assured that he will get his due share of the increased product when it is made, and that he will have some voice in determining the conditions under which the production is carried out.
Of course, there are risks℄there must be risks℄in any such determined attempt at joint control. There are great risks which many here will appreciate much better than I can. There are risks involved in the publication of profits. But can any one doubt as to the answer he would give to this question, Is it better for industrial peace that profits should be kept secret or that the real facts of any business or trade should be made known to the workers? I do not think there is any comparison in the risks that would be involved. If you keep profits secret the fact may help financial transactions, but if you do not publish the real facts of the case you simply preserve perpetually an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion. Then, again, there are risks℄patent risks℄in relation to efficiency of management, but the real question is not what management would desire but what labour is willing to give in co-operation. In other words, it comes round to the point which I made a short time ago—that your power of getting a better output from the workers really refers itself back again to your willingness to give them an ever-increasing share in the management and control of the business.
Further, there has been universal agreement as to the danger of, and the need of combating in every possible way, what has been called during the debate, and what I think ought not to be called, the spirit of Bolshevism. As I said, while there may be great sympathy with the ideals which the Bolshevists have in view, except in a little ring of fanatics and cranks among the working people I believe there is complete and entire abhorrence of their methods. Let us call it the spirit of the extremist—the extremist spirit—or what you please.
316
The way to cure it is not to denounce it and to prove that economically it is bound to fail—which it certainly will—but rather to remedy the grievances which it exploits and to recognise the aspirations to which it appeals. I feel sure it is not a hazardous proposition to say that in these coming days industry must increasingly move along the channel of increased control by the worker. I do not think it is possible to resist that tendency without involving industry in the perpetual continuance of this atmosphere of suspicion and these outbreaks of strikes which paralyse capital and jeopardise the whole employment of our people.
As we cannot resist, it is, I think, better that we should simply accept, and then proceed to guide, to prepare the workers, to educate them (in the only way in which free and responsible men can be educated) by experience to take their share in the great industries of this country. It will enable our employers—in taking what the the best of them know to be the surest path of safety and of success—to use the best and most responsible leaders of labour, to get alongside them in a new sort of fellowship as men who are standing for the same thing—output, production and steadiness of employment, as against class antagonism and anarchy. We do not want employers to detach these men from labour but to use them as a means by which labour will be brought into the council chamber and made to understand the real responsibility of the industry in which it is engaged. That is why we are all agreed on the principles of the Whitley Councils, and we wish they could be widely extended.
Some of us will go further. Though I have not time to criticise the actual proposals made by Lord Islington—and I think by Lord Sydenham—yet I share the hope that there might be evolved from them, or inaugurated as part of the scheme to which they belong, a League, a permanent Industrial Council representing the employers, the workers, and the Government of the country. I wish that in time such a permanent Council could acquire authority enough to play the part in industry that the League of Nations is designed, or at least is desired, to play in the life of nations. I would hope that such a council would in time develop its organisation, would become a great steadying force to which increasingly either of the three parties—employers, employed,

317
or the Government—would make reference, whose decisions or recommendations would be increasingly respected, and to whom the public (with whom, after all, the ultimate verdict in these industrial disputes rests) would turn for guidance and information. While the employer must keep ultimately his right to lock out and the worker retain his right to strike, for you cannot deprive free men, compulsorily, of the right to withhold their work or labour as they please, I hope that there will be less and less recourse to force before there has been an appeal to a permanent and abiding tribunal representing the best brains of the Government, employers, and employed.
Indeed, I think that on those lines there might even now be made some effective to the miners, about whom we are all thinking and concerning whom I will not hesitate to say some of us are praying that that they may be guided by a wiser and deeper spirit than any of us, Government and employers and employed, can attain at this absolutely critical moment. I think it could be said to them, as the Prime Minister said in his discussion with them, that they might at this time vindicate in industry the principle for which they are all contending in the world of international life. Mr. Arthur Henderson said that the League of Nations was the keystone on which the workers, as a class, meant to build a better social order. The very principle of such a League is that a man, a nation, a class, shall be willing to forego the right of being the sole judge of the justice of his own case. I read, as we all read, Mr. Smillie's speech in answer to the Prime Minister. It was, as we would expect, frank, straightforward, determined. But one could not help feeling all the way through that he was insisting on the right of being the judge in his own case, and surely if the Commission that is to be appointed shows that it means to be thoroughgoing and sympathetic, willing to take every possible fact into consideration, the miners of the country will not set at defiance the principle to which they are appealing in international life and have recourse to force before they have submitted their claims to the arbitrament of an independent tribunal.
