Sitting of 5 April 1921

Preamble
The House, met at Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION.

  COAL INDUSTRY, WAGES DISPUTE.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: May I ask whether the Government have any statement to make as to any further developments in the industrial crisis?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I am sorry to say that the Leader of the House cannot be here at present. He has asked me to say that there is no further information to be given now, but that if there be information to be supplied later, the Government will give it on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  ST. HELENS CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BILL PRESENTED.
  CAPTIVE BIRD SHOOTING (PROHIBITION) BILL,
  "to prohibit the use of captive birds in all shooting carried on under artificial conditions," presented by Sir BURTON CHADWICK; supported by Sir John Butcher, Mr. Frederick Green, Mr. Leslie Scott, Mr. Jephcott, Mr. Hartshorn, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Colonel Arthur Murray, Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Betterton, and Lieut.-Commander Kenwortfay; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  There is a very old saying that it is better to be born lucky than rich. I certainly was not born rich but on one or two occasions I have been lucky. For instance, lately I have succeeded in winning a place in two ballots, one of which enables me to bring in this Bill. Many years ago I took part in a raffle and I won four pictures. I did not look at the name on the pictures until I got home and then I found they were described as the "Road to Ruin." I am glad to say that the ruin did not follow me, because very shortly afterwards I won my first Parliamentary election. I anticipate that hon. Members who are opposed to my views on this subject may say that I am on the road to ruin now. I feel assured that before I sit down they will be convinced that that is not the case, but rather the opposite. I move the Second Reading of this Bill because I think there is a general consensus of opinion that the present method of election is not satisfactory. Many attempts have been made to alter the system, some with and some without success, but I suggest that that which I am enunciating to-day is a measure that is likely to meet the difficulty. It is an undoubted fact that there are many towns and districts in this country in which many citizens have never had any representation at all according to their idea. I live near a constituency which, as long as I can recollect, has never returned any representative of a class representing more than one set of views. I ask you to look at the representation generally in the south of England and in the north, and I think you will agree that, as to one class or set of views in each place, those who happen to be in a minority have really never had any representation at all. That is a very unfortunate thing for them, because if they want their views expressed they have to go to a representative with views contrary to their own, and they do so with a
  614
  certain amount of discontent, whereas if they had Members who truly represented their views it would be much more satisfactory.
  Let me illustrate what I am proposing. I ask the House to assume that there is an area consisting of 70,000 electors, and I will represent those electors by colours. In the area there are 40,000 reds, 20,000 whites, and 10,000 blues. According to our present method that area would be represented by seven reds, which would be wrong. The proper representation would be four reds, two whites, and one blue. That can be brought about only by a system of proportional representation. This is a non-party Bill, and I would ask hon. Members to eliminate from their minds the idea that there is any question of party in it. On the back of the Bill it will be seen that I am supported equally by the two great parties. It would be a pity if in a matter of this kind, in which we are all anxious to bring about a proper representation, there should be anything other than an impartial and just view of the whole question. You may ask, What is proportional representation? It is the representation of citizens on elected bodies in proportion to their voting strength. How can that be obtained? It can be obtained by the method of election known as the single transferable vote. What is the single transferable vote? It requires that the constituencies shall be large enough to return several Members each, and that although there may be several Members to elect, each elector shall have only one vote, which he will give to the candidate he likes best, and that this single vote shall in certain contingencies be transferable from one candidate to another, the transfer being controlled by the elector. This system was recommended by the conference over which Mr. Speaker presided in the year 1917. It would have applied to a large number of important and crowded areas in this country. In due course it came up for consideration in this House, and, to use a colloquialism, it was turned down. Why was it not accepted? Because there were those who felt it went too far and those who thought it did not go far enough. Between the two stools the proposal came to the ground. We have introduced this Bill to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, so that if it is thought by the House to be necessary any alteration may be made in the Bill. Substantially, however, it is a Bill

  615
  applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  The areas would require to elect three, five or seven, and therefore they would require to be larger than at the present time. As a matter of fact it would probably work out that three, five or seven of the present divisions would require to be amalgamated into one, and that would then form a constituency. The question of the allocation of these districts would have to be the subject of a Commission. My own opinion is that with the exception of one or two cases, each area would consist of a district that would return either three or five Members. I do not see that the working of the system will present any difficulty at all in this respect. I represent Portsmouth which, at the present time, returns three Members to Parliament. I used to represent it when it returned two Members, and I have fought the constituency on several occasions. I say with confidence that there would be no difficulty whatever. If that is so in regard to Portsmouth, it will be the same with other parts of the Kingdom which are at present returning three Members. I do not anticipate there will be any difficulty either, in returning five or even seven, though I think probably five would be sufficient. Any large places like Birmingham, Liverpool, or Glasgow would have to be divided up into such areas as I have indicated.
  The Bill which I put before the House deals with the matter in this way. The first Clause introduces proportional representation with the single transferable vote. The second Clause deals with the scheme of redistribution to be prepared; the third Clause provides Regulations for the method of voting, and classifying and counting the votes. The fourth Clause deals with the scale of election expenses, about which I shall have something to say later on, and the fifth deals with the commencement of the Act, which means that it shall not come into operation until a General Election takes place. These are simple Clauses, and I am asking you to consider the Bill in the light of the objections made to it. I hear a great deal about the difficulties in connection with the voting, the counting, and other things. The voting is simplicity itself. You have placed upon your voting paper the names of the various candidates, and
  616
  all the voter is required to do is to place the figure 1 against the name of his first favourite, the figure 2 against that of his next favourite, the figure 3 against the next, and so on down the list. He may, if he likes, only vote for one or for two or for three, or he may vote for the whole lot. There is no restriction upon him. As long as he keeps to the figures no trouble arises, but if he places a cross instead of a figure opposite the name, then the paper is rendered a bad one. There can be no complication about a simple matter of this kind. I should think that if any man or woman is unable to do that we should question whether they are able to exercise the franchise at all, but I do not believe there is any person of ordinary intelligence who will not find it a perfectly simple thing. May I remind the House that in guardians elections at the present time you get a list of candidates and the voters go down that list—although they vote by means of a cross and not by means of a figure—and no difficulty whatever arises. I hear someone say that it will create a lot of spoiled votes. Is there an election under the present system where there are not spoiled votes? Whatever system you have, there will always be spoiled votes. Some time ago I had a friend who was very intellectual but a little forgetful, and quite innocently, during an election in which there were two candidates, he managed to promise his vote to both. He did not know what to do, but ultimately he voted for both and salved his conscience in that way I think I have said enough to dispose of the bogey raised as to the complexity of the vote.
  The next question is in regard to the counting. Someone who wanted to use strong language said it was a jig-saw puzzle; I do not think there is any jigsaw puzzle in it, and, as I will show, any sixth form boy in a public school could work it. We have to arrive first of all at what is known as the quota. That is the number of votes which a candidate must get in order to be elected. If there are 100 votes, and one member to be elected, half of that number plus 1 is sufficient to return a candidate. I am using small figures advisedly. If, for argument's sake, there are two members to be elected, then one-third of the-number plus 1 will elect a candidate. If there are three, a quarter plus 1 is the quota, and if there

  617
  are four, one-fifth plus 1, and so on. As long as a person obtains that quota, no difficulty arises in regard to him. His election is assured. Suppose that as the result of the election a candidate obtains the quota and is duly elected. If he is a popular man he will get a great deal more than he requires. Our theory is that it is a pity to waste those votes. So those votes are taken into consideration and are used for the purpose of electing the next favourite of those who voted for the popular man. If the quota for an election is 2,000, and a man gets 3,000—or 1,000 more than is wanted—that 1,000 is used for the next choice on the ballot papers. Let me explain further what I mean. On each voting paper there are names marked 1, 2, 3, and so on. The number 1's count up to 3,000, and the quota being 2,000 the 1,000 in excess is distributed amongst the candidates marked as second choice.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but may I ask him whether the 2,000 voting papers which give the candidate the quota are subsequently dead and all preferences that have been marked on them count no further in the election?
  Sir T. BRAMSDON: I hope I shall not be interrupted more than is necessary, and I will try to make it clear. I was coming to the very point about which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. If there are 3,000 voting papers, and 2,000 Is the number required to elect, then all 3,000 voting papers are searched again for the second choices, and a proportion is allotted among the second choices, the proportion being one-third; for the elected member can spare 1,000 out of 3,000. Then if a candidate receives a sufficient number he is immediately elected. I think I can illustrate it best in this way. The voter says to the returning officer, "I want you to look at my voting paper. Will you please gather together all those that have the figure 1 for my favourite, and after you have done so, if he has too many, or if he has not enough to be of any use, will you please give my superfluous or useless vote to my second choice on my paper, and if he does not need it will you give it to the third on my paper until my vote becomes effectual. I have only one vote. I cannot therefore do any harm by asking you to allocate that vote to advantage." By
  618
  these means the vote is used, and if anyone succeeds in getting the quota, either with first choices or with the assistance of transferred votes, he is elected. It is suggested there may be great difficulty in counting the votes, but I should like to point out that in Ireland, consequent upon the municipal elections, there were 120 contests and not one of the districts experienced any difficulty in connection with the counting of the votes. The returns were duly made to the Irish Local Government Board which congratulated the returning officers on the way in which the work had been done. I do not know that the Irish are a particularly brilliant body of men compared even with the Scots or perhaps with the English or the Welsh. Surely the wily little Welshman will be quite able to understand the counting of the votes? May I say in connection with the Universities which, at the present time, have proportional representation that no difficulty whatever was experienced in connection with the counting of the votes. That gets rid of another bogey.
  We have just had an illustration of the system in the House in which some hon. Members took part, and I do not think that anyone found any difficulty in understanding the method of counting. It is often suggested that you will not get people to vote under this system—that there will be a lessening of the number of voters. Again let me take Ireland as an example. In the local elections there recently 70 per cent, of the electorate voted in Dublin, Cork, and other large towns, and my hon. Friends opposite will be glad to know that in Londonderry no fewer than 92 per cent, voted. That is not bad when you consider what usually takes place in connection with municipal elections. My own experience is that nothing like the proportion that took part in the elections in Ireland under the system tried there take part in the contests under ordinary conditions. Therefore, if we extend the system, I think the results will be found to be satisfactory. Again, it has been suggested that the areas are so large and wide that the Member will lose his personality. I may be pardoned for again referring to my own experience. I have represented Portsmouth off and on for the last 21 years. It is a borough containing 227,000 inhabitants. Although I now represent only a portion.

  619
  of the borough, and not the borough as a whole, I hope I have not lost my personality there. I feel, at any rate, that I continue to represent the borough as a whole. What I think the introduction of this new system will do will be to induce the electors to seek out those local men who are best known and trusted. They will be chosen to represent the constituencies and they will become the Members. I think it is better that Members should be in contact with the whole constituency rather than assuming that they represent merely one portion of the area. I Consider Portsmouth as my constituency, although I only represent a portion of it, and I do not think I have lost my personality merely because I do represent but part of the area.
  I should like to refer to some of the places that have adopted this system. When I deal with those on the Continent I do so with some trepidation, and I hope the House will forgive me if I mention names which are not altogether acceptable. Before the War, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland were using the system. Since the War, Denmark, Holland, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia and Austria, Jugo-Slavia, and all the countries established by the Peace have now adopted this principle of representation. The Peace Treaty contains Clauses providing for its application in Smyrna. In English-speaking countries proportional representation has made similar progress, and in some of the States of Australia, in New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and the United States it is now in operation—in some places for municipal elections only and in others for Parliamentary elections as well. The British Parliament has embodied proportional representation in several Acts because this method of voting was found to be the most satisfactory method to ensure the representation of minorities. In 1918 it was applied to the Universities. In 1919 it was applied to the elections for county education authorities throughout Scotland; in 1920 it was applied to local elections in Ireland; and in 1921 it will be applied, under the provisions of the Act passed last Session, to the forthcoming Parliamentary elections in Ireland. The system has also been recently confirmed in New South Wales, and it is proposed to introduce it in Malta. The system is
  620
  gradually extending, and I think that is the best proof of its popularity and usefulness.
  I want to correct one or two misapprehensions which are contained in a circular recently issued by those who do not quite see eye to eye with us in this matter. First, I will refer to the case of New South Wales. There, there was a somewhat smaller vote than might have been expected, but I think it was due to two conditions. One was that the voter was required to sign a declaration of identity before he voted, and the other was that he was called upon to vote for every candidate on the voting paper, otherwise his vote would be lost. What could one expect when conditions like that are insisted upon. It must minimise the number of persons who vote. There have been some statements made by distinguished public men to the effect that the system has not been successful, but what can you expect from opponents? Let me give the view of the Prime Minister of New South Wales, the Hon. J. Storey. He said:
  "I was prejudiced against proportional representation, but I am bound to admit, looking at it impartially and in the interests of the country as a whole, that I believe it to be the better of the two systems."
  I think that should effectively dispose of any difficulty in connection with New South Wales. Another statement I see in the papers is that proportional representation was adopted in England from 1867 to 1885. That is a mistake. It was not proportional representation. There were 13 constituencies in the country that were enabled to return three candidates, and the elector could vote for two persons out of three. That is not proportional representation, or anything like it. I am not surprised that that was discontinued in 1885, and a good thing, too. I think if I had had any voting on it, I should have voted for its extinction. What we are voting for now is of an entirely different character.
  I want to deal with a few figures showing the results under single-Member constituencies, and what would have been the case under proportional representation. This is quoted from the Manchester Statistical Society, and was accepted as evidence at Mr. Speaker's Conference. In 1885 the Liberal majority of 158 under the present system, should have been 92 under proportional representation. In

  621
  1886 there was a Conservative majority of 104 under the present system. Under proportional representation there should have been a Liberal majority of 18. So that actually in 1886 the country was governed by a minority. In 1906 there was a Liberal majority of 356 under the present system. Under proportional representation there should have been 114, thus showing the great increase which the Liberals got in 1906 compared with what they ought to have got. In 1918, the last election, there was a Coalition majority of 414 under the present system, whereas there should have been 114 under proportional representation. Those are not my figures, nor the figures of any society with which I am connected. They are the statistical figures of the Manchester Statistical Society, and I think will be accepted as good evidence. Let us go a little further. In the 1918 election the 414 Members represented 13,000 votes each. In that year the Opposition represented 50,000 votes each. I say that is very unfair, and though it happens to fall in with the views which I hold at the present time, the boot may be on the other leg the next time, and an act of injustice may be done to the party now in power. In am for justice all round. I can imagine, when I used those figures, that what was in the mind of hon. Members was that there was a reduced majority throughout all those cases. A good job, too. I venture to think, under the present system, huge majorities do not work well. Members are slack in their attendance, and independent; they do not take that interest in the work they otherwise would do, and sufficient evidence could be produced to show that the best work this country has ever done has been done during the time of a small majority.
  The next point which I am sure is in the mind of the House is the question of expense. I can imagine hon. Members saying, "Oh, but this system of large areas is going to cost a lot of money." Not at all. Let me point out what is in the Bill about that—
  "In any constituency formed under the scheme referred to in Clause 2 of this Act, and whether at a general election or a by-election the permissible expenses of a candidate (other than personal expenses and the fee of £75 or £50 paid to the election agent) shall not exceed a sum equal to the amount which would be permissible under the principal Act divided by the number of members assigned to that constituency by the said scheme."
  622
  That means that there will be no greater expense incurred in fighting this larger constituency than there is under the present circumstances. I think the Labour party teach us a good lesson in regard to the question of expense. I am sure we have all been struck by the smallness of expense which they have incurred in connection with elections. Possibly it may be that they have not got any more money. I expect that will be the retort, but, still, as it is, they are not unsuccessful in their fighting and in their results, and in many instances, I should think, their expenses would be a third or perhaps a fourth of those which are incurred by other Members. Is it really necessary to waste all this money in elections? I have spent a good deal of money in my time in fighting elections, and I have often thought that a great deal.of it might have been avoided. If I show that my friends of the Labour party can fight successfully on a third or a quarter of the money which others spend, there, again, there need be no trouble whatever as regards expense. I have fought Portsmouth as a whole on four occasions, and I did not spend any more money on those occasions than I did on the last occasion, when I stood for a part of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "More electors! "]
  I believe a good deal is going to be made against this Bill on the ground that six smart men might engineer the whole election; in other words, that the Act can be gerrymandered. Nothing of the kind! There is some statement in this pamphlet to which I have referred about six smart men and three candidates— A, B, and C. If it is looked at seriously, it will be seen that it is unworkable. Though the scheme of proportional representation has been discussed and criticised by the finest mathematical minds, I will make the bold statement that it is impossible for you to gerrymander it. It is easy enough to make statements that it can be done, but it is a very difficult thing to prove it, and I defy anyone to prove it by demonstration that this system can be gerrymandered. I think hon. Members will have seen in the papers quite recently a list of men and women who are enthusiastic supporters of this measure. It is not too much to say that a very large proportion of the great thinkers of the country are in favour of this measure. I do not like to keep on reading extracts, but I

  623
  cannot help reading a few from Unionist papers in Ireland following on the last election which took place there. Take the "Daily Express" in Dublin:
  "A great success has been gained for the system of proportionate representation. It has in difficult and critical circumstances demonstrated its power to do all that was claimed of it."
  Take the "Belfast News Letter":
  "Under the proportional representation system there is no margin for slackness. Every vote passed has its weight in the enumeration."
  Take the "Cork Constitution":
  "The test of popular feeling and favour could not well he applied under more unfavourable circumstances. Yet the results achieved go very far to justify it as an improvement on the system it has displaced."
  Finally take the "Irish Times":
  "The system of proportional representation has come to stay. We believe that the early future will see its adoption for municipal and Parliamentary elections throughout the United Kingdom."
  Let me refer again to those pamphlets circulated by the opponents to the Bill in which, after referring to the difficulties attending the counting of the vote, they say: " What a contrast is all this to the simple and reliable system of one straightforward vote for one candidate and no more on the principle that the first past the post wins."
  My hon. Friends need not be afraid that the sporting element will be eliminated, because there will still be other events to follow beyond the first win of the favourite. I am afraid I do not understand horseracing but if I do the analogy will be this, that there are other places to be obtained, and their friends may or may not get a place.
  I understand that there is to be a determined opposition to my Bill. I am very glad to hear it, because it shows there is something very good in it. Let us go back a little into history. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! "] I will not take long. Note the opposition which took place in 1832 to the Reform Act. Take the Household Suffrage Act of 1867. History tells us how Disraeli dished the Whigs. There was considerable opposition to the extension of the franchise in 1884, and goodness knows there has been opposition enough to the Home Rule Bill, but it has been passed and has come to stay. I do not say that there will not
  624
  be some opposition to this measure. There was even opposition to the Daylight Saving Bill which was supposed to be a ridiculous measure. It has become law. What I want to do to-day is to throw a little more daylight into this Bill. I cannot help feeling that though, as to-day, we have had a partial eclipse of the sun, which has passed, and the brightness come again, so brightness will come to this measure and it will ultimately be placed on the Statute Book.
  Major HENDERSON: I beg to move, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months."
  My hon. Friend who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has referred to a great many points. I, myself, do not propose to refer to all these points. For instance, I do not propose to refer to the history of proportional representation, nor do I propose to refer to its workings either in the Colonies, in Ireland, or abroad. That can be done by others rather than by myself—others like my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) are far better qualified to do it than I am. I would like to refer to two points in this Bill itself. The hon. Member has said nothing at all about bye-elections. I myself do not think that any system is a good system which is not capable of universal application. Yet the House will observe that under this Bill not only will some constituencies which-are sparsely populated be cut off from the working of proportional representation, but where you get a bye-election it will not be worked under proportional representation at all, and the two systems, therefore, will be side by side. You will get a number of Members elected at the General Election by proportional representation and at the bye-elections by the direct vote. That is likely to cause nothing but friction and confusion.
  The House will also observe that the constituencies which are to be formed under this Bill are to be three, five, or seven-membered constituencies. I presume they will not have four or six, because anybody who has any knowledge of proportional representation knows you cannot work it adequately with an equal number of members in a constituency; that very largely results in a tie. Suppose, then, there are to be either three

  625
  Members or five, or seven Members. The adoption of a three-membered constituency under proportional representation is to a very large extent a return to the old system which was in force in this country in certain districts between 1867 and 1885, when it was abolished under the Redistribution of Seats Act. That system did not prove successful. It resulted in absolute apathy in most parts of the country, because the majority found they could never get more than two seats, and the minority never more then one; the result was that neither side ever wanted an election. In one or two districts, like the city I represent, Glasgow, where the majority was so strong that they could carry the whole of the seats, they could only do it by the most extraordinary discipline on the part of the electors themselves. Where you got three Members elected they were elected by dividing up the electorate into three different bodies, one body voting for A and B, another body voting for B and C, and another voting for A and C. If that is freedom of election I am afraid I do not see it.
  There are equal difficulties with regard to Members in five or seven-member constituencies into which I do not propose to enter, but I want to remind the House of two points. One is that if you have a big constituency with five Members and you proceed with your party to elect your five candidates—or, much more likely, four, because you probably would not be able to carry the five—there are bound to be certain anomalies. Some of the men might be well known, men like Cabinet Ministers, say, the older men, and the others would not be so well known. Yet these younger men have to bear the same expense, knowing perfectly well that under this system they stand much less chance of election. There is, therefore, bound to be a much greater chance of friction amongst Members belonging to the same party than under the present system, where every Member gets his own constituency to fight without regard to anybody else. What I say, has actually happened in the working of proportional representation in Australia. It has led to personal bitterness amongst the candidates of the same party.
  There is also another point. I quite acknowledge that under this system the expenses will not be great, but there will
  626
  be this very remarkable difference: where you have Members running in a team they will be able to do much more with their money than where you have an independent Member running by himself. That, however, will result in Members like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wrekin Division (Sir C. Townshend) being wiped out of existence altogether. That has actually happened in New South Wales, where all Independent Members have ceased to hold their seats in the House. If this House thinks it a good thing for the Independents to be wiped out, well and good; but one of the claims of proportional representation is that the Independent Member will have a much greater chance than ever before. Apart from the system of minority representation from 1867 to 1885 we had also the system of cumulative voting in this country at the school board elections. I do not propose to refer to them except to remind the House of this, that when the school boards in Scotland were abolished the voting was replaced by proportional representation, so that we have proportional representation in operation in Scotland now so far as the election of the educational authorities is concerned. I voted at the last proportional representation election in Glasgow, and so know something of what the election is like. I have given considerable study to the result of that election since, and if the House will bear with me I want to make some reference to it because it is an example by which we can judge proportional representation on its merits.
  In the first place, I would like to say that the percentage of electors voting in Glasgow at that election was 27, which is the smallest percentage of electors who have ever voted at a school board election in that city. I do not say that was entirely due to proportional representation, but I say certainly that it was to some extent due to proportional representation, because the elector did not take the same interest in a system which was complicated in its machinery. My hon. Friend opposite (Sir T. Bramsdon), who moved this Bill, tried to explain to the House the system of transferring the surplus votes. I cannot congratulate him on his explanation. To begin with, it was not accurate, and secondly, it was not complete. There are two systems by which votes are transferred. There is