One word more. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood or felt to be going beyond what I have a right to say, but I cannot but share the hope that was expressed by Earl Russell that this Commission will not merely
318
pay lip service to the proposals for the nationalisation of the mines, but will go into that matter with a directness and an intention to find a practical answer such as has not always been forthcoming when questions of the nationalisation of industry have been at stake. I have no brief whatever in the matter, and I recognise most fully the objections to State management which were summarised by Lord Brassey. I do not think either that the bulk of our workers want State management. I think the bulk of the workers are set upon the management of each trade by those who work them either in the way
of management or of labour; and after the experience of the war they are not probably enamoured of State management. But there is a great difference between the ordinary industries and those from which go, like the coal trade, the life-blood of industry, or along which, like the transport trade, that life blood is reaching industry—and I think it is well worth while asking the question. The future in any case is doubtful. Will it be more doubtful if you leave it to the chance of this perpetual uncertainty?
In your plea to the miners you say, "Remember that coal concerns the whole community, and therefore you must not be selfish and exploit the coal industry for the raising of your own wages and the shortening of your own hours." Their reply to that always is, "We could understand that if the element of private profit is eliminated, if we knew that it is really for the community we are working and not for private profit." That might be a steadying factor in these industries which concern the whole industrial and social life of the people.
My Lords, I have spoken longer than I intended, and I hope I have not in any way spoken as a partisan. I am only asking your Lordships what I have asked myself to do, and that is to look with new eyes upon a new world and to recognise that it is not enough faultlessly to analyse the causes of this distrust and point to the manifold ignorance and shortsightedness of the workers of this country and of their demands. What we have to do is to endeavour so far as possible to transform the industrial system of the country into the likeness of the political system upon which its freedom is based. Some noble Lords have been pessimistic. I think there are good grounds for hope. I meet continually a new class of younger employers

319
who are really looking at things from a new point of view and often surprising the older members of the Employers Federation. I believe that if the younger employers at the present time could have their way in managing this great Employers Federation the chances of conflict would be much less than they are. Also there is, I think, a growing sense among the older workers of the perils to which they and their own ideals of responsible industry are being exposed by the spirit of irresponsible anarchy. If employers with a new point of view and the union officials, recognising the dangers to which their own principles are exposed, can be brought together and kept together on a basis of increasing joint control, then I think there is still good hope for the future of industry in this country.
Yet, my Lords, after all there is not one of us here who does not know that what really matters is what it is impossible in this House to put into words. What really matters is not the machinery but the spirit with which it is to be worked. What we need in industry is a new spirit. With that, machinery however simple, will succeed; without that, machinery however elaborate will fail. And in our heart and conscience we know that the spirit which industry needs is the application of the principles of Christianity to economic and industrial life which have been banished from it too long. Thither they must return. They will make it plain that every single human life has a supreme value, that every man is an end in himself, and not a mere means for the use of others, and that the supreme motive of industry must be no longer competition for private gain, whether in the way of profit or of wage, but co-operation for the common good.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, if the Archbishop of York had some diffidence in intervening in this debate, my own diffidence is very much greater, especially after the powerful speech to which we have just listened. I think that those who study this debate will be very glad indeed to find that your Lordships have followed the advice which was given by Mr. Burke when he said, "When the nation finds itself in a particular difficulty the best question you can ask yourself is not how to get out of the difficulty but how you got into it." With regard to getting out of the difficulty, that
320
seems for the moment to be in the hands of those who represent or purport to represent a section, or it may be the whole, of what is called organised labour, and the Prime Minister speaking on behalf of the Government. We do not know what the end of that struggle will be, but we hopeߞat least I doߞthat we shall not be told one morning that the whole thing has been settled, and shall learn afterwards that it has only been settled at the cost of a major operation on the social welfare of the country which it will take us a very long time to get over. There might, my Lords, be worse things than having a struggle now, and seeing who is going to get the best of it, though I do not desire to approach the matter with the hope that that will be the end. I trust that Some means will be found whereby it will be settled, but not if the price to be paid is too great.
I am not going to follow those noble Lords who have examined in such very able speeches the whole ground of how we got into this difficulty, but I was glad to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in which he said that this is not a thing of yesterday or the day before, but is the accumulation of a great number of years. This is one of the symptoms of many years of struggle on the part of labour in this countryߞa legitimate, natural, and honourable struggleߞto secure for itself a certain status in the enjoyment of the good things of life, and in the position which it ought to occupy in a great community like this. I have nothing but honour for them in what they are striving to get, but it is the fashion to say that they are ignorant and suspicious. Suspicious they certainly are, and in a great many ways greatly suspicious. It is true that there has been a certain amount of ignorance; and if they are indeed ignorant, whose fault is it? It is not their fault; it is the fault of those who ought to have been their leaders, whether Minister or employers, or what is called capitalists, and it is the fault of those who have had a better education and ought to have taken them into their confidence and pointed out the right path along which to go. They have been rightly suspicious.
I do not think that the record of the late Government before the war, and it may of the Government before thatߞI am not going to try to make any Party capital out of what I am to sayߞhas been of a kind to engender confidence, because Governments have not taken the people into their con-

321
fidence. You may date it from whatever time you like—from the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, or the Boer War, or any other landmark—but during the last thirty years the labour movement was gathering strength in this country, and either one Party or the other in the State was responsible during that time for the conduct of affairs and the leadership of thought. After the year 1897, which we may take as a convenient date—I am not going into a lengthy historical analysis—we displayed the British Empire as in a highly satisfactory condition, and asked the whole world to come and see it. A few years afterwards we were plunged into the Boer War, and there began to be a doubt whether the British Empire could function as rapidly as it ought. Since that time we have had two Governments in office. We had the Conservative Government which came in at the Khaki Election in 1900, and we know what the history of that Government was. It did not contribute very much towards consolidating national thought.
Then we had the great victory of the Liberal Party in 1906, which afforded the finest opportunity for setting our house in order that anybody ever had. That Party were returned to Parliament absolutely free from any clique or combination of cliques. I am not going to use the language of recrimination this evening, because the matter is much too serious. But you cannot say that the Party which was in office from 1906 until the Coalition was formed in 1916 really had a record which would engender confidence among the working classes of this country who were promised every conceivable thing. All the phrases then used are fresh in everyone's mind, and I need not repeat them. Everyone knows the phrases and promises to which I refer. In the meantime the Government was sustained—wrongly sustained—by the very thing that we have now found to be such a fatal mistake, and that has been so rightly denounced by many speakers in this debate—that horrible thing called class warfare. At the same time the nation was kept in ignorance regarding its military and naval responsibility, with the result that we were plunged into the war in 1914 to the great surprise of the, vast majority of our fellow-countrymen. The war has brought about a more satisfactory position as regards the national spirit, but with respect to industrial conditions in this country there is still a great deal of ignorance on both sides.
322
Lord Haldane, in a speech he made at the beginning of this debate, indicated that the ignorance among the Labour Party, about which people complain, is not so great as many people think, because they are sustained by studying the Fabian Research Committee's writings and other literature of that kind. While I cannot pretend to a very intimate knowledge of that particular literature I can deal with another complaint of the noble Viscount's, and that was when he said that, in spite of their reading the Fabian Committee's literature, they did not believe a single word that anybody told them. The noble Viscount is not in his place, and so I cannot say what I was going to. I do not know whether he referred to the speeches of Ministers or Members of Parliament, but if he does refer to the speeches of Ministers and of Members of Parliament and complains that the working classes do not believe those speeches, then I am entirely on the side of the working classes, because I believe very few political speeches, except those speeches which I hear in your Lordships' House, and occasionally even with regard to those a doubt may arise in one's mind.
But I say that in spite of this Fabian literature—which, I do not for a moment question, is absolutely genuine, and I have not the slightest doubt that they think they are perfectly right—I believe that if you were to print and circulate the speeches that have been made in this debate (I will say nothing about the speech which I am delivering at this moment) among those who are really thinking about the labour trouble to-day, you would do almost as much good as by all the writings that have ever come from the doctrinaires of either University, who supply the literature for the Labour Party at the present moment.
A NOBLE LORD: Hear, hear.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I am glad that that meets with the approval of one noble Lord, at any rate. There is a literature of an infinitely more mischievous kind than the literature of the Fabian Research Committee—if indeed that be literature, and I do not desire to say hard things about it. In my military capacity it was my duty to overhaul and to read an enormous amount of pamphlets, leaflets, and literature, which was disseminated with the sole object of setting

323
one class against another. That literature was anti-national in the highest degree, and the Government will do no good unless some means are taken either to prevent its being circulated—which, as the most rev. Prelate said, is probably not the right way—or to counteract it by something of a different spirit and of what we conceive to be a better kind.