  627
  the system by which surplus votes are transferred from the candidates who are at the top of the poll, and there is the system by which votes are transferred from the candidates who are at the bottom of the poll who have no possible chance of being elected. There are considerable possibilities in the transference of the votes. Let me explain. The Eegu-lations issued by the Scottish Office for this proportional representation election do not explain the thing, but try to explain it. It says here:
  "If the total number of transferable papers is greater than the surplus, the Returning Officer shall transfer from each sub-parcel the number of papers which bears the same proportion to the number of papers in the sub-parcel as the surplus bears to the total number of transferable papers."
  What it means is, that where a successful Member has gained his quota he has a certain surplus of votes. They take the whole of those votes, including the ones which carried him in, and divide them into sub-parcels, but they only allow each of those sub-parcels to get a proportion of those votes, and that proportion is the same as the surplus bears to the total number of tranferred votes. This means that each of those candidates dependent for election on getting these preferences does not get his full number, but only a proportion of his votes. I am not arguing whether that is fair or not, because it is obvious you only take a certain proportion, and you do not take the number required to put the first man in. What happens to the candidate at the bottom? The rule is:
  "If at any time no candidate has a surplus and one or more vacancies remain unfilled, the returning officer shall exclude from the poll the candidate credited with the lowest number of votes, and shall examine all the papers of that candidate, and shall arrange the transferable papers in sub-parcels according to the next preferences recorded thereon for continuing candidates, and shall transfer each sub-parcel to the candidate for whom that preference is recorded."
  From that it will be seen that candidates still waiting election and dependent upon other votes get the whole of their votes from the candidate at the bottom, although they may be third or fourth preference votes, because higher preferences were given to successful candidates, whilst the man who is higher up only gets a proportion, so that the votes transferred from the bottom are of greater value than
  628
  the votes transferred from the top. We have been told that this scheme can be carried out by a schoolboy. But let me read to the House another rule:
  "The number of papers to be tiansferred from each,sub-parcel shall be ascertained by multiplying the number of papers in the sub-parcel by the surplus and dividing the resuit by the total number of transferable papers. A note shall be made of the fractional parts, if any, of each number so ascertained.
  "If, owing to the existence of such fractional parts, the number of papers to be transferred is less than the surplus, so many of these fractional parts taken in the order of their magnitude, beginning with tli3 largest, as are necessary to make the total number of papers to be transferred equal ta the surplus, shall be reckoned as of the value of unity, and the remaining fractional parts, shall be ignored."
  1.0 P.M.
  Then it goes on making further referenceto these fractional parts. I have only dealt with this point in order to tryand make the House appreciate that although to some people the idea may be simple in the case of a toy election, when it comes to carrying out an election in a great city like Glasgow, it is not so-simple, and it is absolutely unfair, because the votes have an unequal value, and certain candidates do not get their proper share of votes as compared with other candidates. It may be said that the machinery can be improved, but the more complicated you make your machinery under proportional representation, the more liable you will be to make errors of this kind. Under this system, in one ward in the Glasgow election to which I have referred, one candidate had 1,150 votes on the first preference, but he was not elected, whilst another who polled only 229 votes on the first poll was elected. That is an example of giving a later preference, which has almost as great a value as the first preference.
  I have so far only dealt with what I might describe as the machinery, but apart from the machinery there are many more forcible objections. At the proportional representation election in Glasgow there were six Labour candidates who were successful, and not a single one of those candidates was elected on a first preference and they were all dependent for their election on the transfer of certain votes from another party. In that election there were three parties, the Moderate party, the Roman Catholic party, and the Labour party, and the

  629
  surplus votes by which the Labour party got in were transferred from the Roman Catholic party. I am not making any allegations of unfairness, but I think the House will appreciate that under proportional representation it is possible for two minorities to come to an agreement by which each will transfer its surplus votes to the other on the understanding that they will thereby each achieve their own object. I am convinced, although I have not been in politics very long, that any system of election by which you will encourage bargaining is bound to degrade the whole political life of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about coupons?"]. That was not a bargain, but an union.
  Let me give an example of what I mean. Hon. Members will recollect that the present condition of Ireland may be due to certain causes, but it is largely the result of the fact that the Home Rule Bill was the result of a bargain between two parties in this House. If the Home Rule question had never been treated as a great political bargain between Mr. Gladstone and the Nationalist party, I do not believe that Ireland would have been in her present condition, and I do not think there is any sane man in this House who wishes to see a repetition of bargaining of that kind. The tendency to make bargains under proportional representation will increase, because even the advocates of this system assert that you will get much smaller majorities behind the Government, and the consequences will be that the Government will have to look round to try and get support from every quarter to maintain itself in power. This has happened in other countries under proportional representation. It has happened in Tasmania.
  I am absolutely convinced that at the present time, when we get these grave risks of great industrial disturbances, it is essential that the Government of the day, to whatever party it may belong, should have behind it a strong working majority in the House of Commons. I am also sure that unless you have a Government with a strong majority behind it you will have continual uncertainty in trade and consequent unemployment, because people will never know whether the Government is going out of office, with a consequent change of policy. If every minority in this country were to have representation, I would like to know
  630
  what the result would be. According to Whitaker's Almanack, there are some 700 different societies in this country. If you carry Proportional Representation to its logical conclusion, it means that you will have to bring 700 different people, representing 700 different societies, into this House. There would be just enough seats. Does any Member really think that the business of this House is likely to be accelerated by having people of that kind representing their different interests? We all know perfectly well that experts are notoriously bad legislators, and bad administrators. They have a narrow, single point of view, and they do not look at the world from the wider outlook which is essential to the business of this House. Yet, if you carry proportional representation to its logical conclusion, that is what will happen. That was the intention of the originator of proportional representation. His idea was that the whole of the country should form one constituency, and that all the Members should be elected for that one constituency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, in moving this Bill, said that under the working of proportional representation personality would count for more than anything else. What is to become of the young man? What chance would he have of working a constituency on his merits? He would have to take his chance alongside older men who had already proved their merits. The probability is that the younger man would' go down. You would cease to get the younger men, and would thereby lose one of the greatest assets that this House has, because all Governments must look to the young men from whom to find their future administrators, and not to men who come into this House when they are old. Let me give two examples of what would have happened under proportional Representation at two General Elections, in Glasgow. In 1900 there were seven Members for Glasgow, and the seats were carried by 7 Unionists. If we had had proportional representation at that time, according to the votes cast, the Unionists would have won five seats and the Liberals two. There were no Labour-candidates at that election. The seven Unionist Members were Lord Scott-Dickson, as he is now, who although he had never been a Member had twice contested a constituency in Glasgow; Sir

  631
  Alexander Cross, who had sat for his constituency several years; Mr. J. Baird, who had sat for his constituency 14 years; Mr. Cameron Corbett, who had sat for his constituency 15 years; Sir John Stirling Maxwell, one of the best known men in Glasgow; Mr. Wilson, and the late Leader of this House (Mr. Bonar Law). Neither the late Leader of this House nor Mr. Wilson had ever fought a constituency in Glasgow, or, as far, as I know, anywhere else before. They were entirely unknown in politics, and the probability, almost the certainty, is that, if that election had been fought under proportional representation, the first five gentlemen would have been elected,-and the late Leader of this House and Mr. Wilson would never have secured election. In 1906 we lost all our Unionist seats in Glasgow, and we only gained one or two of them back in 1910. The probability therefore is that the late Leader of this House would never have come to this House at all.
  Let me give another example. At the last General Election, in 1918, Glasgow returned 15 Members. The probability is that the seats in Glasgow under proportional representation would be so distributed that we should have three constituencies, each returning five Members—five in the west, five in the east, and five on the south side of the river. If the election had been held under proportional representation, there would have been on the south side of the river four Coalition Members and one Labour Member. That happened under the direct system, and there would have been no change; but there would have been a great change so far as the Labour party are concerned. At that time, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorhals (Mr. G. Barnes) was opposed by Mr. John Maclean, the Bolshevik Consul for Glasgow, and leader of one of the Extremist parties in the West of Scotland. He is a Bolshevik out and out, and he had been just released from prison to fight his election He was a popular hero, and was pulled through the streets on a lorry by thousands of young men who never went to the War, but who ought to have done so. I have not the slightest doubt that if we had had proportional representation on the south side of Glasgow at that election, the Labour Member elected would not have been the
  632
  hon. Member for Govan, but Mr. John Maclean. I hope that the House will observe that under this magnificent system we should have lost the services of one of the best leaders this House has ever had, and that a few years later we should have obtained the services of a man who is not only one of the most extreme men in this country, but who does not believe in representative government at all.
  I would like to refer to one other point which my hon. Friend opposite has mentioned, but which I do not think he appreciates, because he does not represent a city of the size of Glasgow. He only represents a constituency which, so far as Glasgow is concerned, I might describe as a mere village. We have heard a great deal about Proportional Representation being the representation of parties in proportion to their strength, but there is another side to representation about which we do not hear so much in the House, but which to my mind is very much more important. When Edward I first called together members from England, he called so many burgesses from so many towns, and so many knights from every shire. When His Majesty the other day summoned this House by Proclamation he called so many burgesses from every town, and so many knights from every shire. The original intention in calling together those gentlemen was, not that they should form political parties, but that they should represent the views and interests of the constituencies from which they came. I maintain, and will always maintain, that under the present system a Member returned to this House for a definite area, representing a definite number of people, is far better qualified to represent them and to air their views than any Member who runs in a team and represents an enormous constituency which he cannot possibly know. If under Proportional Representation I had been elected on the south side of Glasgow, I should have been one of five Members representing 171,000 electors. I am a Glasgow man and I have been connected with Glasgow through my father and grandfather, and the constituency which I represent is one which I have known for a great many years. I know all the works in the constituency, I know the men, and I know the employers. I know most of the shops, and I know the

  633
  people. I know all the workpeople and I know the dockers. I know those men and women, not because I want to canvass them and get them to vote for me, but because I believe it is my duty, as representing the Tradeston Division of Glasgow, to find out what are those people's ideas, so that if they have any difficulties and troubles, I can represent and help them.
  A Member of Parliament of a big constituency is in many ways almost the father and mother of his constituents. People have got to remember that. We who sit in this House know perfectly well that there have been in the past two years hundreds of cases of pensions, civil liability claims, demobilisation claims, and things of that sort which are nothing to do with parties. They are personal questions. You get very often a man or a woman appealing to you about domestic troubles, and what has that got to do with party politics? It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with it. Under proportional representation the personal side of politics goes absolutely by the board. How am I to get into touch with 171,000 electors under proportional representation, and what can they know of me? The whole basis of the early representation of this House, away back to the days of Edward I., would be absolutely destroyed. The idea of parties is quite a modern idea. There were no parties in the old days, but there was representation, and there would be no representation under proportional representation, and cannot be. Again, how can they apportion a division between five Members? Can they say, "You will represent the old division for which you formerly sat?" Suppose a man outside the division writes to me and says, "I voted for you at the last Election." I have to look after him. What would happen would be that one or two industrious Members out of the five would do all the work, and the other three would do none of it, but when the election came the industrious Members would not necessarily be reelected. They would probably be young Members, and they would go by the board and the older men would stay where they were before. I do not think there is any encouragement under proportional representation for any young man to enter this House, and under it unquestionably you will not get young
  634
  men coming forward. I hope the House will vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, and I ask them to remember that the future of this country depends, not upon machinery, but upon men, and that the future of this House depends, not on paper Parliaments, but upon personalities.
  Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It seems amazing to me in these times that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon), who is normally so temperate and judicious, should come to this House to tilt against what has been one of the most cherished and familiar features of the English Constitution. Surely in days like this it is more our duty to settle down and to work the Constitution which we have than to import into our public life a purely artificial arrangement, devised by cranks and doctrinaires, which has never been considered by the constituents who sent us here, and for which there is no evidence whatever of any public demand in the country. There is something inherently vicious in the political philosophy which lies at the basis of my hon. Friend's proposals. He talked of the complications of proportional representation as if they would appeal to our sense of humour, but his case really rested on the logical plea that the Members of Parliament should be in proportion to the voting strength of their areas. That is a purely abstract proposition, and this country has always shown an inflexible resistance to applying so-called philosophic and abstract generalisations of this sort to its political machinery. The test of any political institution is not logic but expediency, and the way in which it works in actual practice, and there is no evidence whatever to show that proportional representation is intrinsically good, even if it does appeal to those who are now framing constitutions for the Balkan States and Czecho-Slovakia.
  Let us, however, apply to the carrying on of Government here the assumption that Proportional Representation has been adopted. First of all, it is absolutely clear that no Government can ever enjoy a large or even adequate majority under Proportional Representation. My hon. Friend said that in 1886, after Home Rule had been decisively rejected at the

  635
  elections, the Liberals ought to have had a majority of 18. I understand that in 1895, instead of a Unionist majority of 152, according to his scheme there would have been a Unionist majority of 12. It is elementary—and every Member of the House must recognise it—that Governments cannot be carried on under those conditions at the present time. First of all, there is the intolerable strain on the private Member, who would not under those circumstances be able to have any rest at all from attendance at the House and who would have to take part in all Divisions, but quite apart from the question of the physique and the interests of the private Member, look at it from the point of view of the Government. The King's Government must be carried on; and even at the present time,' with the huge majority which this Government enjoys, it is a very difficult and a very cumbrous process indeed to get any measure put on the Statute Book. There are very many difficulties in the way of Bills becoming the law of the land even where the large majority of the House are heart and soul in favour of them. There is the difficulty of the procedure of the House, which safeguards the rights of minorities to debate everything at great length; there is the large number of Members who wish to speak on every question, and there is the incorrigible prolixity of many Members -of Parliament. It is so difficult under the present condition of affairs for a Government enjoying a large majority to get a Bill passed into law, and it would be infinitely more difficult for a Government whose majority was 6 or 12. It seems to me to be absolutely impossible for any Government, even a Government which would appeal more than the present one to my hon. Friend, to pass any controversial measure at all with a majority so slender.
  My hon. Friend has said that under Proportional Representation there would be more independence than now, but that seems to me to be most unlikely. One reason why the present House of Commons is so independent is that the Government's majority is so big that the back bench Members on the Government side can afford to be independent, whereas if the Government majority were only 6 or 10, those back bench Members could not afford to be independent to the same
  636
  degree, and if you look at Continental analogies, in Belgium all independence is eliminated. There all the various Conservative parties have amalgamated into a Conservative Clerical party, and all the Liberal and so-called Progressive parties have amalgamated also into another party. Independence has been squeezed out. It is a most important point in the question of carrying on a Government, that a Ministry relying on a very small majority cannot carry on the business of a Government efficiently. It follows, therefore, that there must be very many more General Elections than there are at the present time. The life of a Government which relies on a majority of 10 cannot possibly be so long as the life of a Government which enjoys a majority running into three figures, and if you are going to have continual elections, you cannot get that continuity in policy which is so healthy to the country over a span of years. Even if it is a Radical Cabinet in power, one does not want to see it go out of power every three weeks; one wants to see the Cabinet settle down and show its best or its worst, as the case may be. I have been arguing from the point of view of the Government, but look at it now from the point of view of the private Member again, and it will be seen that Proportional Representation is even more detrimental. The more General Elections you have in the country, the more onerous it is for a private Member of moderate means to remain in public life. At the present time it is hard enough for a poor man to fight elections and to carry on his political work if he has to earn his livelihood at the same time, and I think it very desirable that we should have as large a number of men of moderate means as possible in the House of Commons, simply because they reflect most clearly what the great majority of the people in the country are.
  At the present time the population of England can be roughly divided into two classes, the new poor and the old poor. The man of moderate means represents both much more accurately than the rich man or the Labour Member, who has the overflowing coffers of trade unions and co-operative societies to draw upon. Looking at proportional representation from the point of view of the poor man, how, if he wishes to preserve independence of the caucus,

  637
  can he stand the strain of constantly recurring elections? How can he stand a bye-election when he has to fight a constituency of 200,000 electors? Moreover, if the calls of a division of moderate size are very heavy at the present time, how much more heavy will be the calls of the large area which my hon. Friend wishes to introduce as a parliamentary unit, i should like those hon. Members who are going to speak in support of this measure later, to deal with some of the great difficulties which are inevitably -associated with this principle of huge electoral areas. There is the question alluded to by my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, of remaining in touch with your constituents. At the present time the electors of all parties are glad to put confidence in and to seek help and advice from their Member, because they regard him as " Our Member." They know who he is. Under the new system it will be absolutely impossible for a candidate at an election to visit every polling district in a huge area, and it will be very difficult, indeed, for him to remain in touch with the whole of the wide and scattered constituency after he has become elected. There is no analogy or comparison at all between the case of a Member of Parliament and that of a guardian elected for a little town in Ireland. I am not a bit impressed by those arguments from Ireland. We are told with great pride by advocates of proportional representation how wonderfully the scheme has worked on the Dublin City Council; out of 80, members, no less than one Unionist has been returned. That seems to me to be not a very forcible argument.
  Again, it must lessen the political interest in a division if that division is amalgamated in a great county area. Political interest at the present time is very much correlated with local interest and local keenness. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) is going to speak later, and other hon. and right hon. Members will no doubt allude to the desirability of keeping alive these historic seats which they have the satisfaction to represent in the House of Commons. I should like to make a plea also for the new seats which came into existence in 1918, and which would be absolutely wiped out if this scheme were adopted. It seems to me to be most eminently desirable to preserve and value that very keen and
  638
  vivid interest in public life which has been aroused in these new districts by giving them for the first time in their history a conscious political identity. Perhaps I may follow my hon. and, gallant Friend who spoke just now by alluding to my own constituency. The Division of Moss Side, which I represent, was, I am sure, absolutely unknown to every Member of the House until the redistribution in 1918. It is one of the many districts which have grown up during the development of industrial life. Fifty years ago it was simply' a district of green fields and country lanes, which are described Jin one of the novels of Mrs. Gaskell. Gradually the population of the great City of Manchester came and covered those fields with suburban life, and you now have drab and monotonous streets running right over what was once simply countryside. If a division like that becomes simply a part of the huge area of Southern Lancashire, returning one-seventh of the representatives of that area, it cannot have that lively local interest in its affairs which it now has. As I have said it is utterly unknown to the ordinary person who lives outside the district. I do not suppose that to this day the Prime Minister knows that he was born in that division. So far as the people are concerned, however, it gives them an interest in politics when they know that they have their own local Member, and that interest will be absolutely destroyed if proportional representation is adopted.
  As a last point I should like to emphasise what is, after all, the main objection, and one of even more importance than those which I have brought forward already. Any system of this sort must inevitably lead to bargaining and bartering between two of the three great political parties. Only the other day we all read, incorporated in one of those pamphlets which have been passed round to Members of the House, a propoaal brought forward by a party agent in the North of England suggesting that the bringing forward of the measure was a golden opportunity for a compact between his party and one of the other parties, whereby each would transfer its transferable votes to the nominees of the other party, and they would all go together for proportional representation with a view to making a compact to get into power

  639
  I am not going to give his name or district, because there is no point in conferring upon him in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT an immortality of disrepute. It is simply what many hon. Members in the. House and many newspapers in the country have been suggesting for many months past; it is an absolutely immoral principle. The idea that, in order to "do in " another party, you are to sacrifice your principles by making a bargain with another party in whose ideas you do not believe seems to me to strike at the root of all honesty. In seconding the rejection of this Bill I feel that I am doing what I can, and I hope the House will do what it can, to sustain purity in politics and to uphold the relatively high tradition of honour which still governs our public life.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I have listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and I give him credit for the best intentions possible in proposing this Bill, as I do to those who have put their names on the back of it. After the telling speeches made by the Mover and Seconder of the rejection, there seems to be very little argument left, but I rise because my position personally in the matter is a somewhat peculiar one. I have no doubt that the motives of those who are proposing this Bill are chivalrous motives—motives of chivalry in favour of small minorities, which they seek to protect in all parts of the country and to foster into an unnecessary importance. We have all at times had the misfortune of being in the minority, and I suppose that, in the view of the promoters of this Bill, there is a certain moral excellence or intellectual prestige gained by being in the minority. I myself, in the course of a long life, have often found myself in a minority, but I was careful to do all that I could to strip myself of that prestige of intellectual or moral superiority which it gave me. The main political parties in this country are formed upon broad lines, and not upon the minute and infinitesimal streams which flow on in obscurity. As I have said, my own position in this matter is peculiar. I represent the only three-cornered constituency in the country, the only constituency, that is to say, in which proportional representation may
  640
  be said to a certain extent to be actually in existence. I observe that the hon. Member (Sir T. Bramsdon) said the simple limitation of votes given by the Act of 1867 was not in his mind proportional representation at all, and that therefore we have never really tried pro portional representation under the Act of 1867. But with singular inconsistency the hon. Member instanced the case of the Scottish Universities as the one to which proportional representation had been applied—exactly the same system as was adopted in the three-cornered constituencies.
  When the question of applying proportional representation to the Universities came forward Sir John Simon, who was promoting it very strongly, assumed as a probability, knowing my views, that I should oppose it and use every effort against it. I disabused him at once. I said that, strongly as I was opposed to proportional representation, the complexion of Scottish University representation had been for a long period of years of one mind and I thought it would be unfair on my part to have tried to oppose it. But what happened in my constituency? My colleague who shared with me the representation of the Universities and I jointly wrote to our committee saying we were prepared, if unanimously invited, to stand again as the two Unionist candidates, but that we would not under any circumstances consent to stand with a third Unionist candidate. The committee entirely agreed, the correspondence was published, and that was a plain intimation to the minority that if they could select their candidate they would have a walk over. But what might have been an uncontested election was made impossible by the fact that two minute sections thought they might have a chance of securing a seat. My hon. Friend whom I am now proud to call my colleague had to fight for it, and we all had to undergo the cost of an election simply in order that these two minute sections should have their chance. It may be useful to the House to see how proportional representation operated in that case. I was inundated with pamphlets before the election from proportional representation societies. The returning officer told me he was nearly buried under the mass of advice that reached him. The whole resources of the mathematical department of the Universities were to be prepared in order to carry out this very difficult