I was very glad to hear the noble Lord on the Woolsack, in the powerful speech which he delivered earlier in the debate, advocate our having propaganda of the right kind. But it is no use talking about having a propaganda unless you decide what you are going to propagate. I think the propagation of sound Tory principles is the only think that will be of the slightest use. Do not laugh, my Lords; every speech that has been delivered in this debate has been a sound Tory speech and a complete vindication of the principles of Lord Beaconsfield. Go and read—as I dare say some of you did long before I was born—Lord Beaconsfield's works and you will see what I mean. I ran tell you, in case anybody has any doubt. What I mean by Tory principles is not Party principles at all, not leaflets of the Tariff Reform League or the Fabian Research Committee, or anything of that kind. Tory principles are national principles, and we have not had any great political leader for a great many years in this country who has continually addressed his fellow countrymen from the national point of view.
And side by side with the enunciation and explanation of the industrial truth we must have the proper spirit from the point of view of racial responsibility. Mr. Lansbury (who is a long way from Lord Beaconsfield) put this exceedingly well in an article he wrote in the Herald last week—a paper which is widely read by the working classes of this country and therefore worth considering. The dominant note of that article was that what we want in this country is knowledge plus good will, Knowledge by itself of economic truths is no good unless you have good will to carry them out. And with all the good will in the world it is not the slightest use making phrases and expressing good intentions unless we have economic truth at the same moment. Now we want knowledge and good will, and I will try and state what I understand by Tory or national principles. The first thing is that every man, woman, and child in this country is a partner to a
324
racial responsibility. We are responsible to Divine Providence and to mankind for raising the race to which we belong to the highest point of moral and material efficiency, and in order to do that everybody ought to have a good start in life, to have decent and dignified and sanitary surroundings, and be brought up in the ideas of duty, responsibility, good will, and hard work. We do not hear these doctrines preached. Neither political Party has taken the trouble to initiate or to carry out any leadership in thought in this country, and until we get a body in the State who will disseminate the right kind of thought and knowledge from the national point of view, all these efforts anal all these meetings between Mr. Smillie and Mr. Lloyd George, and so on, will not do the slightest good.
I hope that you will not think me impertinent if I say that since listening to the speeches in this debate it is perfectly obvious, as speaker after speaker got up, that this is the one body in the country which really understands these things, and if when we conic to handle legislation later on we only give effect by deed, as well as by thought and word, to the principles which your Lordships have been laying down in this debate we shall deserve well of our fellow-countrymen, and I believe we shall have their confidence.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until this day week—Tuesday, March 4.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, this is a very short Bill, which makes provision for regulating the expenses in the case of municipal elections as the result of the enormous addition to the electorate which a recent Act has brought about. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill for regulating Parliamentary expenditure was before this House an Amendment was inserted which would have extended its operation to municipal elections. That Amendment was considered in another place, and it was not thought opportune or

325
convenient as a matter of machinery that it should at that time be tacked on to the Parliamentary vote. Since then, and with the imminence of the municipal elections, strong representations have been made to the Government by representatives both of the London County Council and of the County Councils Association, to the effect that. this change is very desirable, and indeed almost necessary.
It is not necessary, perhaps, that should do more than inform your Lordships that in many cases the electorate has been increased to the extent of about 100 percent., and if the old scale of expenditure is permitted to survive there are many constituencies in which, in the case of a municipal election, an expenditure to the amount of £100 would be authorised. I do not think that any of your Lordships would take the view that such an expenditure was to be recommended, or indeed permitted, in elections of this class. Beyond all question there is a great weight of municipal opinion behind the Bill. I should not have thought it necessary to recommend it at such length, where I believe such an agreement prevails, had I not been informed by one of your Lordships that he is apprehensive that, in the case of the London elections which are about to take place, many candidates will find themselves placed at a disadvantage, indeed in some danger, because of his view that they have already incurred expenditure in excess of that which is permitted in this Bill. It is obvious that if this apprehension is in any respect well founded it is one which must be put right; the protection must be given. This apprehension was explained in the other House, and an Amendment was drafted on behalf of the Local Government Board which appeared to those responsible in the other House, and appears to me here, to be adequate for the purpose, which is admitted by every one to be necessary.
The point is a Committee point, because the noble Lord who takes exception to it by no means, as I understand it, desires to contend that the Bill is not a necessary one. The noble Lord will, of course, take his own line as to the extent to which he thinks it necessary to raise the point on the Second Reading; but I would recommend, if I may be allowed to do so, to my noble friend that he should consider whether the point is not really one to be raised and to be met when your Lordships
326
are asked to pass the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DOWNHAMhad given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day three months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that the first time I should have the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House should be an occasion on which I find myself, for the moment at all events, in conflict with my noble and learned friend with whom I have been associated in the other House for so many years. But I feel in a very peculiar position. I am responsible for very many of the candidates who are now standing for the London County Council election, the nomination for which takes place on Wednesday and the election for which takes place on Thursday, March 6. Every code of honour compels me to take all possible action to defend innocent men and women from falling into the clutches of the law because they are doing something which they are not in the least aware is illegal or likely to be made illegal.
These candidates entered the field some three weeks ago or more, and commenced their election expenditure fully believing that they would be able to spend an amount of 3d. per elector in their campaign. They mapped out their expenditure accordingly. They entered into contracts, they incurred liabilities; and unless some far better Amendment than that which has been inserted in the other House should find its way into this Bill, those ladies and gentlemen will undoubtedly walk into a trap of a very dangerous character. They will find that, although they have obtained a majority at the polls, they will be unseated on petition; they will have to go to the Courts to get relief, very likely they may not get that relief; and it is quite a probability that there will be unseated on petition not ten or twenty, but thirty, forty, or more; and you will find that the whole character of the election is altered by the passage of a Bill which was rushed through the other House at about half-past ten in the evening, almost without debate, and a Bill which is totally unknown to most of the candidates now contesting these constituencies.
This Bill does not apply only to the London County Council, but to the elections

327
for all the county councils. It imperils the fate up and down the country of something like 3,000 candidates for the various county councils. It will apply later, in November, to the Borough Council elections. As my noble and learned friend has said, I do not desire to kill this Bill. I desire to see a Bill passed into law which shall reduce the expenditure which it is now possible to make upon elections. What I want is that these candidates who are entirely innocent shall be protected from what I think is post facto legislation in its most vicious form; that candidates who were wholly unaware of this Bill, which may be passed into law, shall not suffer the pains and penalties which they undoubtedly will endure unless some more substantial Amendment finds its way into the Bill than is there now. I am perfectly well aware that an Amendment was moved in the other House—by, I think, Lieut Colonel Sir Frederick Hall—with a view of protecting candidates who have already incurred expenditure or entered into liabilities. But I would ask your Lordships to take the Bill in your hands and see whether that Amendment really protects these candidates. You will observe that the Amendment says—
"No person shall be liable to any penalty or disability in respect of expenditure in excess of the amount permitted under the said Acts as amended by this Act, but not in excess of the amount which would have been permitted if this Act had not been passed, if the excess was due to expenses bona fide incurred or for which he had made himself liable before the passing of this Act."
There are many cases already, and there will be many more, where the expenditure allowed by this Act—namely, 2d. per elector, will actually have been incurred before the passing of this Act.
In effect what is going to happen is this. Let me give an instance which is quite a common one. The expenditure allowed under the old Act was, say, £600 for a particular constituency. This Bill will cut that expenditure down to £400—and I think that is right. But the candidates will have spent already that £400, because they were fully expecting to be able to spend £600. Directly this Bill becomes an Act any candidate who spends a penny afterwards will render himself liable to all the pains and penalties which he will incur by indulging in illegal practices. It means that eight days before the election takes place many of the candidates will
328
not be able to spend a penny more; they will simply have to stand there in silence and be unable to take any action whatever that costs money in order to advocate their candidature; while two fresh candidates may be nominated on Wednesday, and between Wednesday and Thursday spend £400 in advocating their candidature. It means that these candidates, if they have spent their 2d. per elector by, say, next Thursday, will not be able to spend another penny in answering any charges that may be made against them—in answering by means of new leaflets—holding fresh meetings, advertising their addresses in the newspapers, taking on fresh clerks or messengers, or, indeed, providing any of the machinery of the election. That is how I read the Amendment.
I have not contented myself with my own opinion, although I do not think that my opinion on electoral law is altogether to be despised; I do not pretend to be "a child in these matters"; I know something about the arts and the crafts and the wiles of elections. But I fortified myself with the opinion of one of the ablest counsel in these matters at the Bar, and he assured me that my opinion is right, and that if this Bill passes in its present form no candidate who has already spent the amount represented by 2d. per elector will be able to spend another penny between nomination and the time of going to the poll. I think that is a very unfair position in which to put any candidate; and I cannot help thinking that when this comes to the knowledge of your Lordships' House you will see that those candidates up and down the country are protected from the serious risks they will run of illegal practices if they attempt, between the day of nomination and the day of election, to spend money in advocating their particular cause.