  641
  operation which had been so lucidly explained in the circular of the Scottish Education Department. We were told it would take 7 or 8 days at least to count the votes. I had my own views about that, and within 10 minutes of the return of the votes the results were given out. Proportional representation missed fire altogether. The charge did not explode, and we were returned perfectly simply, and have lived together, two Unionists and a Liberal, in a perfectly happy family ever since, without that elaborate transfer of votes which might have been the case had half a dozen given people started in the vain hope that proportional representation might have secured them by some means a place on the poll.
  It would take a very short time to enumerate once again the practical inconveniences. First of all, in these large and unwieldy constituencies, how are we to get hold of our constituents? How are we to grope about amongst the mass? It is all very well in a select constituency like my own of 30,000 or 35,000 constituents, but take a constituency with 200,000. How is a candidate to grope about to find his fourth or fifth preferences, which will perhaps help to bring him in? How is he to ascertain those who are in sympathy with his views and whom he ought to try a, nd represent in return for their having given him the fourth or fifth preferences? I plainly tell the promoters of this Bill that, I thank those who give me their first votes, which have returned me for 16 years to this House; I give very little thanks to those who give me their second votes, and I do not want to be dependent upon third or fourth votes. In these big constituencies how are we to understand the sections who think we ought to represent them specially because they give us that low-down preference? How are we to come in personal contact? We are all human beings. Will not rivalry arise between different Members in a huge constituency of that sort? We all understand each other in this special constituency of my own, the only three-cornered constituency. We are not disposed to be rivals of one another. None of us is in position to flood the constituency with large monetary gifts. We are not in the least jealous of the operations of our colleagues in the constituency. Do not hon. Members think that in large and populous constituencies there will be a comparison of subscrip-
  642
  tions, a comparison of attendances at meetings, a comparison of the number of letters answered which will inevitably bring about ill-feeling, jealousy, and friction between the different Members representing the constituency? What about the weakening of this House by having representatives not of great sweeping currents of opinion, but merely diluted small streams representing different cliques? That will be the result. The House will become kaleidoscopic in its character, and the Government even more than the House will suffer from this weakness. No Government will know upon what combination of the different small cliques represented by this artificial system it will have to rely at a particular time. There are two other points which call for attention. You will never hereafter be able to hope for an uncontested election if this system comes into operation. I, in common with others, have shared occasionally in the happy self-complacency of an uncontested election. I do not want to see that made an absolute impossibility in the future. Hon. Members might just as well recognise that in a constituency where there are three, five, or seven Members it is almost impossible that there will not be in some corner a number of small cliques who may think that they may by their third or fourth preference slip in, and in that way give you the trouble of a contested election. Then there is the insoluble difficulty, which has never been answered by the advocates of proportional representation, as to by-elections.
  I turn now from these detailed difficult ties to the broad question on which my fundamental objection to this Bill is based. We cannot rely on the Government of this country to express the views, of the country if we divest ourselves of all local distinction and try to give as little influence as possible to the localities, and if we try to make the great inquest of the nation representative of cliques rather than of large bodies of public opinion. We have never in this country been fond of abstract constitutions that look well on paper. Our greatest political teacher, Edmund Burke, taught this, nation to beware of abstract and paper constitutions. That doctrine has been, embedded in the heart of the nation. Burke spoke to the conscience of the nation when he uttered those words.

  643
  What we want in our constitution is what we have had, that great virtue of simplicity which is, as Swift says, the greatest ornament of all human things. Abstract paper constitutions, cunningly devised, dexterously contrived in order to bring about purely problematical ends, are not consistent with the genius of this nation. We have never had them, and we are not likely to have them. I am reminded of a still greater genius than Burke, of an older age, Dean Swift. Dean Swift wrote a satire, one of the most bitter that has ever been written, in which he described, amongst other things, a certain kingdom of Laputa. In that kingdom they were divided into an infinite number of sects and cliques, and the pundit statesmen who ruled it regulated their constitution as they did their feeding by a system of rhomboids, cycloids, parallelograms and other mathematical figures. It was a most elaborate scheme for carrying on the constitution by mathematical devices. That system was not altogether one that would suit our Constitution.
  We have in this new-fangled scheme of proportional representation, artificial in its essence, two motives at work. One is the motive, which I think is a very dominant motive, the fox-like motive of the caucus. Under no other system could you have such absolutely well-contrived machinery for the caucus. Undoubtedly the caucus would issue its lists. It would give the order of sequence for the candidate, and it would, no doubt, tell the voters from "A" up to a certain letter in the alphabet that they must vote for so and so, and the rest of the letters in the alphabet must vote for another person. In that way they would work in a clever way the election. That is the motive of the fox represented by the caucus. There is also the motive of what I may call the coneys, the small minorities who think that this system would give certain protection for them and would hide them perhaps in the day of storm when big majorities are against them. Looking at the names at the back of the Bill, I wonder if hon. Members have been struck by the fact that a prominent supporter is my right hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Is it not possible that the right hon. Baronet may feel that in this system there is a refuge for decadent opinions,
  644
  and that such as he would perhaps feel that when they had lost their grip on the nation they would slip in to occasional seats by a dexterous use of this elaborate device for representing infinitesimal minorities. It may be said that I belong to a small and dwindling phalanx of Conservatives. I am not ashamed to own it, but I do not want to depend for protection upon these devices and contrivances. No real political faith ever existed or ever grew or ever had real conscious vitality that did not depend upon a struggle in the open, and upon faith, hope and courage. I am much more desirous of preserving the views which I hold, which I hold conscientiously, by conviction, and which have been inherited, and I am much more desirous of defending them and much more hopeful of defending them by appealing to the simple, straightforward and common-sense views that have guided us in our constitution in the past. I do not want to have recourse to the device of the fox or the timidity of the coney which seeks refuge against the growth of public opinion which may affect it adversely. Do not let us break the continuity of our constitution. Let us learn from our own experience of the past.
  Over and over again this House by enormous majorities has rejected this device from the pundits and the pedants of politics. Undoubtedly it was accepted in a Bill of 1867, but it was rejected by the enormous majority of 140 in the House of Commons. It was forced upon this House by a small majority of another place. That was objected to strongly by Lord Beaconsfield. He surrendered only in order to get his Bill through, and because he was rejecting all the other Amendments. When the matter came to be discussed, those who opposed proportional representation were men whose names have lived as among the greatest in political history—Beaconsfield, Gladstone, Bright, and Goschen. One of those supporting it was Mr. John Stuart Mill, more, I think, of a philosopher than a practical politician, and one whose philosophy even is now rather decaying; and another was Mr. Robert Lowe. I have heard many speeches of Mr. Robert Lowe. They were always amusing and edifying, but he was a box compacted of political paradoxes who has left nothing but the memory of a paradoxical and cranky politician gifted with wonderful gifts of

  645
  epigram. We tried it from 1867 to 1885. Then the common sense of the nation reasserted itself. It reverted to the old, plain ways, and it resolved that the great political issues should be decided not by the devices of the pundit, but by the bold, simple methods which our constitution has always followed and upon which it has always flourished.
  Mr. R. YOUNG: I do not think that I can be called a pundit. I am an ordinary working man anxious to see my country safeguarded along constitutional lines. Therefore I recognise that if we are to follow constitutional practices it is necessary that this House can claim to be the correct reflex of the opinion of the country as a whole. I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend (Sir T. Bramsdon). I think that his representation of the system of proportional representation was lucid enough for me to make me realise that, whatever difficulties may be suggested as in its way, could easily be removed. My hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston Division (Major Henderson), in referring to those difficulties, seemed to be trying not merely to disprove the value of proportional representation in its relation to securing correct representation in this House, but I think that he also succeeded in showing very clearly that the present system was not the one which gave us accurate representation of the people outside. If he has made a case against proportional representation at all he certainly did not make a case for continuing the present system. If I understand democracy aright it is, I think, to count heads in the country rather than to crack them. It is far better that we should pursue that policy to the most accurate extent possible. We have been endeavouring to do so for many years by making various suggestions. It has been recognised that our present system was not the reflex of the people as a whole. Suggestions for second ballots have been put forward and suggestions for shorter Parliaments have also been put forward for the purpose of making this House more representative than it has hitherto proved to be, but our endeavours so far have been demonstrated clearly by previous elections not to have succeeded, and we are now in the position of finding ourselves called upon to say whether we believe in democracy and its proper
  646
  representation or not. The test of our belief in democracy is whether we are prepared to make this House thoroughly representative of the people as a whole, and it will be admitted from the particulars given to-day that this House has in past times been and is to-day largely not representative of the people as a whole.
  2.0 P.M.
  We have heard statements made that at one time a Government was in power in this House with a large majority, while the votes recorded in the country were in a majority against it. We know the position of the present Parliament, and we know that the proportion of parties in this House, even in 1918, did not in any way reflect the political opinions of the people outside, and to that fact a great deal of the present discontent is due. If we continue the present system it may very well be that in a short time the pendulum will swing violently in another direction, and you may have in the House of Commons a Labour party with a very large majority who may be in the country in the same proportion as the present Government is at the present moment. I want to be perfectly fair to all parties in the State, and I want to secure such representation that whatever is done in this House can be done knowing that we do represent the people, and I want to obviate the Labour party, should it ever come into power, being placed in a false position such as that in which the Coalition Government is in to-day.
  We have heard in the present Parliament a great deal about the need of constitutionalism. The majority, if not all, the Members of my party are always trying to do their best to continue constitutional practices in this country. I know that we have been told repeatedly by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side that we ought to endeavour on every occasion to secure that whatever reform is desired in politics or industry shall be attained by constitutional means, but the present system is not an encouragement to constitutional action outside. Taking into consideration the attention paid by the working classes as a whole to industrial and economic problems, if you have in this House a Government and a party with a majority who cannot say that they have got a majority in the country in relation to the elections that may have taken

  647
  place, the very fact that such a majority does exist, and is contrary to the votes cast in the country, is a direct incentive to direct action by those outside. Consequently, my hon. Friends on the other side should realise that if they are anxious to see constitutionalism maintained, and to see that direct action does not become a potent influence in this country for forwarding political purposes, it is necessary to ensure that it can be no longer said that this House is not representative of the people as a whole.
  In the course of this discussion it was pointed out by some hon. Members that it was necessary that the Government should have a large majority behind it. It is necessary that a Government should have a large majority behind it provided it can claim to have that majority in the country also. It has no right to have a large majority behind it and to carry its measures when it knows that outside those measures are severely condemned by practically one-half of the electorate. How are you to determine when a Government has a mandate? People outside the House, when they find a Government returned to power, naturally say, "Has this Government a mandate to do this, that, and the other thing?" and of course they analyse the votes cast. The Government may claim to have a mandate, but the people may say that they have not, and they can very well substantiate their statement. Again, you give an impetus to unconstitutional action.
  I am anxious that something should be done to make this House a truer reflex of the opinion of people outside. One of the difficulties suggested in connection with this proposal was that in the case of a by-election there would be someone returned who probably ought not to be returned. We know that sometimes we have to fit in or use different methods in one machine so as to carry out a definite purpose. I hold that when it comes to a single election in a large constituency, this House should certainly determine that the person who comes in at the by-election represents at least a majority of the people in that constituency, and not, as has been too often the case in by-elections, a representative who represents only a minority. That might easily be accomplished even under proportional representation by the process of the second ballot, if necessary. While it may
  648
  be a good thing that young men should be in this House and take an active part in politics, I am convinced that the correst representation of the people is far more important than that I or any other right hon. or hon. Member should be in this House. Young men probably are necessary. They have just as good a chance in a large constituency, and perhaps even a better chance than they have now. They would have a better chance of competing with the so-called popular man. I do not think that popularity enters into it to such a large extent as is sometimes supposed. Democracy is rather guided by words and phrases, and possibly the person who can spout those words and phrases the best in certain circumstances is the person returned to this House. That is the deduction I draw from the last General Election. We know that it was an election determined very largely, not so much by the popularity of individual candiates as by certain phrases that went through the country appealing to passion, sentiment, and prejudice. I support whole-heartedly a proposal that will make this House what it is not now, a House representative of the people as a whole.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I have been identified with the movement for the promotion of proportional representation for a number of years. During my advocacy of the system, I have encountered many objections to it. I listened with interest and admiration to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I am aware that many objections can be advanced against the system. Those objections ought to be considered. On the other hand are there not even stronger objections to be advanced against the existing system? We have to recognise that it is impossible to devise any electoral system which is not open to very keen criticism. My hon. Friend (Mr. R. Young) has directed our attention to what ought really to be the aim of any electoral system, and that is the securing in this House of a true reflex of the opinion of the people in the country. My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) said that cranks and others would secure entry into this House under proportional representation, and he went on to urge the utter impossibility of any independent person securing election because of the power of the caucuses that would be created under this system. Those two arguments are

  649
  mutually contradictory. I am in favour of proportional representation, despite the many objections that can be advanced against it, because of the fact that more than ever in the future there is the imperative necessity of Parliament really representing the people and phases of thought in the country. I believe I may claim to have been the first convert in the Parliamentary Labour party to the principle of proportional representation. For a number of years I was the only Member of that party advocating the system. I am not claiming a broader vision than that then possessed by the average of my colleagues. I could see growing up within and about the movement sections who were constantly contesting the authority of Parliament because of the anomalies under which Parliament was elected.
  Whether this Bill represents the ideal system or not, I am convinced that it takes us a long step forward towards a system under which representation in Parliament is a truer reflex of opinion in the country, thereby improving the authority and sanction of Parliament and checkmating those elements in our midst which are concerned to undermine authority and the Constitution of the country. Because I feel that a Parliament elected under proportional representation will carry greater authority and sanction, I hold that, despite all the criticism which can be showered upon the proposal, it is deserving of support. Many criticisms have been advanced to-day. I recollect that in the course of the advocacy of proportional representation in which I engaged I was constantly met with this objection about the by-election. I have recognised that to be perhaps the most vulnerable point in proportional representation, but we have to face it, and, for my own part, I think we have to tell the elector that when he has an opportunity of electing a Member at a General Election he has to do so with the consciousness that that Member may be his representative during the lifetime of a Parliament. Then if a by-election occurs there are various alternatives for filling up the vacancy. I think myself the importance of by-elections is very much exaggerated. If you wish to ascertain currents of opinion as between General Elections other methods can be devised. I am a supporter of the principle of the referendum. That does not arise here to-day;
  650
  nevertheless it constitutes a principle whereby Parliament may be kept in close contact with the current of opinion in the country. I want to see a Parliament elected by people conscious of the fact that they are electing persons to represent them during the lifetime of that Parliament. We are told that it will lead to the creation of groups and the development of log-rolling. I have yet to learn that the present system is immune from log-rolling.
  Our whole conception of politics has been wrong. We seem to have acted on the theory in the past that a caucus or body may sit in some centralised position and devise a number of items to be embraced in a party programme, and that opinion in the country is so clearly defined—or is non-existent—that the voter can vote for that programme, and those who secure election upon it regard the vote as an authority to carry out the whole of that programme. Opinion is not to be placed in watertight compartments of that kind. I want to see the representatives in Parliament possessing greater freedom than is possible on a strict party system. I may be in agreement with points in the programmes of all parties, and I want to be free to give support to principles and measures, not merely to parties. Why am I not in the official Labour party to-day? Because of the fact that on some points I am out of harmony with them. I should be possessed of perfect freedom whereby I could support that party which I deem to be right on a particular matter and at the same time give support to other parties bringing forward measures in which I concur. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I think I am accurately expressing the real opinion in the country, or at least that opinion that really counts. We want to develop a real sense of responsibility in the minds of the electorate. If the elector knows that the person for whom he casts his vote is not going to blindly follow his party but is going to vote for principles and measures, it tends to create in the mind of that elector a greater power of discrimination and a sounder judgment. I remember what occurred in recent elections, and it seemed to me paradoxical that a party should be able to identify itself with other parties for purposes which are not really in harmony. That happens to-day, and I am sure owing to the—
  Major HENDERSON: I do not wish to interrupt, but under the present system it cannot happen, because you cannot have two candidates running and working together. They have to fight each other; they cannot each take their votes and say, "We do not require these votes, you can have them."
  Lord R. CECIL: It is a question of the adoption of the candidate.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I desire to keep within the limits of time which I have promised to observe, and the point I want to get at is this. With the advent of a new third party in politics and its rapid growth, you have to recognise that it is almost impossible for any single party to secure that majority which has previously been regarded as necessary to constitute stability of government. Therefore, I believe you will have to contemplate a system of coalition for as long, at any rate, as I am able to foresee. You will not get rid of these bargainings with groups and parties, and I respectfully submit that at least the present system is open to as much criticism on that point as can be levelled against proportional representation. I am amazed to hear it advanced as a point of criticism that under proportional representation there will be such rivalry between candidates as to who shall secure first, second, or third preference as will embitter the relationships of men engaged in a common battle at a General Election. Persons really fit to be representatives in this House are too big to be moved by petty considerations of that character. We are not here in order that we may be personal representatives, or for personal gratification or for personal aggrandisement. We are here to represent principles and certain points of view. What matters it to me if I am being run by a party whether I am the first or the fifth selection of that party? After all, the party is competent to judge which of its candidates is the man fit to represent it and lead it in this House. All parties have suffered on occasions from the fact that men universally acknowledged to be pre-eminently fitted for leadership have failed to secure election under the present system. Hon. Members have already pointed out, on the other hand, that persons may come here, although they have secured only the minority vote in a constituency. In my opinion personality is desirable, and I feel that under propor-
  652
  tional representation personality will count even more than it does under the present system. If the test to be imposed on the elector is a higher one, necessarily it should be even higher in respect of the candidate. We are told the system is so confusing that the average elector would not be able to understand it. We must admit, however, that the intelligence of the average elector is improving. We may recall how many years ago it is since we imposed upon agricultural labourers the task of discriminating in a long list of candidates for rural district elections, and experience also of school board elections in urban areas.
  For my own part, I feel we have got to regard the British elector as a person capable of making a judgment. At any rate, he ought to be educated up to making that judgment, and because I want him to regard in larger measure the responsibility of his selection when occasions come round to him, I want him to face this fact, that if he desires to have, representation which will really reflect opinion in the country, he has got to adopt a little more complex system than we have at the present time. To-day, in order to secure simplicity, we are at any rate losing what, after all, is the great necessity nowadays, and that is the sanction of Parliament. As I go about the country, I am told that this Parliament does not really represent the thought of the people in the country. I remember that when Mr. Ramsay Macdonald was in this House he was a strong, opponent of proportional representation and in favour of the retention of the status quo. He now goes about the country with others declaring that this Parliament is not representative of the people, and it is difficult to meet an argument of that sort. I am concerned to defend the Government, because I am a Coalitionist in the abnormal circumstances under which we are living, but I recognise the difficulty of meeting the-contention of Members of the Labour party, personal friends of mine, who point out that at the last election they secured 66 seats and that under proportional representation they would be entitled to 120. Parliament ought to> carry full sanction in the minds of our people, and the direct action movement will lose any strength it may presently have if we are able to satisfy the people that they secure representation accord-

  653
  ing to their real strength in the country. I recognise the impossibility of comprehensively covering this subject with a single speech, but I am still a supporter of proportional representation, and I urge its acceptance as a means whereby we may make this House a truer reflex of opinion in the country than it has ever been before.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The House had the advantage of having this Debate begun by a very moderate, a very lucid, and a very useful speech, and of having the opposite case put by a singularly able speech also. I have heard this case debated in this House often, and I have never heard the two sides put more ably than has been the case to-day. It is very easy to find fault with the proposed scheme of proportional representation, and it is also obvious that there can be found similar or parallel objections to our present scheme, but when the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Major Henderson) waved the Regulations under which Glasgow was expected to carry out an election on these lines and read to us the horrible farago of legal language, I would remind him of the constant legal documents which come to us all on other subjects. If I were to take any of those documents haphazard and read them off quickly to this House, I am sure the House would have the same headache as it got listening to the reading of the hon. Member. Anybody can read a legal document in that way and make it seem ridiculous, and a stupid person like myself, even if I had the document before me, would find it difficult to understand doubtless, but after all, these are the documents on which the legal system of this country is founded, and I think that what Ireland has succeeded in doing Glasgow should be entirely able to do. I do not think anyone can doubt that in Ireland proportional representation has been a very useful system, although, of course, we do not expect unanimity on any Irish question. When an hon. Gentleman says that the vital thing for this country is that there shall be a strong majority behind the Government, surely it is far more important for you to consider whether the House of Commons really has the respect which can only be obtained by being a thoroughly representative body, and I maintain that the real, grave risk which I and the Conservatives who wish to see
  654
  stable government in this country, most deplore is the constant fluctuation, the violent reaction from one general election to another, instead of the stable element of continuous opinion which we should be able to secure under proportional representation.
  The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) horrified the House by depicting an appalling system of mathematical calculations by means of parallelogram rhomboids. I have always had a horror of mathematics in any form, and I do not know what a parallelogram rhomboid may mean in this connection, but the right hon. Member depicted this mathematical basis with a horror which was felt by all present. At the same time he argued that there was absolute uncertainty as to what would happen, but surely he cannot use conflicting arguments like that. I wish to address the few words that I have to say particularly to the Unionist Coalitionists, because, as good constitutionalists and as being desirous of no violent changes, they are prepared to oppose this change. I remember in 1906 we were in a very small minority. We occupied those Benches opposite only, and with the same freedom and amount of space as hon. Members now have on it, and in those days there were a great many on our side who had a good deal to say in favour of some change by which the House would be more representative of the people than it then was. The same zeal which we then felt is communicated to those who now form the small minority. In 1906 I was practically the only Unionist representative for the whole West Riding of Yorkshire. I think there were two Unionists in Sheffield, and I am not certain of the representation of Wake-field for a part of the time, but with those exceptions I was the only Unionist representative in the whole length and breadth of the West Riding, for there were none in Leeds, Bradford, Hudders-field, or Halifax or in any of the great urban districts which stretch all through the country between those great towns. It was no satisfaction to a large Unionist minority to know that Unionist gentlemen from other parts of the country were able to sit comfortably at Westminster, or that any Birmingham or London Radicals had to be represented by exponents of advanced views in some other part of the country. We in Yorkshire may hold

  655
  a mistaken view, but we think we are quite as intelligent as Birmingham, and are convinced we are more intelligent than London. Everybody who has tried to govern Yorkshire from London has found that out.
  I maintain that, so long as there is this want of real representation, there must be a feeling in the country of not trusting the House of Commons, and that is the greatest inducement to make a change. Whatever the position in 1906, everybody knows that this Parliament is distinctly unrepresentative of the ejectors. It may be very convenient at the present moment to have a larg majority, but we know that nothing is so bad for the House of Commons as having a minority so small that they cannot effectively carry anything through or control or influence the House. These violent swings of the pendulum must be bad for the country. They represent a gross exaggeration of the view of the majority at the time, and they are followed by equally gross exaggerations of the opposite view on some future occasion. Although what is happening at this moment is not likely to bring the Labour party into power in the very immediate future, public memory is short, and the extravagances of the present time may be forgotten. I would ask my Unionist Friends, what is going to happen if, by some sudden sweep of public favour or fancy we have, as we easily may have, a Labour majority of the size we have at the present time? Everybody must see there is a grave risk to stability and that, to me at any rate, is the most cogent argument.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It was not Disraeli's.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The hon. Member, like myself, is a great admirer of Disraeli, but he cannot suggest that the conditions in Disraeli's time were in any way comparable with the present conditions. With regard to the arguments against proportional representation, I am not going to deal with the personal touch argument, but I should like to say it is not always of a beneficent character. The fact that a rich man can come down to a constituency and 'succeed in wooing the electors to his side is a risk which would not be so great if the area were larger. As regards by-elections, I would ask, Are you satisfied with the present system?
  656
  Everyone knows what a by-election is. Every party sends all its trained propagandists—I will not use any stronger worcl—to some devoted constituency, which, at the end of a whirlwind three weeks or a fortnight, is so confused in its mind, and has had so much oratory poured on its devoted head, that it is prepared to vote for anybody to get the whole thing over. In pulling the motes out of the eyes of proportional representation do not let us forget the forest trees blocking the eyes of the electorate under the present system. Do let us remember that the object of constitutional government is that the governing bodies should be thoroughly representative. Do let us remember that the one safeguard of stability in this country is that the country should have confidence in its House of Commons. Do let us remember that any argument we present to the electorate to make them feel that they have not confidence in this House, and that the House cannot be trusted to represent their views, is an argument in favour of something outside constitutional government, something which all Members of this House would deplore, and which would certainly not be to the advantage of the country. I hope there will be no idea of party politics in any Division over this Bill. I am perfectly certain that the true Conservative is the man who desires stability, and I do hope he will not be frightened by a change so obviously in the interests of that which he so much desires.
  Mr. GILBERT: Those who were Members of the last House of Commons will know the numerous fights that were put up on the Representation of the People Bill on this question of proportional representation. I took some interest in that fight, and as during my life I have taken a great deal of personal interest in all kinds of elections, I would like to repeat to day what I said in the Debate in the last Parliament on the Representation of the People Bill, that one of the things I have always advocated has been simplicity of elections. I think you want to have the elections on the simplest plan possible, and get all your elections on the same basis in order that the public outside may understand the method of election. My objection to this Bill is on Clause 2, because if this Bill passes with Clause 2 in its present form, you are still going to have in the country two kinds of elections under this Bill You are going

  657
  to leave single-Member constituencies, I presume, voting on the same plan as we are voting on now. But you are going to have the larger constituencies bunched together either in three, or five, or seven-Membered bodies in order to vote under the system known as that of proportional representation. I think that is going to be a very bad system for the country as a whole. In conjunction with this Bill there is also the question of local elections. It would be a disaster if this House was going to pass the Bill in order to set up one system of election for Parliamentary representatives, and for local elections, which, I think, in a great number of cases, are exactly for the same areas, give them another system of election altogether. If the system of election in this country is to be altered—I do not agree with proportional representation—I do suggest, if you are going to adopt it as the best method of election, you ought to adopt it for all constituencies in the country, and for all elections, local as well as Parliamentary.
  I speak as a London Member. The Redistribution Bill was before the last Parliament. We London Members had very strong objections to the system of proportional representation proposed in that Bill. It was proposed that certain constituencies in London should be experimented upon by the system of proportional representation. London Members on both sides of politics opposed it, and eventually the proposal was deleted from the Bill. We opposed it for the reasons I have just stated, that we strongly objected to having one system of election in one constituency and another system in an adjoining constituency. Some of us have notices on the Paper of objection to another Proportional Representation Bill applying to local elections, and this is our strong objection to that Bill.
  A great deal has been made of the elections in New South Wales. Let me give the House one or two facts about those elections. The total electorate in New South Wales at the last election was only 1,182,409. Thirty constituencies in London would have an electorate as large as the whole of New South Wales. Whilst proportional representation may be a very good thing in the small newspaper election just held upstairs, I do respectfully suggest to the House that when you get
  658
  large elections as in London constituencies the thing fails altogether. May I give the House one or two examples? You propose to bunch London constituencies into three- or five-membered constituencies. Take the old Borough of Wandsworth, which has now five single member constituencies. It was the old complaint, before the Redistribution Bill, that Wandsworth was not properly represented. If you bunch the whole of the five constituencies of Wandsworth together you will have an electorate of 161,000. Take Deptford. If you join Deptford with Lewisham you will get an electorate of 133,000. I suggest to the House that in that case it is going to be impossible for the individual candidate to work on any reasonable amount of money. It is perfectly true that in Clause 4 of the Bill there is a proposal that the election expenses shall be regulated. In effect that means that the individual candidates shall not spend more money than probably in a single constituency to-day. Still, take the question of Deptford and Lewis-ham. The candidate for Lewisham has an electorate of something under 40,000. If he has the same expenditure allowed for 133,000, then you are going to make the position of that candidate simply impossible from the election point of view, because he cannot work with the money allowed.
  A good deal has been said about by-elections. Those of us who object to proportional representation have never had an answer to-day as to what is to be done in the matter of by-elections. The same problem arose in New South Wales. I have a letter from the Secretary of the Australian National Federation who has taken a great interest in this question of proportional representation (Mr. Park-hill). This is what he wrote to me last year about the question of by-elections in New South Wales:
  "It may interest you to know that this matter proved so troublesome to decide that it was not included in the Regulations governing the recent elections. After several fruitless discussions by the National Parliamentary party it was held over for final decision and inclusion in a separate Bill."
  He goes on to say:
  "I might add that the suggestion most favoured for the conduct of by-elections under proportional representation was the method of recommendation from the party organisation of the same political faith as the deceased or retired member."

  659
  I make my proportional representation Friends a present of that. If they are going to propose that method of dealing with by-elections in this country, that a Member of the same colour as the retiring Member is to be returned without any election at all, then I am quite certain, in view of recent by-elections, that that will not give satisfaction to the electorate of this country.
  A great many points have been dealt with which I do not propose to repeat; but I have some recollection of elections in London in the old days. I remember the cumulative vote of the schoolboard elections. We were able in various parts of London—we who took an interest in politics in those times—quite successfully in four-member schoolboard constituencies, by an arrangement with the electors as a party, to return three Members out of the four. It was done in quite a simple way. Three or four constituencies were lumped together in the old schoolboard divisions, and you instructed all your supporters in one division to split their votes between two candidates, and in another division to plump for one candidate. The Progressive party of those days was able to secure a majority of the seats on the London School Board by an arrangement of that kind. I am quite certain with my knowledge of politics in London that if you had proportional representation with three, five, or seven-member constituencies that you would be forced to have some arrangement of that kind by the party running the candidates. I am convinced that, provided you had a sufficiently rich party, and a sufficiently large organisation, and were able to organise the constituency on the lines which we used to organise the constituencies of the' old days of the London School Board, then the richest organisation with the most efficient list of candidates could instruct the people to vote according to their arrangements, and they would be in many cases more successful than individual candidates themselves.
  Recently we have had what is called a test election by the advocates of proportional representation. In this election for seven Members there were 15 candidates. Pamphlets were circulated by the proportional representation people, giving the demonstration and working of the
  660
  single transferable vote. If hon. Members consider the result of that election they will find that on the first count all the members in the first section were at the head of the poll. There were. 13 counts, and six of the first members were still returned. The result of the final count was that the candidate who was, I think, fifth from the bottom, and who only polled 624 first preference votes as against three other people who had higher preference votes than he—that candidate on the final result was elected as against the person who received the larger number of preference votes on the first election. If that is all the result you are going to get from proportional representation, I ask the House, is it really worth it? The system is awfully complicated, and you cannot make the ordinary elector understand it. The pamphlet which has been issued on this subject gives a wonderful system of calculation as to how to transfer the surplus vote, and they include a number of four-figure fractions. I claim to represent a fairly intelligent constituency, but I should not like to have to explain to them all these fractions What you have to do in order to make the representation of this House efficient is to have simplicity of election, and the electors will never understand this system of transferring votes. I hope hon. Members will reject this Bill.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member who spoke last has asked us to fix our attention on simplicity of election, and he says that is the ideal and the great test. How would that work if applied to other departments of life? How would it work as applied to our means of transportation? The old stage wagon is simplicity compared with the complexity of the locomotive engine and the internal combustion engine, but let any hon. Member try to explain without a blackboard or drawing the working of these engines, and it would be perfectly easy to argue that we must abandon all these newfangled ideas of travelling, and go back to the simplicity of walking on foot. Anyone who advocates the old-fashioned election because of its simplicity should remember that the old system was not what we have to-day. The old system provided for two-member constituencies, and was a rudimentary form of proportional representation; for one candidate was nearly always chosen from one

  661
  wing of the party and the other from the other wing. Are we going back to the system of the hustings at Eatans-will and open voting? I know that our system involves a certain amount of complexity, but we cannot possibly avoid it. The increased complexity of the system now proposed is very small indeed, and if hon. Members will only take the trouble to read the instructions instead of laughing at them, I am sure they will be able to understand them. In no country that I know has it been found that this system has broken down because the people do not understand it. In almost every country the people have understood it, and it is useless for hon. Members to try to raise a laugh on the ground that it would not be simple enough to be understood.
  3.0 P.M.
  The hon. Member who spoke last said that in certain elections to which he referred, the only difference made was that after 13 counts, one man not elected on the first count was finally elected. In certain cases there might be very little difference, but you must not judge this system by individual instances. Taking the whole country, the proportional system would make a great difference in the representation of the Country. It would give us something that really does represent the country, not every small clique, the main bodies of opinion in proportion to their strength.
  May I draw the attention of the House to the broad fact that it is three years since our last discussion of proportional representation in this House, and since then the system has made its way at an enormous rate in nearly all the representative institutions of the world. When this system was first proposed here it was a theory and a project which had hardly been tried anywhere. When we brought the subject up in 1917 and 1918 it had been tried in very important countries and even in our own country. In the three years to which I refer, the application of proportional representation throughout the world has more than doubled. It has been applied in Austria, Germany, Czecho-Slovakia, Luxembourg, and Poland; and it has been extended in Denmark, Holland, and Switzerland. Not only that, but in the British Empire it has been applied on a very large scale. Take New South Wales, where it has been applied to the Legislative Assembly. It
  662
  has been applied, also, in New Zealand to local elections, and has now been passed for the Senate. In South Africa it has also been adopted for the Senate. It has been adopted in Canada, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, and we had a telegram the day before yesterday stating that the Dominion House of Representatives in Canada has decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into the application of this principle to the elections for the Dominion Parliament.
  During the past three years in this country it has been applied to University constituencies, Scottish Education Committees, and local authorities in Ireland. It has also been applied to the two Irish Parliaments and to several constituencies in the new Indian legislature. It has been adopted in the Constitution of Malta, and outside this House to the House of Laity in the Church Parliament. Hon. Members must really keep their minds fixed upon the broad fact that this system is spreading, and is proving itself worthy in all parts of the world. There is no country that has tried it which has rejected it. Tasmania is the only nearest example, and there it was applied to the towns and not to the country districts. This was thought to be unfair, and it was abolished for a year or two, but it was then re-enacted for the whole country, and it has since been applied in Tasmania for a period of 12 or 13 years at some four or five General Elections. It has been carefully examined, and they have decided to continue it.
  We are told that this system produces unsettled government and small majorities. I believe that in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia the Government at the present time has a majority of one. That has not been produced by proportional representation, because it has not yet been applied to that particular Parliament. We are told the system was rejected by the last Parliament. Everything, I suppose, is usually rejected once or twice, and, great as is my belief in proportional representation, I hardly expect it to be accepted everywhere the very first time that it is proposed, but I would point out that it is not being rejected, taking the world as a whole; it is increasing and spreading and giving satisfaction in almost all the countries of the world. We are told that this House rejected it again and again in 1917–1918.

  663
  It is true that it only gave a very limited application to proportional representation to this Parliament, but this House has again and again applied proportional representation in legislation since then. Are we to say that we will apply proportional representation to Ireland and not to this country? Is it just in Ireland and unjust in this country, or is it only a question of trying it on the dog? Is it that hon. Gentleman think that in Ireland it will give an advantage to Conservative ideas and that they are afraid that in this country it will not? Is that why they are prepared to apply it in one country and not in the other? The fact that we have applied it in so many bodies is very strong presumptive evidence that we ought to apply it also to this House.
  I should like to touch upon one or two of the objections. We are told that the Member will not be in touch with the electors, because it will be such a large constituency. On the other hand, I believe that he will be in touch with a larger number of electors and in a much more satisfactory way. At the present time many a Member goes down to his constituency knowing that nearly two out of every three people have voted against him and that he has got in merely by the split vote. Under proportional representation a man will go into his constituency knowing that there is a large body of opinion justly entitled to representation which has voted for him and he will be in touch with those electors throughout his constituency because he is in agreement with them. The supposed touch between a man and those who did their best to keep him out and are going to do their very best to turn him out on the next possible occasion is not a very close or friendly touch. It is not my idea of what an electoral touch ought to be. Under proportional representation, the man living in the neighbourhood will have a very great advantage over the stranger who comes from a distance and that is as it should be. It is desirable that as far as possible neighbourhoods should be represented by people living in them. The man living in the neighbourhood will be more likely to be returned and he will be in much closer touch with the inhabitants and especially those supporting him than can possibly be the case with a stranger.
  664
  We are told, again, that no independent can be returned under proportional representation. Has the independent man a better chance of getting half the votes of a constituency, as he must do now if there are only two candidates, than of getting a quota in a three, five, or seven-member constituency? It is perfectly clear that the independent men who have sat in this House and who have been rejected for their independence would have gone on getting a quota of the votes and have continued to sit in this House. We have been told also that in New South Wales the effect was to prevent any independent being returned. That is quite incorrect, and I am surprised that hon. Members should have given that information to the House. At the last election three independent Labour members and two absolutely independent members were returned, so that in a small House of 90 you had five independent members returned. Yet we are told that the election excluded independent members.
  Of course, a great deal has been made of the by-election difficulty. There are various ways of providing under proportional representation for by-elections. These various ways have been tried in various countries, and those countries have found their provisions for by-elections satisfactory. They have in some cases tried one way and then another. Some poll the whole area; some appoint the next man on the list of candidates at the next General Election; some revert to some form of co-option; some leave the vacancies open in almost all cases. There are 10 members for the City of Winnipeg. If one vacancy occurs it is left open, and there are still nine members for the City of Winnipeg. If a second vacancy occurs, then an election takes place under proportional representation. The value of the by-election under the present system is very largely fictitious. It depends upon the swing of the pendulum. As soon as a party gets in with an exaggerated majority, or it may be a majority of seats with a minority of votes, the swing of the pendulum begins, and the other party commences to get victories at by-elections. By-elections therefore seem to have an enormous importance in the eyes of the country. If you had proportional representation, the change would not be so very marked,

  665
  and by-elections would have comparatively little value.
  There is some objection taken on the score of expense. The expense of an election is that which the law allows. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I hope that does not mean that he spends more than the law allows. If the law says that no candidate is to spend more than £500, no candidate can spend more than £500, and I venture to say that for the very moderate sum which is fixed in this Bill it would be perfectly possible to do anything that is really necessary in spreading information all over a constituency. If you are not able to send every man an illuminated portrait of yourself, a poll card, a well-printed address, and all that sort of thing, if you can only post your address on the wall, all the intelligent electors will inform themselves what is going on and will come to vote, and if there are any who are so unintelligent as not to inform themselves, we can do without them. We have been told there would be bargaining. I think the bargaining will in future be on an entirely different footing. I do not believe we should have as many groups as now. We have many groups now, because when you have only one seat to fill you cannot give proper consideration to the different shades of opinion in a constituency. There may be in a party many different shades, and the only way in which one shade can get any chance of representation is by differing with the party and starting a party or group of its own.
  We are rapidly coming to the group system in this country as they have done in France and Germany under the single-Member constituency. But in Belgium, under proportional representation, they have had three parties from the first and they have three parties now. As to bargaining they have now a Coalition Government and it is a Coalition Government on absolutely fair and honest principles, such as you can get under proportional representation, but which is very difficult to get under single-Member constituencies. In Belgium each party went to the country with its own programme and its own list of candidates. The country returned so many from one and so many from the other. When they got to the House of Representatives they formed a Coalition, and the three parties have carried on the government of the country with more success in this time of
  666
  reconstruction than any other country in Europe. I do not think there is the least doubt about that. I will conclude by saying this. If we set ourselves against this system we are setting ourselves against the only system so far before the world which would ensure real representative government in this country. I believe in a really representative House of Commons. I believe if you have that you do not need any other check upon democracy. Democracy, if it is complete, contains its own check, and it is the only safe basis of government which will be accepted by the great mass of the people. I commend this Bill on sound political theory. It embodies the application of a principle which has spread throughout the British Empire and proved itself satisfactory, and which is spreading rapidly through all the great civilised countries of the world.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Looking back at the record of this House in relation to this proposal and at our experience of it during the last Parliament, I cannot but admit I am surprised at its being brought forward again so soon. I am not impressed by the long list of cases in which proportional representation has been adopted. The long list recited by my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Williams) seems to be impressive, and it mentions some places which no doubt have their own importance, but I wonder if the House has examined it, because if it has, it will have found that it deals with extremely contracted electorates, in many cases minute ones, in which the election is carried on under conditions which have no possible similarity to those involving a great Parliamentary institution. To my mind, we can well put them all on one side with one exception, and that is the one case in which in the British Empire proportional representation has been applied to a popular assembly under the Constitution. I will not deal with the case of Tasmania, which is the greatest mystery to both our side of this question and to my hon. Friend. We know nothing about the progress of the scheme there. All that can be said in the ninth circular issued by proportional representation supporters in the course of last month is, that Sir John McCall said, at some time or other, that proportional representation had "come to stay." Sir John McCall is the gentleman who, years ago, applied proportional representation