If I may say so, I personally am strongly in favour of reducing expenditure on elections. I think £600 is far too much to spend on an election of this sort. But we must look at these things from two points of view—not only from the side of the candidates, and the natural desire we all have to make it easier for men of small means to go upon these County Councils and serve their country, as so many are so well capable of doing, but we must also look at it from the point of view that a certain amount of expenditure is necessary in order to place the issues fully before the

329
electors. An election where only 25 per cent. of the electors vote is hardly an election at all. It entirely destroys the whole theory of popular representation. Unless we allow a certain amount of expenditure we cannot get up sufficient interest in the election, and neither the candidates nor the issues would be sufficiently made known.
My argument is that this Bill is indeed a faulty Bill, and that the pledges made by the Government have not been fulfilled, not because there was not the fullest intention of fulfilling them, but because the particular Amendment which was put down was accepted by those who took part in the debate, and that Amendment does not fulfil the purpose for which it was put down. I think it would have been far better to wait a little time and to consider the whole question of election expenses from the larger point of view. There are other matters which require attention, and it may well be that if we wanted to reduce expenditure upon elections we might have considered whether it was not possible for the Government to give free postage in large constituencies, just as now in Parliamentary elections. We might have considered whether there should not be some clause in this Bill, as in the Representation of the People Act, by which a freak candidate would be prevented from coining into the field, or at all events if he did come he would forfeit £150 or some such sum if he did not poll one-eighth of the electors. I think this is a matter to which further attention ought to have been given in another House, and I see no reason for rushing this Bill through in a hasty manner, in order to cover elections in March. I cannot help thinking it should be considered from a larger point of view, and I think that I, at all events, having upon many a platform always defended the Second Chamber by the argument that it was necessary to revise the hasty and ill-considered legislation of the other Chamber, may now say that this is a case in which your Lordships should revise hasty and ill-considered legislation. I shall move my Amendment in order to try and protect these people who had no knowledge that this Bill was being prepared.
Amendment moved—
Leave out "now" and insert at the end of the Motion"this clay three months."—(Lord Downham.)
THE MARQUES OF CREWE: I am sorry to intervene at this moment, but I think I ought to do so, because I am indeed primarily concerned with the subject-matter of this Bill, for it was owing to an Amendment of mine on the Representation of the People Bill that the reduction in the possible cost of these local elections was made. Therefore this Bill has in fact already passed your Lordships' House. The Amendment changing the amount from 2d. to 3d. was inserted in another place, and was accepted by the noble Lord opposite, who was then representing the Government. We are all delighted to welcome the noble Lord here, and some of us are only sorry that his first appearance should be connected with an apparently murderous attempt. The noble Lord said he did not intend to kill the Bill; therefore his intention is not quite so bloodthirsty as would appear from the Amendment on the Paper.
I cannot help thinking that the object the noble Lord has in view might be obtained by an Amendment in Committee. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in moving the Second Reading, stated that the case of those who had already incurred expenditure and made themselves responsible for some further expenditure would have to be met. I feel that in common fairness it is impossible to dispute that statement, and it is, I gather, the belief of the noble and learned Lord and of His Majesty's Government that such a safeguard is sufficiently provided in the Bill. The noble Lord thinks not, and he is fortified by the opinion of learned counsel, and I have no doubt that when the Committee stage is reached he will be prepared with an Amendment, perhaps framed on the same admirable legal advice, so drawn as to meet these hard cases.
I should have thought myself that the particular instance which he mentioned, that of a man who had already spent £400 and was thereby precluded from spending any more and would have to go naked, so to speak, until the election actually took place, would have been met by the provision in the Bill which allows a share of the expenses already spent to be charged. For the purpose of the indemnity some portion of that £400 must surely come under the phraseology of the Bill, which allows an excess to be spent, and therefore there would be a certain portion, though not probably the full amount, of what the candidate might desire to spend, which would remain for the further period of the election

331
However that may be, the noble Lord will no doubt be able to bring up words, and I gather, from what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack stated, that the Government would regard with favour any such Amendment. In those circumstances I hope we may assume that the noble Lord will not desire to press this particular Amendment to a division, but will be content with the very clear account of his motives which he has given.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, as chairman of a County Council I am most anxious to support the views of Lord Downham. Take the case of the county in which I happen to be chairman of the County Council. The nominations took place in the middle of last week, and polling will be almost immediately. The candidates have, no doubt, made all their arrangements and are probably keeping only a very small reserve with a view to holding meetings on the eve of the poll. It seems to me that it is behaving most unfairly to bring in this Bill in the middle of the elections. I say nothing about the alteration of 3d. to 2d., but it will be very hard on the candidates who are acting perfectly fairly in what they consider they have a right to spend, in regard to the election, if they suddenly find themselves obliged to go to a Court to ask for relief from liability.