  667
  to Tasmania. We are not told the date at which he made this statement. I am under the impression that he is no longer in existence, but at some time or other he said "proportional representation has come to stay." It has stayed, because the party which got in by proportional representation is extremely likely to try and preserve it. There is no evidence at all that proportional representation is acceptable to the people of Tasmania. Indeed—although one does not like to mention evidence from private sources—I have a good deal of information to exactly the contrary effect. Therefore I think we can put Tasmania on one side and come at once to the crucial instance quoted, and that is the case of New South Wales. I look upon that as the only fair test of the application of proportional representation to a great popular assembly. What has been the result there? In the first place, the hon. John Storey and his party are in power in New South Wales. How? By the majority, the magnificent majority by quotas, which you say you are going to get by proportional representation in this country? Not at all. He is in power on the strength of a minority of one in four of the whole electorate of New South Wales. Is that a system which you want introduced into this country? Moreover there are incidental peculiarities which have shown themselves clearly in New South Wales. The election in New South Wales is carried on upon lines which absolutely deprive the elector of all freedom and of all voluntary momentum in the matter. Can anything be imagined which is so destructive of the basis upon which we want to put elections—of the freedom and spontaneity, so to speak, of the electors? Can anything be more destructive to that than the system which pervades both parties in New South Wales, and which is rendered necessary by this complicated system of preferences—that is to say, the domination of the caucus of each party, who get the whole thing into their hands. They are the "half-dozen clever men" who, Mr. Massey said, could carry any election they liked under the preference system. These half-dozen clever men sit down to work, and the calculation of the number of these preferences, in order that they may get as many men as possible of their own party in, is a
  668
  most elaborate and scientific process which no elector could possibly undertake for himself. When they have done this, they make out what is called their "How to Vote" Card, and that is given out to different batches of electors; and so necessary is this, so minute is the control of the caucus, and so essential is its operation to the exercise of what should be the free right of the electors, that no elector who wants his party to succeed dare go into the polling booth in New South Wales without one of these cards. That is the one specimen—
  Lord HUGH CECIL: No, it is not.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Of the application of proportional representation. The Noble Lord will have plenty of opportunity—
  Lord H. CECIL: I am entitled to contradict a misstatement.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I am aware that the House of Commons likes a conversational style of speaking, but I am not sure that it likes Debate carried on by conversation. That is the one specimen, applied to English-speaking people within the ambit of British parliamentary institutions, which we can call into evidence on this occasion. I began to speak on the record of this House in relation to this subject, and I should like to remind the House of one feature in the case, which has been referred to by previous speakers, namely, the rejection of what was called minority representation in 1885. As has been mentioned, and as, I daresay, most hon. Members know, minority representation was introduced in Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill of 1867. It created the Birmingham Caucus under Mr. Schnadhorst. It held Birmingham for 17 years like a vice on the side of one party. It became detested by the electors, and, when it came before this House 17 years afterwards, in 1885, it had scarcely a voice in its favour. I think it only got 31 votes, and the House decided against it.
  There was one feature in that episode which I think it is worth while to recall. That House turned down minority representation—and minority representation, whatever the difference in technique between that plan and this, is the whole principle and the main object of proportional representation—because it was

  669
  in touch with the practical experiment that thad been made in this country. It had been able to watch what had been going on in these great cities where minority representation was in practice during that period of 17 years, and the results were such, and the effect upon the electors was such, that the House of Commons decided to abolish it altogether. And in so doing that House of Commons had in its memory, and could recall and vindicate, the advice of giant statesmen in this country, who, when it was first introduced in 1867, had denounced it in unmeasured terms, and had pointed out the results that would ensue from it. I wonder if I might recall to hon. Members a quotation which, although, perhaps, familiar to many of them, may not be within the knowledge of all:
  "He had always been of opinion that this and other schemes, having for their object to represent minorities, were admirable schemes for bringing crochety men into the House. They were the schemes of coteries and not the politics of nations, and, if adopted, would end in discomfiture and confusion."
  There was another—these statesmen were on both sides. That was Mr. Disraeli.
  Mr. J. JONES: A friend of Germany.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Now we will come to the other side—to Mr. John Bright. Was he a friend of Germany?
  Mr. JONES: A friend of every country.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Mr. John Bright said:
  "Every Englishman ought to know that anything which enfeebles the representative powers and lessens the vitality of the electoral system, which puts in the nominees of little cliques, here representing a majority and there a minority, but having no real influence among the people—every system like that weakens and must ultimately destroy the power and the force of your Executive Government.… A principle could hardly be devised more calculated to destroy the vitality of the elective system, and to produce stagnation, not only of the most complete, but of the most fatal character, affecting public affairs."
  Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Goschen, and others were not less emphatic.
  With regard to the last House, I need not remind hon. Members that the last House of Commons had many opportunities of exhaustively discussing this question—not merely the opportunity of a Friday afternoon. It was debated over and over again, and it was defeated in the House by majorities
  670
  always increasing until they became overwhelming. As this present House may not like to be compared to the former House, or any other House, may I ask whether it remembers that that House cannot be said to have been opposed to change? It carried the greatest extension of the franchise known in this country for nearly 100 years, and it carried the greatest revolution in the franchise conceivable—female suffrage. When, however, it came to this proposal, after exhaustive debate, after its being tried and placed before the House in every possible form, the House turned it down decisively on every occasion. I shall have something to say about this Bill and what it contains, and one of the points to which I desire to call attention is that the Bill is compulsory. That was not the case in 1918. After the final defeat of that measure in the House of Commons, the Upper Chamber insisted upon proportional representation being introduced into the Bill, but it took the form of a commission of inquiry to go round the country and to inquire into the opinion of the electors. We who were in that House remember that the result of the inquiry held in 149 constituencies for the purpose of selecting 100 constituencies for proportional representation was a great preponderance of opinion on the part of the electorate against the scheme. Then it came back to this House, and this House gave it the coup de grâce.
  Before dealing with the Bill we are now discussing, I should like to say a word as to the spirit in which I approach this subject, vis-à-vis of hon. Members who support the Bill. I ought to have said it at the opening of my remarks, because I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am the last person to question the sincerity of their feelings, and the strength of their convictions that the change they propose will improve our Parliamentary representation, and will do away with apparent anomalies which press heavily on minds like that of my Noble Friend (Lord H. Cecil), which are animated and directed by what are called counsels of perfection. Indeed, in that respect I admire them. I even envy them. They live far above this earth, in an atmosphere filled with ideals, theories, postulates, and promises of electoral millenniums, which every now and then they hand down to us ordinary mortals on the earth like a sort of manna which, much to their amazement, for 50 years we carnal people have found peculiarly indigestible, and which only minorities

  671
  can be induced to accept and to swallow without knowing what it will do to them, and I fancy with a very uneasy suspicion that if they ever become majorities it will do them no good. I hope I am not impolite to my hon. Friends in the figure of speech I have used. If I were to go for guidance in such a matter to the greatest model of oratory that ever addressed this House, I should find that Mr. John Bright spoke of the minority representation Clause in the Bill he was discussing as "an odious and infamous Clause, which ought to have come from Bedlam, or some region like that." I would not say a thing of that sort. I have spoken only of the higher and not the nether atmosphere in which the academics live, generally presided over, I believe, by the Minister of Education, and now and then indulging in the innocent amusement of toy model elections and the even more harmless one of throwing down to the House of Commons—I mean from above—some manifesto saying, with needless verbiage, that some statement of mine "has no foundation in fact."
  But as I myself have to live on hard ground, and cannot find any amusement in a subject like proportional representation, except possibly its name, I should like to go at once to the Bill and offer a few remarks upon it. The hon. Member who moved it said he wanted to let the light of day in upon the Bill. I will endeavour to do so by taking, in the first place, what the Bill does, and then what it does not do. The first thing it does is to commit this House for the first time, and, I suppose, once and for all, to proportional representation, with the single transferable vote and its system of first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh preferences—a system so strange and complicated that I hope the House will forgive me if I say I do not believe there is one in 20 Members who understands its working, and so far removed from commonsense and practical utility that the remaining 19 have turned away from the task of trying to understand it. And also a system, the, results of which in any particular election are rendered uncertain and almost staggering to the electors by reason of the very large part played in them by the element of chance. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection gave one or two very strik
  672
  ing cases of the amazing results derived from it.
  Secondly, and I make more of this, this is a compulsory Bill. The promoters hitherto, I recognise, have always been on the horns of dilemma. They must either make the Bill optional, which would represent a partial proportional representation and turn the country into a patchwork of different systems, or they must make it compulsory. They have done the latter. They have made it compulsory, as I understand it, with very few exceptions over the whole country. I want to ask the House to consider what it is we are dealing with. We are dealing with the most highly valued function that citizenship in a self-governing country possesses. The method of performing that function is intimately connected with the elector himself. It is something that is the property of the electorate, and we are dealing with that in a way which, whether it be good or whether it be bad, is a way on which we have never in any form consulted the electors of this country, except on one occasion. For this House radically to change the method of the electors exercising that great function, and to change it ex-cathedrâ without in any way or form consulting the great electorate of the country, is straining the representative character of the House of Commons. The electors have never given any opinion upon this subject, except on a single occasion, and that is an occasion which strengthens my argument. It was the occasion to which I have referred when a Royal Commission, insisted upon by the House of Lords, went round the country and tried to gather the local opinion of the electors. I pay this tribute to the House of Lords that whereas they did not go beyond their constitutional right but, in my opinion, went beyond their moral claim as a non-elective Chamber in insisting upon proportional representation being placed in a Bill dealing with a matter which is really the function of the elective branch of the Constitution, yet they did it in a form which consulted the people. It is a tribute to the fairness of that House that they did it in the form of a Commission of Inquiry all over the country, and the result of that Commission was to turn the whole proposal down.
  Now we are asked to take another course. We are asked to take a course

  673
  which I consider arbitrary and illegitimate—that is, to force upon the electors of this country, without their being consulted, without their being in the least familiar with this process of proportional representation, or knowing anything about it, a new system which will throw them into confusion and which, if we look at its results in New South Wales, will turn them away from and make them dislike and distrust the polling booth as an instrument of representative government. I do not think I am exaggerating when I put it so high as this, with regard to the electorate, that there are few Members in this House who could go down to their constituencies and really explain the working of the system which is to be forced upon them. Have we any right in this House to pass such a Bill without putting the question to the usual test? Other questions involving great principles and revolutionary changes are always put to the country by being explained election after election on the platform, and even if you do not get a direct vote you get an indication of popular opinion in regard to them. I have no desire to limit the constitutional powers of Parliament with regard to its legislative or administrative functions; but I respectfully submit that, in the absence of any such normal process of consultation with the people, for this House to force this revolution in the use of the vote upon them is an abuse of its moral right.
  There is a third thing that the Bill does. It fixes arbitrarily the size of the constituencies to which proportional representation is to be applied. There are three-, four-, five-, six-, and seven-Member constituencies. I should like to comment as briefly as I can on the two ends of this structure. It has been shown in various pamphlets and documents, that in the three-Member constituency proportional representation will have exactly the same result as the minority representation of 1867. Therefore, it is a bad thing, because the results of that were so bad that it was turned down by the House of Commons after 17 years' experience. With regard to a seven-Member constituency, why do the supporters of this Bill stop at that size? Have they forgotten that Lord Courtney, the great protagonist of proportional representation, was always of opinion, and stated it over and over again, that the larger the constituency the more effective
  674
  and just would be the application of proportional representation. He defined a 15-Member constituency as the right size. Why have my hon. Friends forgotten the teachings of their great leader on this question? Simply because a 15-Member constituency would be rather too startling for the House. Therefore, they have sacrificed what is the fundamental principle of proportional representation for the sake of appearances.
  In this connection I must turn to what may be a novel point, but one that will be clear to those who look into this question. You cannot have true proportional representation without eliminating the constituencies altogether, and turning the whole country into one constituency. All the figures that have been given for years after a General Election about such and such a number of votes in the country which have been given in support of Labour, or in support of Independent Liberals, or in support of the Coalition not being proportionately represented by the seats they have gained in Parliament rest on a rotten basis, so far as any remedy promised by this scheme is concerned. It is an utterly fallacious argument. May I make the thing clear to the House by a concrete example? Supposing you take what we may call a sectional issue. We will say that it is local option or anti-vivisection. Things of that sort come up at elections and influence the electors. There are people who feel very strongly about them, and who consider them as the first subject to which Parliament ought to attend. Take the question of local option. There might be sufficient local optionists in one or two constituencies to return their candidate to Parliament, but what about the local optionists all over the country, living in other constituencies, and having votes in those constituencies, but not in sufficient numbers to enable them to get a local option representative for their constituency? How can you gather those together and give them seats in this House in proportion to their numbers without sweeping away constituencies altogether? I hope I have made the thing clear. That is why Lord Courtney said that a 15-Member constituency was the best, because he saw that he would get somewhat nearer to the ideal and a little nearer to the actual function of proportional representation by means of

  675
  the 15-Member constituency. The postulate with which I started this explanation, that you cannot have true satisfactory logical proportional representation unless you turn the whole of England into one constituency, connects itself with a curious personal experience which I will venture to mention. I studied the whole subject of proportional representation carefully after my attention was first drawn to it and I came to this conclusion. But it was so surprising that I did not bring it forward. Then, one day, I came across a very remarkable vindication of it. It was this, that Thomas Hare, who invented proportional representation and the single transferable vote in the early fifties of last century, invented it with the express purpose of turning the whole of England into one constituency.
  I have no time to enumerate the many things that this Bill does not do. Nor is that necessary, because it trots out the old device of a Royal Commission. It takes out of the hands of Parliament innumerable subjects that it is qualified to deal with and is responsible for dealing with, and places them in the hands of a body of which we know nothing. It is true that the Commission has to report to this House. After that everything is to be done by Orders in Council. I speak with a long memory of this House, and I submit that this kind of legislation by a combination of Royal Commissions and Orders in Council is the very worst sort of legislation we could have.
  4.0. P. M.
  There is one question which I would ask my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). I have spoken over and over again of government by groups. I feel strongly on that point. Under proportional representation we shall simply have a repetition of what we see abroad—a change of ministry every six months and no stability of policy. This is a subject on which we want clear thinking. What is to be the position of groups or sections of opinion which it is hoped to get into this House? Is it party or non-party on which they base themselves? In other words, is it the argument or expectation that under their system adherents of sectional opinion, whether in groups or as individuals, should stand for Parliament under the aegis or protection of a politi-
  676
  cal party or should stand on their own? That is an important question to which I should like to have an answer. We had it definitely from Mr. Holman, who was so long Premier of New South Wales, that sectional representatives have "no hope of getting in where one of the machines did not offer some sheltering niche as a refuge." There is nothing to tell us definitely whether the supporters of proportional representation are of the same opinion. They say in one case that the candidates are "as free as air" and in another that representation of all shades of opinion and of different classes is to be got within each of the two parties. Then there is a subordinate question of some importance, whether these sectional candidates, representing sectional opinions, pledge themselves to their supporters to put their special policy forward and to give it the first position in their parliamentary career? If they get into a Parliament under the ægis of a party do they pledge themselves to force that on the party? That is an important question, but I do not think that it really affects the alternatives. The two alternatives are those which I have put.
  If these sectional groups go in under the ægis of a, political party, which will mean going in by the aid of its machine, they will have to put party first and become members of that party. But that is exactly the position in Parliament now, and there is no reason to change our whole electoral system to secure it. Every party is formed of groups, and these groups pursue the reasonable, legitimate, practical course of trying to infuse their opinions into the mass of the party and impress their policy on their leaders. But they do not, when it comes to a critical Division, threaten the leaders of their own party to go on the other side if they do not get their own way for their sectional policy. Prom all the pronouncements that I have read, which have been issued by the Proportional Representation Society, I gather that the vision that is held out to the political life of the country is that proportional representation will return representatives of minorities, independent; that it will return individuals, independent; and that anyone can get into Parliament, on his own, if he has sufficient support. If that is the case, the result undoubtedly would be government by groups, because you will have these

  677
  groups of opinion not bound to either party, and Members can go to one party or another on the eve of a critical Division and say: "Give us our policy and we will vote for you, but if you do not give it to us we will throw you out." That position would be most dangerous to the dignity and stability of Parliament. I earnestly urge the House, for reasons of the welfare of the State and the freedom of the elector, to throw out the Bill.
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I know there are many Members who are anxious to speak and I do not propose, therefore, to occupy more than a moment in explaining the attitude of the Government. The Government as a whole are divided in regard to this Bill. We do not propose to utilise the services of the Whips, but we regard this measure as of such great importance and as effecting so great a constitutional change that we feel bound to say that we cannot pledge ourselves, after a Friday afternoon's Debate, to bring in a Bill dealing with this important subject or to grant facilities for its passage.
  Lord R. CECIL: In one respect I welcome the announcement made on behalf of the Government, because it makes the decision to which the House will come in a few minutes purely a question of whether or not they are in favour of the principle of proportional representation, rather than whether or not the particular details of this proposal are those which recommend themselves to the judgment of the House. I can well understand that if we were about to settle, this afternoon, a change of this importance as a practical definite piece of legislation, the House would have to be satisfied not only that the general principle was sound but that the actual details of the Bill were such as they thought workable. The Government have told us that they are not able to facilitate the passage of the Bill into law and it becomes, therefore, something in the nature of a revolution rather than of a Bill. Therefore I hope to shorten to some extent the observations which I shall have to make, and I shall not think it necessary to trouble the House with any elaborate details. There was one observation in the speech made by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-
  678
  Coutts)—I am afraid it was the only one—with which I found myself in hearty agreement. He said proportional representation was not amusing, and that is evidently the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the Members of this House who have taken the very necessary precaution of absenting themselves from the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I was not speaking so much of this particular moment in the discussion as of the discussion in general. I agree with my right hon. Friend as to that, but then he went on to throw one of the usual controversial half-bricks when he said the advocates of this measure were academic. That is quite legitimate Parliamentary controversy, but I think if the House will look at the names of the Members on the back of this Bill they will hesitate to describe them as academic. For example, my right hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)—though his opinions are not always accepted by the majority of the House—would not, I think, be described as, strictly speaking, academic. I do not know in the whole House a man who is more rigidly practical or more determined to guide himself by what the Germans call, "Wahr politik." I do not think you could select anyone who would fulfil those characteristics better than my right hon. Friend. Then I may include the name of my right hon. Friend who moved the Bill as that of a man of a very practical character, and I do not know whether I am to be regarded as unpractical? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
  Let me come to some of the objections which have been raised. There were one or two which I did not intend to go into at any length. There is our old objection that the machinery is so complicated. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken said that not one Member in twenty understood it, and he went on to say that the other nineteen did not try to understand it. The answer to the whole of that criticism is this. There is a certain complication in the counting of the votes, but there is no complication in giving the votes. Anyone can give a vote in a Proportional Representation Election. He has merely got to write down the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the order of his preference. Nor is there the slightest complication in the idea of proportional representation. It is an exceedingly simple one, namely, that a man shall not

  679
  be bound to waste his vote in giving it to people who do not want it because they have got enough, or to people who have no chance of success. No one with the slightest intelligence should have the slightest difficulty in making up his mind as to the order of his preferences in a list of candidates. It is quite true that when you come to apply the principle so as to produce the result you desire, there is a certain complication of machinery, and that requires a certain amount of skill on the part of the returning officer and the people who do the counting. It does require rather elaborate directions to them, but there is no difficulty whatever in carrying it out, and wherever it has been tried there has been no excessive proportion of spoilt votes, except in one case, with which I will deal in a moment. The answer is not only that this system has been adopted now—and a great number of cases have been recited here—but wherever it has been adopted it has never been abandoned, and there is no answer to that. If this scheme is really unworkable or impracticable, and if it really produces deplorable results, as its opponents say, it would be abandoned. It has been imposed as an alteration to an existing system, and having been imposed it could be withdrawn if found to be unworkable, but the fact is that it has never been abandoned. We have heard a good deal about New South Wales, and that it has been a failure there because only about 24 per cent. of the voters voted for the majority candidates. As a matter of fact, in the by-elections in this country since the last General Election, I think it will be found that the number of voters who voted for the successful candidates were about 28 per cent., so there is not so very great a difference even in that, but everybody knows that the reason why there was a bad poll in New South Wales was due to the fantastic regulations that were adopted, and particularly to the regulation that everyone had to make a declaration as to his identity before he was allowed to vote.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: To make and sign.
  Lord R. CECIL: Yes, to make and sign. That was exceedingly distasteful, I believe, to many persons and induced female electors especially to refrain in large numbers. Therefore there is nothing in that. My right hon. Friend is
  680
  not quite doing justice to it when he says this is the one case which is worth examining in all those which have been cited. The truth is that this is the only one in which even a plausible objection can be made to its operation. No objection has been made to its operation in any other case of a substantial character.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: What I said was that it was the only case of proportional representation applied to a popular assembly.
  Lord R. CECIL: Even that I do not think is quite accurate, for surely there are a number of other cases in which it has been applied, and Manitoba is one. It is, however, good enough for our purposes to know that it has been adopted and that it has worked, and that is, to my mind, a complete answer to any suggestion that it is so complicated a system that it cannot be properly worked. I do not now propose to go into the question of by-elections, as I do not think that is a very important matter one way or the other. I never did. The main purpose of a system is to secure a satisfactory result at a General Election, and if there are difficulties about by-elections, that is a minor matter for the details of the Bill. To my mind, if by-elections were continued to be held under the old system that would be a satisfactory solution, although I do not know that I would say it was the only solution or the most satisfactory solution.
  I come to the more serious objections to the proposal. There is one to which I attach a good deal of importance, which was put very well by the hon. Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst). He said that we were going to alter the system that had come down to us from Edward I., and that this was a great change in our system about which the country had not been consulted. That has been repeated by many speakers, and it has been described as a most revolutionary change. It is noticeable that this terrible revolution is one which finds favour with the House of Lords. I do not say that this House should take its politics from the House of Lords for a moment, but I do say it is rather difficult for me to believe that a proposal which is warmly accepted in that House is a revolutionary proposal, which no good Conservative in this House ought to consider. I enjoyed very much that part of the speech of my right hon.

  681
  Friend (Mr. Burdett-Coutts), in which he spoke of this terrible change, about which the country had not been consulted, and the revolutionary action of those who tried to force an alteration of this magnitude upon the country. The whole of that speech might have been lifted bodily out of a previous utterance. My right hon. Friend said all those things about women's suffrage, and I do not think anybody in this House now, whatever his opinion on the subject, regards that measure as having brought about a near approach to revolution. May I say a word about the other argument, so constantly used, that this measure, by increasing the size of the constituency, would destroy the personal relations between the Members and their constituents. Surely that is a most exaggerated view. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) warmly cheers that. Has he near personal relation with his constituents?
  Sir W. DAVISON: Yes.
  Lord R. CECIL: I should be very much interested to learn how many he knows by sight.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Thousands.
  Lord R. CECIL: I happen to sit for a constituency where I have a great deal of personal relationship with my constituents for various reasons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do they call you Bob?"] They always speak of me with a mixture of affection and respect.
  Sir W. DAVISON: The question is not how many people the Member knows, but how many constituents know the Member. The great bulk of the constituents of South Kensington know me personally.
  Lord R. CECIL: Speaking seriously, everyone who is honest to himself knows that with the present size of the constituencies the personal relationship has very largely disappeared. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not say altogether, but, of course, it has very largely done. In a constituency consisting of two or three hundred members the personal relations are totally different to those existing in a constituency consisting of 20,000 or 30,000. Look at the result of any General Election! Look at a group of constituencies and you will find that they follow a general current, and are very little
  682
  deflected by the personality of the candidates one way or another. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Very little! As a matter of fact the change would not be material in that respect. A man who is well known in one division of a great town would be well known in the whole of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] A man who was well known in one division of a county would be well known in the whole of that county. [An HON MEMBER: "What about Yorkshire?"] I am sure I am right. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] But after all, this question of the personal relations, important as it is—and it is important—I do not myself think that it is, but I know a good many Members who do not agree with me—is not as important as it used to be. I should have thought that was only self-evident. But if it is as important, when the constituencies have grown from a few hundreds to tens of thousands, then the fact that the constituency is going to grow from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands will not make any more difference than the previous growth of a few hundreds to tens of thousands. That surely must be obvious.
  A much more serious objection than that his been raised. It has been said that if we have that system we shall have a system of groups in this House, and if you have a system of groups instead of parties, you will have the danger of logrolling beween the groups and a modification of our whole system. Take the pre-War period. This House has been remarkably free from groups. For good or ill, it has been organised very strictly. That has not been the experience in all legislatures. In other countries, in France, and under the old German constitution, there were always a number of groups. Yet they were elected in just the same way as we were by the ordinary majority vote. The question of groups does not depend nearly so much on the method of election as on the much broader national characteristics. I do not believe that whatever change you make in the method of election to this House, you will ever make a great change in the broad characteristic of this House—namely, that it shall, in the main, represent certain broad currents of the nation. A good many hon. Members take that view because coincidently with saying that this House will become a House of groups they say that it will be gerrymandered by powerful organisations who

  683
  will return much more completely than ever purely party men and independence will be crushed. I do not believe that that proposition is true, and you will find in the main that this House will have large parties and there will always be a few who do not belong strictly to those parties. I think that is and will continue to be the broad characteristic of this House however you arrange it, and the reason is because that is what the country desires, and no system will ever he able to prevent that general tendency. The real truth is that we are in a very grave constitutional crisis. I do not think hon. Members realise or have really ever faced the proposition that this House no longer has the authority that it used to have or commands the authority that it used to command. You have to realise the immense importance of that consideration. Everybody here naturally looks upon this question very largely from the point of view of how it would affect their own constituencies. The very able speech of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this measure was largely based upon his own experience. I quite recognise that in certain cases this system is going to diminish the amenities of hon. Members of this House, but I do not think that is going to be a serious matter. Nevertheless, I beseech hon. Members to look at it from a broader point of view. It is very natural for those who think they are in an unassailable position to say, "Do not change the system; it suits us very wall," but they should look to the future and consider what is the real tendency of the times. That is the test which I apply to proportional representation. If I thought the real position of the House of Commons and of constitutional government in this country was thoroughly sound and in no danger of losing its authority, I should say with hon. Members opposite, "Perhaps it is not worth while to make any change," but I am satisfied that the chief danger at this moment is that the people may lose faith in the established constitutional authority. I can conceive nothing more fatal to the position of the House than a really widespread impression that its method of election was such that it did not secure and could not secure adequate representation of the feeling of the country. Self-government may be a vain thing and a vain idea, but it does mean that the people of the country are re-presented in
  684
  the authority of the country in something like the proportion of opinion which prevails. That is really an important matter and not a matter of academics. We have to face a real danger. Then I am told: "Well, but your remedy is dangerous." Putting aside what seem to me to be small grounds of objection, the broad ground of objection is that the present system of voting secures large majorities in this House and therefore makes for stability of government. I am not sure that that is sound. My own opinion is exactly the opposite. I am going to say something which I am afraid will not be altogether approved by some hon. Members. When I first entered this House, in 1906, I was a member of a very small minority. There was an immense Radical majority with a small Labour wing. I do not think that anyone who sat in the first Session of that Parliament will be of the opinion that it was a very satisfactory situation. The majority was out of hand, as the saying is, and no one knew what was going to happen next. During that Session it was really quite a chance what legislation would have to be ultimately enacted to meet the views of the majority. I am satisfied that for the purposes of stability a very large majority may be a very dangerous thing. It meant throwing into the hands of the extreme section of the majority a very undue amount of power. Hon. Members opposite are Members of an immense majority in this House. They are naturally inclined to think that that state of things will endure for a long time. They are inclined to say, "After me, the Deluge." The Deluge sometimes comes much more rapidly than is anticipated. Let them try and imagine what another House of Commons may be like. Let them try and consider—I put it to them perfectly frankly—a great Labour victory. Personally, I am not so much afraid as some of my hon. Friends of a Labour majority and a Labour Government. I have often said so. Though I do not desire it, I am not so much afraid of it as some of my hon. Friends. I should be extremely reluctant, however—I say so with perfect frankness—to see a very large Labour majority, or, indeed, for that matter, a very large majority of any kind in this House. I do not believe that such a composition of the House of Commons tends to stability or to good government

  685
  or good legislation. I heard some hon. Gentleman opposite make an interjection which indicates that he regards the whole thing as illusory and impossible.
  Mr. STURROCK: No.
  Lord R. CECIL: That is undoubtedly the feeling of a large number of people. It is because they think that there is no chance of any such thing happening that they do not think it worth while to take any precautions against it. It appears to me a most reckless and unfortunate attitude to take. I am confident that this change will produce, broadly speaking, two great beneficial results. It will not produce a House of Commons consisting solely of groups or mainly of groups. I should not desire and I do not anticipate it. It will produce a House of Commons less absolutely nominated by the party organisation than some of the Houses which existed before the War. It will give a greater flexibility, a greater opportunity for people whose opinions do not happen to be those exactly of any party to find a position in this House. There will be few of them come in, not a very large number. The majority will come in belonging to the great parties, and the great organisations, because without organisation it will always be difficult to deal with a democratically constituted electorate. You will get, in my judgment, a House of the same type but with a larger amount of independence. That will be the result, perhaps the smallest result. You will also get a House which more directly represents the general current of feeling in the country. You will get a House of which it cannot be said with any plausibility, "This is a House out of touch with the feeling of the country." You will get a House which will command more and more the full confidence of the country. I believe you will get a House which will not have what I regard as a great danger, an overwhelming, unyielding, unmanageable majority. I believe this change, revolutionary as it is regarded by some people, is really the true conservativism. It restores the theory of the constitution of this House as a real representation of the electorate which sends it here, and it will conduce, not to revolution, not to violence or to change, but to orderly progress and stability, which is the desire, not only of this House, but of the great mass of the people of this country.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Perhaps I should be wise if I limited my observations to a very small portion of what I intended to say. I should like, if I may, to put the Noble Lord who has just spoken right on the subject of New South Wales, by quoting from a speech of the present Prime Minister of that Colony given last night on the question of proportional representation. He said that as a whole he now favoured it. He stated that proportional representation worked out perhaps in a satisfactory way. As a case in point, he gave this instance of what happened in his own electorate in New South Wales, and what is likely to happen elsewhere. He said, "In my own electorate there were only two National candidates, and five Labour men. We thought it was a certainty for one National candidate and two Labour men. As a matter of fact there should have been two but the stronger man (Dr. Stockford) we thought was so much a certainty that in order to weaken his chances as much as we could, we voted for his friend, who had only been put up in order to give him a run. Dr. Stockford had said to him, 'I will put you up and pay your expenses.' He did so. I met the doctor on the evening of the first day and this is what he said:
  'Well, Story, you and I are elected, anyway. You are thousands above your quota, and I am within a little of it. You and I, therefore, will be sure to be elected.'
  I said,
  'Of course, but under this tricky system no one knows what may happen; but I suppose you will be elected.'"
  Mr. Story went on:
  "Believe me, this gentleman was not elected; and yet so certain was he of election that he entertained his friends at a banquet. He came over and told Mr. Holman, who was the then Premier and likely to be defeated, that he would offer him his seat, as he was certain that he was going to get in."
  Mr. Story winds up by saying:
  "Dr. Stockford was 90 behind at the beginning, and at the end he was 90 behind, and his friend whom he put up is now a Member of Parliament in New South Wales."
  That is what happened in New South Wales.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to make a personal explanation, he is entitled to interrupt, but if it is a correction, I think he must wait.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I only want to ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Devonport is in possession of the House, and is not bound to give way.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) gave us a very interesting statement with regard to the historical position of proportional representation, but he missed out one point, which I will give to the House because I think it emphasises what the right hon. Gentleman said. In 1909 this Proportional Representation Society, of which we have heard so much to-day, got a Royal Commission appointed by this House, and that Royal Commission reported thus:
  "Reviewing the whole of the evidence and duly considering the gravity of the change involved, they were unable to report that a case had been made out for the adoption of the transferable vote for election to the House of Commons."
  That was in 1909, and I do not think that anything has since happened to alter the position. We have, as hon. Members know, had many Debates on this subject in the House of Commons during the last Parliament. Seven times proportional representation was brought up in one way or another, and seven times it was defeated. Then, in order to satisfy in some way and meet this peculiar society for proportional representation, the Government selected certain constituencies and appointed a Commission to go down and see what the electors of those constituencies thought of the proceedings. What was the result? In the great majority of cases the electors of those constituencies were against it, and when the Report was brought up in the House of Commons the great majority was against proportional representation. That majority would have been very much larger had it not been for the Nationalist vote, because the Nationalists, for some reason or other, thought that when the Irish Parliament came along they would get a better chance if they had proportional representation.
  I do not think it is really worth while to discuss the question again this afternoon. No evidence has been brought forward to-day which, if adopted, would produce a more stable Government, a more economic Government, a stronger executive or a better administration. On
  688
  the contrary, all the speeches, at any rate on this side of the House, go to show that proportional representation would produce a less stable Government, a less economic Government, a weaker executive and no better administration. In fact the objections are so numerous that I really do not think it is worth while to go over them again. We have heard a great deal about caucuses, but I do not think it is necessary to repeat what has already been said, but many of us have done a great deal of work in our constituencies. All that work will be thrown away with proportional representation. The existing organisations will all be dissolved. Individual effort will disappear at once. The candidates will be herded together in multiples, each multiple run by its own machine. The elections will be run by a caucus, as Mr. Massie says, by half a dozen smart men who can elect any candidate they like. These half dozen gentlemen are called by the Labour party the intellectuals. They no doubt will be able to spot the particular Labour man they to elect. Then we shall have a caucus on the Unionist side who will spot their men and there will be a caucus on some other side. I do not know what it is. Then there will be the National party and half-a-dozen caucuses spending enormous sums of money and we shall have a Parliament here which will represent nobody and will certainly not represent the electorate. In fact there will be no freedom of voting. The caucuses will tell the electors how to vote and each elector must follow the course, because if he fails to follow what the caucus has told him to do his candidate's chances at the election are gone. It does not matter how popular you are. It does not matter what work you may have done in your constituency. It does not matter what work you may have done in Parliament. All will be swept away. The late Premier of New Zealand says:
  "Proportional representation lends itself to intrigues and wire-pulling and improper practices a thousand times worse than the old second ballot."
  I know something about the old second ballot. I once went in for a position under the old second ballot, and I won the position. I was first of a large number of candidates, but I had not taken the precaution to tell the electors that if they had not voted for me in the first

  689
  ballot they were to vote for men in the second. After being first by a very large majority, I found myself second, and I lost £2,000 a year to come here to get £400. I know something about the second ballot, and I should be sorry to see proportional representation take its place.
  We were told by the Mover of the rejection how difficult were the Regulations put forward by Scotland. I have here a Parliamentary Paper issued in 1917. There are twenty foolscap sheets showing you how you ought to vote, and must vote, in a proportional representation election. I should like to continue this speech, but we have come to the end of the day, and the time has come to vote. I ask all Members to go into one Lobby only, against proportional representation.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his consent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: This proposal will make this House, in my opinion, less representative. What is a far more important matter than the vote is the selection of the candidates, and I find no provision in the Bill for that. I remember an election in Glasgow when a number of men from a Clyde works took the trouble to have a half-holiday in order to go to the polling-booth. They were so dissatisfied that they did not vote, but each wrote across the ballot paper, and
  signed his name, "I decline to vote for either man." If you have the huge constituencies proposed under this Bill the electors will know less and less who the candidates are. I know of one case at the last election where the Selection Committee selected a particular candidate, but a certain man had the temerity to disregard the Selection Committee. He said, "I will fight because the issues are too great to be decided by any Selection Committee," and he beat his man by two or three to one; in fact, the other man had to forfeit his deposit. If you widen the area and operate in the way proposed, we shall become mere automata; we shall not be living representatives of the people. It is impossible for anybody to cover the ground in the time at his disposal. It is always said by the minority in the House, those who are against the Government, that the Government is not representative of the people, that the people were deceived in a moment of madness, but it is a totally different position when they come into power. It is for the good of the country that there should be considerable emotional changes from time to time, and that the position of affairs should not be made static. The result of this Bill would be to crystallise the country, and the House would become far less representative than at present.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 186.

  Division No. 63.]

  AYES.

  [4.59 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Irving, Dan

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

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

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

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

  Kiley, James D.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

  Spencer, George A.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Spoor, B. G.

  Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

  Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

  M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.

  Stevens, Marshall

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

  Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Weston, Colonel John W.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Mosley, Oswald

  Wignall, James

  Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Grant, James A.

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.

  Sir Thomas Bramsdon and Mr. A. Williams.

  NOES.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Ganzonl, Captain Sir F. J. C.

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Gardiner, James

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

  Gee, Captain Robert

  Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Pearce, Sir William

  Barnett, Major R. W.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike

  Barrie, Charles Coupar

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Perring, William George

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

  Greer, Harry

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Purchase, H. G.

  Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

  Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Blair, Sir Reginald

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

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hallas, Eldred

  Rankin, Captain James S.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bruton, Sir James

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Higham, Charles Frederick

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

  Reid, D. D.

  Burdett-Coutts, Rt. Hon. William

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Remnant, Sir James

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Rose, Frank H.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hood, Joseph

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Cautley, Henry S.

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)

  Jameson, J. Gordon

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Simm, M. T.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Jesson, C.

  Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sugden, W. H.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Taylor, J.

  Dalzlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Lonsdale, James Rolston

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Lorden, John William

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Denison-Pender, John C.

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.

  Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

  Lynn, R. J.

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Wallace, J.

  Dixon, Captain Herbert

  M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Dockrell, Sir Maurice

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Manville, Edward

  Whitla, Sir William

  Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

  Elveden, Viscount

  Mitchell, William Lane

  Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Molson, Major John Eisdale

  Wise, Frederick

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

  Morris, Richard

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Morrison, Hugh

  Younger, Sir George

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Nall, Major Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Foreman, Sir Henry

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

  Major Henderson and Lieut.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Colonel Hurst.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Words added.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

COAL NEGOTIATIONS.

  PRIME MINISTER'STATEMENT.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think the House before it rises would like to hear what is the position with regard to the coal-mining dispute. I shall have to make certain announcements of a very important character before I sit down. I am afraid my statement is of a very cheerless character, and I deeply deplore it.
  Before the House rose last night, I intimated that I proposed to ask the coal-owners and the Miners' Federation to attend a joint conference, at which the first subject of discussion should be the pumping and preservation of the mines, it being understood that, until that question was disposed of, no other matter should be taken up. This morning I acted in accordance with that intention, and addressed to the Miners' Federation the following letter:
  "Dear Mr. Hodges,—In the course of the discussion in the House of Commons last night certain suggestions were made by Leaders of the Labour party which have led me to make to you a further proposal for a meeting with the coalowners in order to make a start towards a solution of the present dispute. A suggestion was made to the effect that a conference might be summoned by the Government which would deal in the first instance with the question of pumping and the preservation of the mines, and that that matter should be disposed of before any other question was entered upon. The Government have considered this suggestion, and I am now to invite your Federation to send representatives at 12 o'clock noon to-day for a conference to be held at the Board of Trade upon those terms."
  A similar letter was addressed to the Coalowners' Association. I have received in reply from the coalowners an acceptance of the invitation, on the understanding mentioned. The following letter came from the Miners' Federation:
  "We thank you for your letter of this morning, and hasten to inform you we have fully considered your proposal for a meeting with the coalowners this morning at 12
  694
  o'clock to deal in the first instance with the question of the pumping and preservation of the mines, and that that matter should be disposed of before any other question was entered upon. We have already stated to you in clear terms that we are willing and ready to meet the Owners and the Government at any time and place convenient to all parties, and are willing to meet as soon as we hear from you that the Conference is to be held entirely free from any preliminary conditions as to what is or what is not to be discussed. We desire to be free to fully discuss every aspect of the present situation with a view to arriving at a speedy and honourable conclusion."
  The answer of the Miners' Federation obviously did not meet the point I had put, namely, that the question of saving the mines should first be discussed. I accordingly addressed to Mr. Hodges the following letter:
  "Dear Mr. Hodges,—I have to acknowledge recéipt of your letter of this morning. You state that you desire to be free to discuss fully every aspect of the present situation with a view to arriving at a speedy and honourable conclusion. This is also the wish of the Government. We have never suggested that any limitations should be imposed upon discussion, but as regards the order in which matters are to be discussed national interest in the preservation of the mines is paramount, and it must take first place. While the mines are hourly being flooded and ruined, and one of the most valuable of national assets being destroyed, it is impossible to expect other questions to be debated. Accordingly, the question of the safety of the mines must first be discussed and disposed of before other matters are taken up. I therefore invite you to a conference in this sense, and will be glad if representatives of your Federation will attend at the Board of Trade this afternoon at three o'clock for this purpose."
  I received the following reply:
  "I have to inform you that your further letter has been considered by my Committee. We know your clearly stated condition, that the question of the 'safety of the mines must first be discussed and disposed of before other matters are taken up.' We think the condition stands in the way of a resumption of negotiations. As previously stated, we are willing to meet the Owners and the Government in conference at once, if we are

  695
  allowed to meet unconditionally. We hope the Government will raise no obstacle to ensure this end."
  I replied:
  "I have received your letter, and note with the greatest regret the decision at which your Committee has arrived. In view of the grave consequences involved, it is difficult to understand how any discussion designed to promote a settlement could usefully proceed unless we were all agreed that the first task should be to secure the preservation and safety of the mines, without which there must be widespread and continued unemployment and distress, not only for those whose occupation is in the mines, but for the whole industrial population. So far from placing any obstacle in the way of negotiation, the action of the Government has been dictated solely by a desire to remove the main obstacle that stood in the way of fruitful negotiation. The mines are vital to the life of the community; their destruction is as fatal to the nation as would have been defeat in war, and to secure their preservation must be the paramount duty of Government."
  The conference, therefore, has not been held. The mineowners were present, but the miners' representatives did not attend, and consequently the meeting adjourned without any discussion.
  From these communications, and from the statements deliberately made at the meeting with me yesterday, it is plain that the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation are resolved to let the mines go to destruction, in the belief that they will thus intimidate the nation into a surrender to their demands. The desperate character of this policy is visible in the disastrous effects which it will have on the livelihood of the miners themselves. Whole villages which derive their entire support from the mining industry will become derelict, and thousands of families will be deprived of the means of existence; and, from the point of view of the nation as a whole, the results are not less calamitous. Coal is the foundation of industry, and to wreck the coal mines, or to allow them to be ruined by flooding, is to strike at the life of the whole body of citizens.
  696
  It is accordingly the duty of the Government, as the trustee of the nation, to prevent this catastrophe, more especially as it is becoming increasingly clear that in some places, at any rate, large organised bodies of miners are, by threats of violence, preventing this necessary work being done by the mine officials and others willing to help. Protection and adequate protection, must be given to those who are engaged in preserving other course is open to us.
  The nation is, for the first time in its history, confronted by an attempt to coerce it into capitulation, by the destruction of its resources; and this menace is apparently now to be supplemented, if newspaper accounts be accurate—and I sincerely trust they are not—by a concerted plan to suspend the transport services which are essential to the life of the country. Were that threat to materialise, the supply of food and other immediate necessaries of life will be denied to all classes of the population, unless volunteers come forward to carry on the minimum of transport work required to maintain the most essential national and municipal services.
  The Government proposes to call for volunteers to help carrying on these services, and announcements will be made telling volunteers at what centres they should apply to be registered, and instructed as to the help they can best afford. These, too, will need adequate protection in the discharge of their patriotic duties, while it is no less essential that, in the face of such a wide-spread disturbance of the ordinary machinery of the life of the community, law and order should be effectively maintained.
  The police force, even when strengthened by the enrolment of special constables—for which an appeal will be issued—will obviously be insufficient for this task, in view of the very large number of points that require protection, and of the organised character of the interference with the voluntary workers. They are entitled to look to the Government for protection and help from the Armed Forces of the Crown in their

  697
  difficult task. This protection the Government has decided to afford them, in whatever measure may be necessary.
  It is, therefore, proposed to make a special appeal to patriotic citizens to enlist in an Emergency Force, recruited, not for the purpose of interfering in any wage dispute, but solely to support the police in the fulfilment of their duties to the community. Enlistment for this Force, which we propose to call the Defence Force, will be for 90 days, at the ordinary rates of pay and allowances. The Territorial Force will not be embodied, or asked to serve, but members of the Territorial Force and ex-service men generally will be specially invited to enlist.
  Enlistment will commence to-morrow at the Territorial Drill Hall and Headquarters.
  The Government have also come to the conclusion that it is necessary, with the same object in view, to strengthen the armed forces of the Crown now serving, and I have therefore advised His Majesty that a situation has arisen in which he is justified in sanctioning the issue of a Proclamation calling up the reserves of the Army and Navy and Air Force.
  The cause of the present dispute is being represented in some quarters as a deliberate attack upon the wages of the worker. There is no justification of any kind for this suggestion. [An HON. MEMBER: "You know better!"] The Government have never pronounced any opinion, nor have we formed any, upon the rates of wages which have been offered to the miners by the coalowners; they have not even been discussed between the parties. When our services were offered in attempting to bring the parties together upon that matter, the reply of the miners was that it was of no use, unless the Government were prepared to subsidise the coal industry.
  It was clearly acknowledged by the miners that, at the present time, the proceeds of the coal industry are not sufficient to yield the wages which the miners demand, and the only case presented to the Government by the miners is one for an immediate subsidy from the Exchequer.
  698
  To this proposition the Government have been unable to agree, for reasons which have already been fully stated, and are easily understood; and an attempt is now made to enforce a decision by direct action, which would have the effect of destroying essential assets of the community. We are fighting for the life of the community, and we will use every resource the community has at its disposal.