As my noble friend has said, the Amendment in the Bill does not give them the relief from liability which they certainly ought to have. Candidates started an electioneering campaign with the idea that they had so much money to spend, and it is unfair that this should be changed at the last moment and that they should thereby be placed in a false position. I do not know whether my noble friend proposes to divide now, but I hope that when we go into Committee he will move some Amendment to the effect that it shall not apply to the present election. In that case I shall have the greatest possible pleasure to support him. I would ask your Lordships to consider the injustice that is done by bringing in a Bill like this to candidates in whose cases nominations have already been made, some of them a week ago, and where the polls are to be taken almost immediately.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack looks into
332
the words carefully he will see that my noble friend below the gangway is entirely justified. It is, indeed, a very astonishing proceeding that in the middle of the contests—on the eve of the poll—we should be legislating as to what expenses should be incurred in the election. Such legislation cannot be defensible. As to the substance of the Bill I believe there is only one opinion in your Lordships' House, and that is that the smaller the expenses can be made the better; but you should limit them in proper time and before people have undertaken the responsibility of an election.
I respectfully say that I do not share the view of my noble friend who sits behind me, the Leader of the Opposition that the words of the Amendment inserted in the House of Commons cover the case. I do not think they cover the case at all. The only case they cover is where a man has actually made himself liable and actually entered into contract for expense. Then there is rather a cumbrous method of obtaining relief. This is not a question of a candidate having entered into any contract though he is by the nature of the case, if he is to go on with the contest at all, under an obligation to incur expenditure. That is not covered in the least, and the unfortunate candidate is placed in the most ludicrous position. I hope that between now and the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—no man is more qualified to do it—will revise the Bill to see that we do not legislate in a manner of which your Lordships and the other House would have cause to be ashamed.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, there is another case that ought to be considered, and that is the case of the candidate who has started later than the candidate who began his expenditure much earlier, because the candidate who starts later is not empowered under the Bill, so far as I understand, to spend anything like the sum of money necessary to place him on equal terms in fighting his opponent. I throw out that suggestion as the matter is being considered.
LORD DOWNHAM: My Lords, I gladly withdraw my Amendment on the undertaking given me by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLDIERS AND LAND SETTLEMENT.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement of the Leader of the House that Ministers in charge of Departments are anxious to introduce legislation relating to their Departments in the House to which they belong, the President of the Board of Agriculture will introduce the proposed Bill referring to the settlement of soldiers on the land in the House of Lords.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords, I find it very difficult to answer the Question, because my own personal inclination is to introduce the Bill here and to submit it to the keen, but I hope I may think not unfriendly, criticism of your Lordships' House. The Bill is also one which is well suited for discussion here in many ways. It deals with a subject matter which is very familiar to your Lordships, in which you have that practical detailed knowledge that can only come from life-long familiarity with the subject. But there are certain reasons against introducing the Bill in this House owing to the form and structure of the Bill. It imposes heavy charges upon the public funds, and without continual reference to those charges the Bill cannot be properly discussed and explained; and I have regretfully come to the conclusion—the regret, I may say, is shared by the noble Earl the Leader of the House—that the progress of the Bill will not be helped by its being introduced in this House and moulded and shaped into the form which may be acceptable to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I must express the regret which a very large majority of my countrymen will feel at the answer given to my Question. I understand the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture to say that the Bill must be brought into the Commons because it is a financial Bill. I should be the very last person to interfere with any of the privileges of the House of Commons, but I have always understood that a measure may be introduced into this House unless the financial clauses are so predominant that it would be a financial measure. Your Lordships know very well that many Bills are brought in and underlined and sent to the Commons. It is a
334
matter of such vital importance that this land question should be brought forward at once that I ventured to hope that this objection would not be sustained. If there is a Bill ready—and I have every reason to believe there is—would it not be wise, in the present state of unrest, to bring the Land Bill forward at the earliest possible opportunity?
During the debate this afternoon the question of land has hardly been mentioned. Yet it is at the root of a great deal of the unrest and danger that exist at the present moment. I hope that this will be taken into consideration by the President of the Board of Agriculture, and that he will reconsider his decision. I would ask the noble Lord what earthly chance a Bill of this description has at the present moment in the House of Commons in the congested state of affairs prevailing there. I have been told that there is one great objection to bringing it in here, and that is that this a House of landlords. If we had an ordinary House of Commons there might be something in that, but your Lordships know perfectly well that there is a Conservative majority of something like 350 in the House of Commons. As to any objection against the Bill being brought into this House because it is a Conservative House of landlords I can only say, having listened to the debates on industrial unrest and especially that of this afternoon, that in those debates I have heard more glorious, undiluted, blessed Radicalism talked in this House than you would ever hear in a month at the Reform Club or the Devonshire Club. I think that in these circumstances there can be no real objection to bringing the Bill forward in this House.