  ROYAL MESSAGE.
  The PRIME MINISTER(standing at the Bar of the House): A Message from the King, signed by his own hand.
  All the Members of the House being uncovered,
  Mr. SPEAKERread the Royal Message which was as followeth:
  George R. I.
  The present state of public affairs, and the threatened dislocation of the life of the community occasioned by the existing strike in the coal mines and its threatened extension to the railway and transport services of the Country, constituting in the opinion of His Majesty a state of great emergency within the meaning of the Acts of Parliament in that behalf, His Majesty deems it proper to provide additional means for the Naval, Military, and Air Force Services, and therefore, in pursuance of those Acts, His Majesty has thought it right to communicate to the House of Commons that His Majesty is, by Proclamation, about to order that the Volunteers under the Naval Reserve Act, 1900, who belong to Class B of the Royal Fleet Reserve, the Army Reserve, and the Air Force Reserve, shall be called into actual service or called out on permanent service, as the case may be, and that soldiers and airmen who would otherwise be entitled, in pursuance of the terms of their enlistment, to be transferred to the Reserve shall continue in Army or Air Force Service, as the case may be, for such period not exceeding the period for which they might be required to serve if they were transferred

  699
  to the Reserve and called out for permanent service, as to His Majesty may seem expedient.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I beg to move, "That His Majesty's Most Gracious Message be taken into consideration upon Monday next." [HON. MEMBERS: "To-morrow!"] It will be the first Order of the Day.
  Mr. CLYNES: I want to express a two-fold regret at the statement which we have heard from the Prime Minister. I deeply regret the failure of the efforts which have been made to establish conditions for negotiations and for the settlement of the dispute. But I equally regret that the Prime Minister has thought proper to import into his announcement imputations against the miners' leaders as to their motives and their objects, which it is impossible for us at this moment to discuss. The Prime Minister began by reading a letter indicating to the House the fact that the Labour Members have taken part in a discussion, and that a certain suggestion was made. He read in part of a letter that a suggestion of a two-fold character had been made. The fact is that two separate suggestions were made. No Labour Member suggested that the Conference should be contingent upon discussing, and deciding first, the issue in regard to the pumping. [HON. MEMBERS: "Thomas!"] That is the point.
  I think the Prime Minister, like every other Member, will simply desire the facts as to what was stated. I have the Report before me, and from it I can see only the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that this question of returning to work the pumps should be taken as the first subject of discussion. My right hon. Friend made the suggestion to that extent, as far as I know to that extent only. It was the Prime Minister who made the suggestion, and who has since repeated the statement that that question must be disposed of by any conference, before any other subject was entered into. [HON. MEMBEES: "Why not?"] Why not? That is a matter for debate. So far as I am concerned, it is not a matter for de-
  700
  bate—I am speaking now of the attitude of the Miners' Federation.
  The point I want to put, after having tried to make that matter clear is that as far as information is to hand, the damage to the mines, so often referred to, and which I deplore as much as anybody can, is comparatively slight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, now, hon. Members may murmur and dissent, but I am sure they are doing that in ignorance of the facts. For I am assured that, in the great majority of cases, the mines are taking no hurt at all, and it is only in a comparatively small number of cases where any damage is being done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not agree then?] I am impressing upon the House the fact that this degree of loss of property is not so great as to be made the cause of interfering with the immediate establishment of the conditions of negotiation which might lead to a settlement. The only point that I wish to put to the Prime Minister is this: That such use is being made of this difficulty of the pumping, and the safety of the property in the mines, that it is now clear that, had no such condition been laid down and insisted upon and pressed, even now I say to the House, it seems clear to me that a conference in the early part of this week might have been begun, continued, and by this time have settled the question.
  Lieut-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Are you going to govern, or is the Government?
  Mr. CLYNES: The House has received, evidently with approval, this announcement—which for the moment I am not calling into question—as to the elaborate precautions to be taken—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that, by the Standing Orders of the House, it being half-past five, I am bound to bring the discussion to an end. I am sure, however, that the House will be ready to waive the rule, in order to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. CLYNES: I have only one other sentence with which to conclude my remarks. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that these precautions, which the House may justly deem to be

  701
  necessary, are costly precautions, and that they are going to involve the country, quite apart from who is to blame, in an expenditure of millions of money. The mere fact of cost cannot be underrated. As we understand the objection offered to our appeal to continue control for a reasonably short time, in order that in that time we might have a settlement, and in order that some gradual reduction of wages might be arranged on a par with the decrease in the cost of living, it is that money cannot be found, and that subsidies can no longer be tolerated. The House is now facing a further problem of expenditure from a wrong standpoint, and it would be better to spend your State money in the way I have suggested. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] This is not a matter of giving in. I think you may say that in the end it will be found that few men can be discovered, with all your precautions, to go down into the pits to take the place of the miners.
  That, however, is not the spirit in which I have approached this question. Whatever else might be said of our attempt to do some little justice to the case of the miners, we have, at any rate, used every possible effort we could to establish
  702
  conditions of negotiation, and to prevent the calamity of an extension of this dispute. All I can do now is to ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the situation from the point of view of removing the only obstacle which he himself was the first to establish, and leave the miners' leaders free, with the mine-owners, to go into a conference and consider whether they can, first of all, settle this question.
  I reject the idea that there is any intention to destroy the mines, and I repeat that in the great majority of cases the mines are suffering no danger. I appeal to the Prime Minister to turn his thoughts, not in the direction of a certain extension of the dispute, but in the direction of composing our differences, by removing the only obstacle that stands in the way.
  It being after Half-past Five of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at Twenty-six minutes before Six o'clock, till Monday next (11th April).

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

  GAS AND WATER BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move, "That the Lords Message [24th March] communicating the Resolution, 'That it is desirable that the Taf Fechan Valley Water Board Bill [Lords], Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords], Rhymney Valley Water Board Bill [Lords], and the Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both House of Parliament' be now considered."
  The Resolution in my name refers to four Welsh Water Bills which are to a considerable extent inter-related. I have had a conference with the Chairman of Committees in another place on this subject and we were agreed that it would be most desirable that each Bill should be sent to one Committee, and that a Joint Committee of the two Houses. It is our hope that by that means there will emerge a proposal which will give a satisfactory water supply to these rather difficult areas with due regard to economy and to the saving of expense to the ratepayers of the district.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Whitley.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Private Bills [Lords] (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 Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired
  82
  into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

  Oxford Motor Services Bill [Lords].

  Bristol Water Bill [Lords].

  Waltham and Cheshunt Gas Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a Second time.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL,
  "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Altrincham, Ashford, Barnes, Gillingham, and Ramsgate," presented by Sir ALFRED MOND; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL,
  "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Cleethorpes, Loughborough, Middleton, Swansea, and the Goole Joint Hospital District," presented by Sir ALFRED MOND; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

  NEW WRITS.
  For County of Worcester (Bewdley Division) in the room of right hon. STANLEY BALDWIN, President of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Plantations.
  For Burgh of Glasgow (Pollok Division) in the room of Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR, Baronet, D.S.O., one of the Commissioners for executing the Office of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland.
  For Borough of Bristol (West Division) in the room of Colonel GEORGE ABRAHAM GIBBS, Treasurer of His Majesty's Household.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
  For County of Dorset (Eastern Division) in the room of Captain the right hon. FREDERICK EDWARD GUEST, D.S.O., one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
  For County of Bedford (Bedford Division) in the room of right hon: FREDERICK GEORGE KELLAWAY, Postmaster-General.—[Mr. Dudley Ward.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PERSIA
  3. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further information with regard to the situation in Persia?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Since the events described by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his answer on 28th February to questions by the hon. and gallant Members for Stafford and Hull, a Government has been formed by Said Zia ed Din, and our reports reveal a more satisfactory state of affairs at the capital since its advent to power. His Majesty's Government are watching sympathetically the efforts of the new Cabinet who may rest assured that any action taken for the maintenance of order and the establishment of normal conditions will be welcome to His Majesty's Government.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are any refugees still taking refuge in the British Legation at Teheran?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I cannot answer that question without notice. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question.

  PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
  4. Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amount has been received during the past 12 months in connection with the issue of British passports and visas, and also the sum total of Government expenditure thereon?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The estimated receipts are £295,700. The expenditure from Votes controlled by my Department was £156,072. The latter figure does not include expenditure by the Office of Works for the upkeep of the passport offices in London and Liverpool, the rent of the latter office and interest on capital expended in building the former. The cost of stationery is borne by the Stationery Office.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that after the very excellent example set by Belgium, France has now done away with the necessity of visas for Belgian and French subjects, and will the hon. Gentleman do something to celebrate the Entente by seeing, as far as he can, that Great Britain follows the example of Belgium and does away with visas between ourselves and France?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sure it is the intention and desire of the Foreign Office to do all that is possible.
  Captain TERRELL: Why does the hon. Gentleman give estimated receipts, when the question asks for the amount which has been received?
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: When will the Government give expression to views constantly repeated in the House on this matter?

  PEACE TREATIES.

    RUSSIA, POLAND AND ANGORA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received the terms of the treaties of peace between the Russian and Polish Governments and the Russian Government and the Nationalist Government of Angora; and whether they will be laid upon the Table or otherwise published?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why was not the Polish Government requested to furnish us with a copy of this very important treaty?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice of that question. I am not aware of the facts.

    GERMAN REPARATION.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress the Governments or Parliaments of France, Belgium, Italy, and Japan have made with legislation similar to the German Reparations Bill passed by this House?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have nothing to add to the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday in reply to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman reply to that part of the question which deals with Japan, which was not answered by the Prime Minister yesterday? Has nothing been done?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If I had had any further information than that which was available yesterday I would have given it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This question relating to Japan was not asked of the Prime Minister yesterday. Has the hon. Gentleman no knowledge of this legislation?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question specifically I will see if there is any information available. At present there is not.

    TURKEY.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will publish the exact terms which were handed to the representatives of the Turkish Government and of the Kemalists at the termination of the recent conference in London?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The text of the proposals handed to the Greek and Turkish delegations was published in the Press of the 14th March.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not very unsatisfactory that we are to rely on the Press? Cannot we have the official text of the proposals made to these people?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I understand the text was published in full.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand the hon. Gentleman said the "effect"—
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, I said the "text."

    CILICIA.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the terms arranged between France
    86
    and the Kemalists with regard to the French withdrawal from Cilicia; whether he can say how the proposed gendarmerie will be constituted and commanded; and what measure of responsibility will be retained by France for the safety of the Christian population of Cilicia?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have not yet received the text of the agreement, and am not, therefore, in a position to answer the hon. Member's inquiries.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of the Christian population of Cilicia are proposing to emigrate on account of this agreement to hand them back to the Turks?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, I am not aware of that.

    EX-GERMAN SHIPS.
    Mr. HOLMESasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of German ships sold during the past month, together with the highest and lowest price paid per ton?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The number of ex-German ships sold during March, 1921, by the Reparation Commission for British Government account was 17, of a total gross tonnage of 75,040, and the gross sum realised was £548,100. I have consulted the Reparation Commission, who are of opinion that, as there is still a considerable number of vessels to be sold, it is not desirable at present to publish further particulars as to the prices realised.

    EX-KAISER (EXTRADITION).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether any request has been made to the League of Nations to bring pressure to bear upon Holland in regard to the extradition of the ex-Kaiser in accordance with the demand of the Allies; and whether there is any provision in the constitution of the League for the expulsion of recalcitrant members?
    The LEADER of the HOUSE (Mr. Chamberlain): so far as I am aware, no request of the nature indicated by the hon. Member has been made to the League of Nations. As regards the latter part of the question, paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Covenant states that "any member of the League which has

    87
    violated any Covenant of the League may be declared to be no longer a member of the League by a vote of the Council concurred in by the representatives of all the other members of the League represented thereon."
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the Government consider the desirability of asking the League of Nations to make this demand upon Holland, with an intimation that if it does not assent our contribution to the upkeep of the League will be withheld?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; the Government would not be prepared to make that request.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WAR DECORATIONS.
    Major PRESCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been made as to whether clasps are to be awarded for military actions during the late War; if so, for what actions clasps are to be awarded, and what is the estimated number of military clasps required; whether in view of the great cost to the country already involved by the production of medals in the ordnance factories opportunity will be given to expert firms of medallists to tender for the supply of these clasps; and if action will be taken to see that as economically and efficiently designed clasp as possible, both as regards cost of production and method of distribution and attaching, be decided upon?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The whole question is still under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any announcement on the subject at present.
    Major PRESCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War the cost to the country of the production of the British silver War Medals and the Victory Medals as now being made in the ordnance factories as compared with the prices quoted by private firms of medallists; whether, in view of the long period of four years in which it is hoped to complete the War medals distribution, it would be to the national advantage to
    88
    approximately double the number of men at present employed on this work in order to complete the distribution within a period of two years, and incidentally provide useful employment for an additional number of unemployed ex-service men; and if he will consider the advisability of inviting tenders from London firms of expert medallists for the production of the bronze Victory Medals in view of the fact that such a step would not reduce employment in the ordnance factories for the next two years?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The estimated cost of production, exclusive of the cost of the metal, is approximately £316,000 for the British silver War medals, and approximately £166,000 for the Victory Medals. The comparative cost of production by private firms is not known. It is estimated that, at the present rate of production, the manufacture of the medals will be completed by the factory in about one and a half years. The period of four years mentioned was an approximate estimate only and made some months ago, and included not only the time taken for production but also for engraving and distributing the medals. It is not practicable to increase the number engaged on the work of distribution, which is carried out in conjunction with the military record offices; nor is it necessary at this stage to expand the rate of production at Woolwich.

    ESTIMATES.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Secretary of State for War when the detailed Army Estimates will be presented?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope to present the detailed Estimates in the course of the present month.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it proposed to continue to take the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bills together, in view of the fact that they are now separate Ministries?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, it is proposed to do so.
    Mr. RAPER: Why then do you not take the Navy Bill at the same time?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That does not arise, obviously.

    TROOPS, MESOPOTAMIA AND PERSIA.
    11. Mr. HOLMESasked the Secretary of State for War how many troops, British and Indian, are now in Mesopotamia and Persia?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The approximate numbers of troops at present in Mesopotamia and Persia are as follow:—

    Mesopotamia.

    Persia.

    British troops

    12,400

    2,300

    Indian troops

    72,330

    9,300

    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do the figures relating to Indian troops include followers? Are we to understand that they are the ration strength and not the combatant strength?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. I am not asked the ration strength.
    Mr. HAILWOOD: Are we to understand that the troops are to be withdrawn from Persia?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They are in process of being withdrawn from Persia.

  IRELAND.

    CROWN FORCES (CASUALTIES).
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any objection to publishing the names and complete regimental identifications of those British soldiers who may be killed or wounded in courageously discharging their duties in Ireland; whether he can add in each case their military record in the Great War; and whether, so far as pensions or disability grants are concerned, no differential treatment is made between them and the ex-service men of 1914–18?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The names and regimental identifications of soldiers killed or wounded in Ireland are published in the Press every month, but delay is sometimes caused by the necessity of verifying the particulars. It is not customary to add military records to casualty lists, and owing to the reductions in the clerical staffs of Record Offices and of the War Office I regret it is not possible to do so in the case of lists of casualties to the forces in Ireland. As regards the last part of my hon. and
    90
    gallant Friend's question, until 30 days after the official termination of the War, which has not yet been announced, such soldiers are fully assured of the same pension rights as during the Great War. The position which may arise, in the event of soldiers being killed or wounded in Ireland after that date is at present receiving careful consideration.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there is any objection to publishing the names and identification of those British-born police, both regular and auxiliary, who may be killed or wounded in courageously discharging their duties in Ireland; whether he can add, in each case, their military record in the great War if they participated as combatants; and what arrangements have been made for the pensioning of dependants or for disability grants to the men themselves if seriously injured?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The first part of the question has already been answered to-day by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. As regards the last part of the question, members of the regular Royal Irish Constabulary and the Auxiliary Division incapacitated through infirmity occasioned by injuries received in the execution of duty without their own default are granted from State funds pensions in accordance with the Constabulary (Ireland) Acts and the widows and children of members dying from such injuries are entitled to pensions and allowances under the same Acts. In addition, where a police constable has been murdered, maimed or maliciously injured in the execution of his duty or on account of his being acting or having acted as a police constable he or in the case of murder his personal representative or next of kin can make a claim under the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act for compensation and any award in respect of such claim is payable by the local authorities. Until the claim for compensation is paid the Government guarantee to the widow of a murdered policeman an allowance equivalent to two-thirds of her husband's salary.

    GOODS BOYCOTT.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Chief Secretary whether the threatened boycott

    91
    of English goods has now been put into operation; and whether he can make any statement as to the extent of the boycott?
    Mr. HENRY: My right hon. Friend is aware that the boycott of English manufacturers has recently been declared part of the official policy of Sinn Fein. The effect on both sides of the Irish Channel remains to be seen.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Chief Secretary whether he can make any statement as to the extent of the boycott of Belfast goods in Southern Ireland; and whether he has any information as to whether the population as a whole are taking part in the boycott?
    Mr. HENRY: A number of instances have occurred where goods in railway wagons and in course of transit have been burned. In many cases these were goods produced in Great Britain which were being distributed from Belfast. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    NEW PARLIAMENTS.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Chief Secretary whether he can now state when the Parliament and Government of Southern Ireland will be set up?
    Mr. HENRY: His Majesty's Government have fixed the 3rd May next for bringing into operation the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act generally; but certain matters of a nature requiring consultation with the new Governments when established are excluded and will remain as at present until subsequent appointed days are fixed. On or about the 3rd of May the Lord Lieutenant will issue Proclamations summoning the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland; the elections will be held, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in May, and the establishment of the two Governments will follow in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will martial law be lifted in the martial law areas before the elections take place?
    Mr. HENRY: That will depend entirely on the conditions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If it is not possible to raise martial law how can it be expected that elections will be fairly held?
    Sir W. DAVISON: What is the object of holding elections in Southern Ireland when any candidates who do not support Sinn Fein would be shot? [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"]

    SHOOTINGS, MALLOW (INQUIRY).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Chief Secretary whether he has yet received the Report of the Mallow inquiry; and, if so, whether it will be published?
    Mr. HENRY: This Report has now been published as a Parliamentary Paper.

    TROOPS (TOTAL STRENGTH).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many troops are now stationed in Ireland?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Sir R. Sanders): The total strength of the troops in Ireland is approximately 56,000 all ranks.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any truth in the report in to-day's papers that troops are being brought over from Ireland to this country?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I should like notice of that question.

    ALLEGED THEFTS (LABOUR COMMISSION).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Chief Secretary whether, when he wrote to the Secretary of the Labour Commission which visited Ireland informing him that inquiries had been made into the alleged theft of articles by members of the Crown forces from the cars used by the Commission, and that there was nothing to show that the theft complained of ever in fact took place, still less that it was perpetrated by forces of the Crown, he is aware that those who investigated the case locally on his behalf expressed themselves as satisfied that the articles were stolen, and that they reported in this sense to Dublin Castle; and will he inquire further into the matter?
    Mr. HENRY: The hon. Member appears to be misinformed. I understand that those who investigated this case did not express themselves as stated in the question, and they certainly did not report in that sense to Dublin Castle. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has made all possible inquiry into the matter, and has nothing to add to the letter which he addressed to the Secretary to the Labour Commission.

  NATIONALITY LAW.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on 12th November, 1918, 20th February, 1919, 10th April, 1919, 24th July, 1919, 6th November, 1919, 2nd March, 1920, 9th March, 1920, and 14th December, 1920, the Home Secretary stated that the question of Amendments in the law of nationality was under consideration in consultation with the Dominions and India; and whether a Bill has been drafted and submitted for the consideration of the Dominions and India, and with what result?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): This question was answered on the 23rd ultimo.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was not answered in any way whatever, and can he give me an answer now?
  Mr. SHORTT: I understand that it was answered on the 23rd ultimo.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: May I be allowed to give notice that as I have not had an answer I shall put the question down again?

  UNFIT HOUSES (EXPORT).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Home Secretary what further action he is taking regarding the tortures of horses exported to the Continent; has he read the evidence which shows that hundreds of horses die in transit, hundreds who arrive injured are hammered to death; and others stabbed and allowed to bleed to death; and is he satisfied of the truth of these statements?
  Mr. TOWYN JONES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given on the 4th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth.