Another reason. There is a good deal of suspicion which is not justified, and if the Bill were brought in here at the earliest possible opportunity it would knock on the head at once any idea that the Government were trying to shelve this question, which is of such vital importance, almost a matter of life and death, to those gallant men who have fought across the seas and saved England. These men are coming back at the rate of 1,000 per day, and we have been told in my own county that we must be ready for 500. What are we to say when these men return? This Bill is practically shelved as it may not be brought forward in the House of Commons for some time, and it will be supposed, what of course is not the fact, that the

335
Government are trying for some reason or another to shelve this question. I am much disappointed at the answer.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I should like to say one word to the noble Earl who has charge of these matters here in support of what has been said by the noble Marquess. Is it impossible to try this House and see whether this Bill cannot possibly be effectively discussed here before it is introduced into another place? It is considered that the constitution of this House is such that a Bill of this kind may not receive a very favourable reception. Is that quite so sure? The Government have considerable support of their own in this House, and is it right to assume, without a trial, that the Bill will not receive proper treatment here? After all, if what happens to it in this House renders it unpleasant to the Government, they can withdraw it; but it does seem to me a little hard, at a time when the other place is overcrowded with legislation and this House is anxious to do what it can to assist in promoting and securing reasonable legislation for many of the new and difficult circumstances in which we stand, that it should be said this Bill cannot be introduced here. It would no doubt be criticised here, but I will undertake to say it would be criticised by men who have a far greater knowledge of the problem than many people in another place—and after all, the measures of the Government have got to be criticised, and ought to be criticised. I cannot help regretting with the noble Marquess that it has not been thought wise to give this House an opportunity of considering legislation which I should have thought it was eminently fitted to consider.

HARDSHIPS OF OFFICERS AND MEN.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to call attention to the hardships which it is alleged that officers and men are being subjected to on their journeys home for leave or demobilisation, and to ask His Majesty's Government for an explanation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there have been several letters in the papers recently describing the conditions under which officers and men are being sent across Europe to this country, conditions which apparently are not merely uncomfortable
336
but rather harsh, and in one case actually dangerous to life. I should think the War Office would be glad of an opportunity of explaining why our officers and men have to put up with such extremely inconvenient conditions of travel.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I am sure my noble friend does not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. Some of the statements which have appeared are not exactly correct. He is aware, of course, that there is an immense amount of congestion on the Belgian and French lines running to Germany. They have to carry all the men who are demobilised, bring down the men on leave, carry those who are repatriated, and also bring the materials for the building up of these damaged countries.
There is a tremendous strain on the rolling stock, and there are not enough ordinary coaches to be able to convey all these men. As a matter of fact they are conveyed, as they have been in the previous stages of the war, in trucks. But on reading the statement in the papers you would suppose they were open trucks. They are nothing of the kind. They are carefully closed and provided with stoves and fuel at either end. I have heard a complaint privately from one or two noble Lords that in some cases there was not a sufficient supply of fuel. Particular cases, of course, can be inquired into, but experience has shown that this particular type of car is better and can be more easily heated and looked after than the ordinary coach which might otherwise be used for transport. Great care also is taken to provide proper meals at the stations for the men as they come down on demobilisation.
No doubt some difficulty has arisen from this cause. Owing to the much greater length of the journey, the congestion of the line and the difficulty of dealing with the rolling stock, the period of the journey from Cologne and other points has been much longer than the normal, and it has created a good deal of fatigue among the troops. I had an account from a friend of mine who came down the other day as to the tediousness of the journey. Every arrangement is being made to increase the rolling stock and the comfort of the troops, and the most specific directions have been issued by the Quartermaster-General in France for the

337
carrying out of all these matters in the proper way. Reports have also been asked for by the War Office from the Quartermaster-General as to the inspection of these trains, and we shall very soon be provided with further information upon it. But there is no reason to believe that the matter is neglected. When these reports are received I shall be glad to make to my noble friend any further communication that may be necessary.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of February 20.]
CLOWES SETTLED ESTATES.
Petition for a 'Bill together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.
BRENTFORD GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and (pursuant to the Resolution of this House of the 18th of November last) read 1a.

SOUTH SHIELDS GAS BILL
Brought from the Commons, and (pursuant to the Resolution of this House of the 18th of November last) read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.