  SCOTLAND.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Major MACKENZIE WOODasked the Secretary for Scotland the amount of land which has been acquired and is in the occupation of settlers under the Land
    94
    Settlement Act; how many ex-service men and others have been settled on the land; how much of the land has been bought and at what cost; and how much has been made available under the tenure of the Small Landholders Act, 1911?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): Under the Land Settlement Act, 1919, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have acquired 126,387 acres at a cost of £352,861. 12,113 acres on the Board's estates are in occupation of 350 holders, including 311 ex-service men. Under the Small Landholders Acts the Board have settled 1,435 holders, including 184 ex-service men, on an area of 159,367 acres.
    Sir J. HOPE: Are those figures under the Small Landholders Acts since the beginning of the Small Landholders Act, or for last year?
    Mr. MUNRO: Since the beginning of the Act.
    Sir J. HOPE: That is, for the last nine years?
    Mr. MUNRO: Yes.
    Major WOODasked the Secretary for Scotland how much of the recent additional grant of £1,000,000 for land settlement in Scotland has been spent; how the money spent has been expended; how much has been used in the purchase of land; how much in making land available for small holdings under the Small Landholders Act, 1911; and how many men have been settled this year on the land under Government schemes of settlement?
    Mr. MUNRO: The additional grant to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is approximately £1,083,000. £750,000 of this sum has yet to be made available by new legislation. No part of the balance of £333,000 has actually been expended. Thirty-four holders have been settled since the 31st December last.
    Major WOOD: Are we to understand that the restrictions placed last year by the Board on the operations of the Small Landholders Act have been withdrawn?
    Mr. MUNRO: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper. If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question I will answer it.

  POST OFFICE.

    CONTINENTAL MAIL SERVICE.
    Mr. RARERasked the Postmaster-General (1) how many voyages of steamboats to carry mails and parcels between British ports and the Continent of Europe were scheduled to take place during the past year; how many such voyages were cancelled owing to bad weather;
    (2) on how many days during the past year the steamboats engaged to carry mail matter, either letters or parcels, between English ports and the Continent of Europe, did not run owing to bad weather?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): 4,006 voyages of steamers to convey mails between British ports and the Continent of Europe were scheduled to take place during the year 1920, and of that number, five were cancelled owing to bad weather. There was no day during that period when communication with the Continent was entirely suspended through bad weather.

    WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR.
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe)asked the Postmaster-General whether he authorised the advertisement in the public Press inviting applications for the position of assistant-inspector of wireless telegraphy; if so, whether there are no officers on the present supervising staff with the necessary qualifications for the position; whether the chief of the wireless branch has stated that it is not a question as to whether an officer can perform the duties but whether he is of a particular class; and whether it is proposed to bring in outsiders and deny promotion to suitable members of the present supervising staff because they do not belong to a certain class?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes, Sir. As the advertisement indicates, the duties of the post referred to require a high standard of scientific and general educational attainments. None of the existing supervising staff possesses all the qualifications required. Considerations of social status will not influence the selection; and the statement of the inspector of wireless telegraphy referred to the personal and
    96
    educational qualifications desirable and not to the question of social class.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of land which has been acquired for land settlement, together with the price which has been paid for the land; how much of the land is now in the occupation of settlers; and how many ex-service men have received holdings?
  Mr. TOWYN JONES: The total area of land acquired by the local authorities and by the Ministry for land settlement is 274,626 acres. Of this area 226,508 acres have been purchased for cash, the purchase money amounting to £9,491,000. The remainder has been purchased for annuities or leased. The total area of the smallholdings provided by the local authorities since the 1st January, 1919, is 179,044 acres. The number of men settled on this land is 12,658, of whom 11,104 are ex-service men and 1,554 civilians. In addition 642 ex-service men and 148 civilians have been accommodated on the Ministry's farm settlements.
  Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the average price per acre?
  Mr. TOWYN JONES: The hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will put down another question.

  TEES (RIVER POLICE).
  Mr. WIGNALLasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the late superintendent of police for the borough of Middlesbrough has now been appointed by the Tees Conservancy Commissioners as superintendent of the river police; and whether, in view of the prevailing unemployment, he will indicate to the Tees Conservancy Commissioners the desirability that such employment should not be given to persons adequately provided for by means of a pension, especially so in view of the fact that the term of the conservancy's superannuation scheme provides that workmen qualifying for pension shall, on drawing the same, not perform any other work?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have no information with regard to the circumstances of this appointment which so far as I am aware is not in any way under the control of any Department of the Government.
  Mr. WIGNALL: Does the pension payable to the Superintendent of Police include any sum of money from the Government?
  Sir M. BARLOW: I am not aware of any fund from which payment could be made.
  Mr. WIGNALL: If the Department cannot do anything to prevent one man holding two positions in these days of unemployment, cannot the Department make representations to the local authority as to the advisability of giving this job to another man?
  Sir M. BARLOW: This appointment is entirely in the hands of the local authority concerned, and I do not think a Government Department can make recommendations in the matter.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BOOT AND SHOE TRADE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Minister of Labour if he can give any promise that he will draft and introduce a Bill bringing out-and home workers, especially in the boot trade, inside the ambit of insurance against unemployment; has he been urged to do this by the Boot and Shoe Operatives' Union; and, if he is unwilling to pledge himself to introduce a Bill on this subject, what remedy does he propose to save this large class of persons from poverty and starvation during periods of unemployment?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Arrangements have been made to receive a deputation from the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives on this subject at an early date, and the representations made by this deputation will be carefully considered. Meanwhile, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my Noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham on the 2nd March, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. RENDALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this change can be made by administration or must it be made by legislation?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I should like notice of that question. I am not prepared to say off-hand, but I think it would require legislation.

    STATISTICS OF UNEMPLOYED.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered at the Employment Exchanges on 1st April, and in particular the number of ex-service men so registered; and whether he can give an estimate of the total number of unemployed, both registered and unregistered, and also those working short time?
    Sir M. BARLOW: At 24th March, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 1,413,751 persons on the live registers of Employment Offices totally unemployed, while in addition about 827,000 persons were claiming unemployment benefit or out-of-work donation in respect of systematic short-time working. The number of ex-service men included in the 1,413,751 was about 373,000, but owing to some ex-service men now being ire receipt of benefit under the Insurance Act of 1921 instead of under the out-of-work donation scheme, this figure is probably somewhat below the actual number unemployed.
    As regards an estimate of the total numbers unemployed, the figure for total unemployment probably approximates fairly closely to the actual number, as, apart from civilians employed in agriculture and domestic service, practically every employed person is eligible for benefit. In the case of short time, how-ever, the figures given only apply to those working systematic short time in such a manner as to bring them within the scope of the Insurance Act. Persons having four or five days' work per week are not entitled to unemployment benefit.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed on 1st April, 1921, as compared with the total on 1st January, 1st February and 1st March; and the respective totals of those in receipt of unemployment, pay?
    Sir M. BARLOW: As the reply is in tabular form, perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    —

    Numbers of Men, Women, Boys and Girls on Live Registers of Employment Exchanges.*

    Number of Persons in receipt of Unemployment Insurance or Out-of-Work Donation.

    Totally Unemployed.

    On Short Time.

    31st December, 1920

    …

    756,823

    657,131

    446,490

    4th February, 1921

    …

    1,111,314

    981,257

    669,368

    4th March, 1921

    …

    1,254,677

    1,107,075

    751,775

    24th March, 1921

    …

    1,413,751

    l,263,000†

    827,000†

    * Persons on short time are not included in these figures,

    †Preliminary and subject to revision.

  COST OF LIVING.
  25. Mr. HOLMESasked the Minister of Labour the index figure of the cost of living on 1st April; to what extent it has fallen during the month; and how many classes of workers will have their wages reduced in consequence of the fall?
  Sir M. BARLOW: The index figure relating to 1st April is not yet available. Before the calculations can be made, large numbers of voluntary returns have to be collected from shopkeepers and others, and the computations cannot ordinarily be completed until shortly after the middle of each month. It is estimated that the total number of wage and salary earners whose rates of pay are regulated directly in accordance with the movements of the cost of living index figure is about 1,500,000. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the "Labour Gazette" for December last, which contains, on pages 662–4, a summary of the sliding scale agreements governing the rates of pay of the principal classes of workers affected by arrangements of this nature.

  EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (TEACHERS' UNIONS).
  Lieut.-Colonel HURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Rhondda Education Authority has decided that no
  The following Table shows the number of unemployed persons registered at Employment Exchanges and Branch Offices and the numbers in receipt of unemployment pay at the nearest dates for which particulars are available.
  person will be employed by it unless he or she will join a certain union, and thus to exclude members of the National Union of Women Teachers from its service; what view is taken by the Board of Education as to such decision; and whether he will take action with the object of withholding State grants from any authority which thus interferes with the freedom of teachers to select their own unions?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I have already said, in reply to a question of the hon. Member for the Springburn Division of Glasgow, that I am strongly of opinion that a teacher should have full liberty to join or not to join any union or association of teachers as he thinks best. The appointment of teachers in schools provided by the local education authorities rests with the local education authority. If, however, a local education authority adopts a rule limiting their own discretion in the appointment or employment of such teachers, and the operation of that rule prejudices the efficiency of the schools, I should be bound to intervene. The particular resolution of the Rhondda Local Education Authority strikes me as very unfortunate, but I understand that it is to be reconsidered.

  WAR (TERMINATION).
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Attorney-General when it is proposed

  101
  to fix the official date for the conclusion of the War in order that commerce may be relieved from the moratorium?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): There is nothing to add to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a similar question.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION)
  Mr. A. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of a statement made by him to a deputation from the Association of Municipal Corporations on the subject of the superannuation of local government officers, it is proposed to introduce the Bill this Session and pass it into law?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir A. Mond): As I have previously stated in reply to questions, the Government regret that they cannot proceed with this matter at the present time in view of the heavy charges which the scheme would impose upon the rates.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that promises have been given by successive Ministers for at least five or six years to deal with this question?
  Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of the fact. This is not a suitable moment to do anything which will impose an extra charge.
  Mr. T. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of local authorities have signified their approva1 of this proposal?
  Sir A. MOND: I was not aware of that.
  Major PRESCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on this matter were carried out they would not involve any charge on the rates?
  Sir A. MOND: That is not my information.

  HOUSING

    CONTRACT PRICES
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health whether, in order to
    102
    avoid unnecessary expense, trouble, and delay to local authorities in the preparation of housing schemes, he will indicate to such authorities the approximate prices of houses of different types which he will be prepared to approve; and whether, in the event of tenders at such prices not being forth coming, he will persist in his refusal to approve further contracts, thus preventing local authorities from meeting the housing needs of their areas.
    Sir A. MOND: I am afraid I cannot adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. Apart from the fact that the cost of building necessarily varies in different districts, the publication of prices which would be accepted for different types of houses must result in those prices becoming minimum prices, and would tend to diminish competition in tendering.

    HOUSES COMPLETED.
    Mr. G. THORNEasked the Minister of Health the number of houses completed up to 31st March under the Housing Act and the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, respectively.
    Sir A. MOND: Complete returns to the 31st March are not yet available, but it is estimated that approximately 26,680 houses had been completed by that date by local authorities and Public Utility Societies under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919. The number of houses completed by private builders under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act was 11,967. This gives a total of approximately 38,650 houses completed by the date in question.

    CONSTRUCTION WORK (MEN EMPLOYED).
    Mr. G. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether there is an adequate supply of labour for the housing schemes in course of completion; and, if not, what is the extent of the deficiency?
    Sir A. MOND: No, Sir. On the 1st March there were 108,168 men, of whom 54,479 were skilled men employed on the housing schemes of local authorities and Public Utility Societies, while 10,686 additional skilled men are required immediately for the work actually in hand. A considerably larger number could, of course, be employed on schemes for which approval has been given.

  ADMIRALTY SLOOPS AND BARGES (COST).
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the sloops or barges built for the Admiralty by the Northumberland Shipbuilding Company during the War showed considerably higher costs than those of other shipbuilders; and whether the higher costs in this connection indicated higher profits?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): This firm built no sloops, but two patrol boats and four barges In neither case is it true that these vessels showed considerably higher costs than the costs of similar vessels built by other firms. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that competitive shipbuilders contend to the contrary, and state that it is well known that the cost of this company was higher than that of other shipbuilders; and that when other shipbuilders offered to build barges at a lower cost, the managing director of this company said that he could not reduce the price; and was that the reason of the Admiralty recommending that he should be created a baronet?

  INDIA.

    ARMY (CONSTITUTION AND STRENGTH)
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister to state the composition of the Sub-Committee of Imperial Defence to report upon the constitution and strength of the Army in India?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence has not been specially appointed to consider the constitution and strength of the Army in India
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Did we not have a pledge from the Secretary of State for India, and was I not asked to put this question to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I am not in a position to make an explanation. This matter has not come under the consideration of the Imperial Defence Committee, and up to the present no sub-Committee has been appointed, and I cannot definitely say whether a sub-
    104
    Committee will be appointed. It may be that a Committee of the Imperial Defence Committee will consider it.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Will the Cabinet consider the whole question before proceeding to the disbandment of regiments of the Regular Army in this country and the great reduction of regiments in India? Before any final steps are taken will they consider the question as a whole?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Cabinet does consider the defence of the Empire as a whole.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Has the question been before the Defence Committee?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should not like to say without notice. I think not by the Committee of Imperial Defence. I think it was considered by the Cabinet as a whole.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE
    Colonel WEDGWOOD (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for India why the delegates recommended by the All India Trades Union Congress have not been selected by the Government to go to the International Labour Conference at Geneva?
    Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: I have been asked to reply to this question. My right hon. Friend has no information on the subject, but will inquire.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MANDATES)
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Prime Minister when the House will have an opportunity of discussing the Mandates bestowed upon this country by the League of Nations; what form the discussion will take; and whether the House will be enabled to express an opinion by vote upon the Mandates?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given yesterday by the Prime Minister in reply to a question by my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the desire, universal throughout this country, that before this country is committed to accept and adopt any Mandate, there should be full discussion in this House and that the authority for these Mandates should be derived from the decision of this House?
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday the Prime Minister stated that these were in the nature of treaties with foreign Powers? Is the right hon. Gentleman not of opinion that they are much more in the nature of giving new constitutions to other countries, and that, therefore, they ought to be treated as the Government of India Bill was treated, by reference to a Joint Committee of both Houses?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not think it strange if I find myself in closer agreement with the Prime Minister than with him. As regards the question put by the hon. Member (Mr. Lyle-Samuel) the matter was dealt with very fully by the Prime Minister yesterday, and I can add nothing to what he said.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: The Prime Minister said yesterday that this House would have an opportunity of accepting or rejecting. If they are to have that opportunity how can they have it without a vote?
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: May I press the Leader of the House to say whether or not that is the final decision of the Government?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If a motion supported by any considerable body of opinion be put down recommending that we decline to accept a mandate for any of the mandatory territories, of course the House will have an opportunity of discussing the proposition, but I should like to see the motion first.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is not a matter for the Government to decide whether the representation has sufficient authority or not, but whether the Government will now affirm that no mandate ought to be accepted by the British Government unless it has been first discussed in this House and this House has given its authority.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That question was answered by my right hon. Friend yesterday, and to the answer I have nothing to add.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that the question as to the acceptance of a mandate was decided a long time
  106
  ago, after the San Remo decision of the Supreme Council, and that the only question now is the actual terms of the draft mandates as submitted to the Government by the Council of the League? Would it be possible to arrange for some general discussion, if it is the wish of the House, on the actual draft terms, so that if any hon. Member has individual criticism to make on these drafts he would have an opportunity of submitting those criticisms to the Government?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the House yesterday when the Prime Minister answered the question. If he was he will remember that my right hon. Friend dealt specifically with the particular suggestion which the hon. Member has made. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in stating that the general principle of the acceptance of a mandate has been discussed by the House and approved by it. [HON. MEMBBES: "No."] The detailed discussion of the general terms of a mandate was dealt with in the answer of my right hon. Friend yesterday, and I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to look again at that answer.
  Lord R. CECIL: Did I understand the Prime Minister rightly to state that at some stage or another there would be a definite opportunity given to this House to say whether they would accept or reject a mandate before it is finally settled? What some of us are anxious to know is whether the Prime Minister has been rightly understood in that respect, and, secondly, what kind of opportunity will be given, whether it will be the same kind of opportunity given to us in reference to the other big treaties, or in what other way?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As to procedure I cannot answer exactly at the present moment. If there is a desire in the House to challenge the acceptance of a mandate on seeing the terms of that mandate, the Government will give an opportunity to the House in some form or another to take a decision on the matter.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor quite frankly admit the right of the House to discuss a mandate without it being neces-

  107
  sary for us to put down what would be, in effect, a vote of censure on the Government? We do not want to do that.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend will not expect me to be conscious of all the answers given by my predecessor. If he will refer me to a specific answer given by my predecessor I should be much obliged if he would call my attention to it by letter.

  EGYPT.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Prime Minister when the Government will be in a position to announce its policy with regard to the future government of Egypt?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street on 3rd March. Any further statement with regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government towards Egypt at the present time could only prejudice the discussions that it is hoped will take place with the Egyptian delegation which the Sultan has been invited to send to this country.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Will there be an opportunity for full discussion of this matter?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That is a question of which my hon. Friend should give notice.

  MINISTERS' SALARIES
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the decision of the Government with reference to the Report of the Committee on Ministers' salaries?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

  RAILWAYS BILL
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister when the Bill dealing with the future of the railways will be introduced; and whether it includes among its objects
  108
  the establishment of the cheapened and improved system of transport promised at the General Election?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bill will be introduced very shortly, and it is hoped that it will promote the objects referred to.

  CENTRAL ELECTRICITY STATIONS
  56. Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister whether the scheme for the establishment of large central generating electricity stations for the purpose of supplying cheap electricity all over the country has been abandoned; and, if not, whether he can state what steps will be taken to carry it out?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to reply. The legislative scheme of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, has not been abandoned. The Electricity Commissioners have provisionally determined a number of districts and are now engaged in holding the necessary inquiries.

  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the risk of a revolutionary majority in Parliament, he will introduce a Bill to establish proportional representation?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The remedy proposed by the hon. Member does not seem to me appropriate to the danger against which he wishes to guard, but there is a Bill dealing with this subject on the Order Paper for Friday, when it can be more fully discussed.

  PALESTINE.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the proposal put forward at a meeting of the Palestine Foundation Fund to erect a great temple on the site of the Temple of Solomon; whether he is aware that the site is now occupied by the Mosque of Omar; and whether, in view of the difficulties which such proposals cause to the Mandatory

  109
  Powers, he will state that in no circumstances will Mohammedan institutions be interfered with?
  Mr. AMERY: My attention has been drawn to a passage in a speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, to which the hon. and gallant Member apparently alludes. I think it is clear that my right hon Friend was speaking figuratively and did not intend so literal an interpretation to be given to his words. In any case, I would draw attention to Article 13 of the draft Mandate for Palestine, which clearly sets forth the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to all holy places, religious buildings, or sites in Palestine.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is no intention whatever of interfering with any mosques by the Palestine Committees, and also that King Solomon is held in equal reverence by Mohammedans, Jews, and Christians?
  Earl WINTERTON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend make it clear that so far from His Majesty's Government wishing to interfere with the holy places, a Mohammedan guard has always been placed over the Temple; and will he convey to the Minister of Health the un-desirability of making the sort of figurative speech which he did, in view of Mohammedan susceptibilities?
  Mr. AMERY: I cannot be responsible for the extent of misinterpretation which may be put on figurative speeches, but it is certainly the case, as my Noble Friend stated, that a guard has been on the Mosque of Omar ever since the occupation, and there is every intention of safeguarding the holy places of every religion.

  POOR LAW INFIRMARY, BRADFORD.
  Mr. G. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether he can state the present position in regard to the acquisition of a Poor Law infirmary by the Bradford Corporation, to which he at one time gave his sanction, which was afterwards withdrawn?
  Sir A. MOND: Provisional sanction was given to the scheme in June last, and this has never been withdrawn, but
  110
  before giving a final decision I urged on the council the importance of full consultation with the medical profession in Bradford. As a result of this, a local advisory medical committee was appointed, and this committee has put forward certain suggestions which are being considered by the council, from whom I am expecting to hear shortly.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it possible to effect this transfer without legislation? Would it not be illegal if the city council took over the board of guardians' hospital?
  Sir A. MOND: I should like my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (POSTAL SERVICES).
  59. Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the cost of the postal, telegraph, and telephone services of the various Government Departments for the year 1920–21 amounted to upwards of £3,000,000, irrespective of the sum of £11,700 for the recently-established Mines Department; and whether he will state how much of this sum represented new instalments?
  Mr. PEASE: The estimated cost of the services rendered to Government Departments by the Post Office in 1920–21 approaches £5,000,000, but shows a reduction of nearly £2,500,000 on the cost for 1919–20. In spite of this large reduction in the aggregate, it is probable that in some Departments there has been an increase, but it is not possible, without undue labour, to give the figures at present.
  It should be understood that these figures include not only the charges for letters, telegrams and telephones, but also the cost (a) of payment of Old Age Pensions and War Pensions, (b) of sale of licences, insurance, inland revenue and other stamps, and (c) of dealing with War Loans and National Savings Certificates. These latter items account for two-fifths of the total cost.
  The sum quoted for the Mines Department is not additional as that Department was constituted from existing Departments of the Board of Trade and Home Office.

  SHIPPING CLAIMS.
  Major BARNESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping if he can state why the case of T. G. Brooker v. the Crown was taken into court, involving expenditure of public funds; and is it the regular practice of the Ministry of Shipping to compel claimants to fight such claims?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The case referred to in the question was taken into Court because it was not possible to admit the plaintiff's claim, and as the result of the action the claim was reduced by over £50,000. The practice is to settle claims where it is at all possible to do so, but where a settlement cannot be made, and "the claim is excessive, it has to be resisted.

  RUSSIA (PEACE PROPOSALS)
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether any negotiations have been opened for a general peace with Russia; and, if not, whether he will take action with a view to overtures being made for this purpose?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister, to whom the question was addressed, whether the Government's policy is not to attempt to get a general peace with Russia at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That has been very fully dealt with already in Debate.
  Mr. SWAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the cost to the Government in unemployment doles due to not having a peace with Russia?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Nothing at all. The amount of trade there is any chance of doing with Russia can produce at the present moment no appreciable effect upon our employment.
  Mr. SWAN: Is it not a fact that if we reopened trade with Russia, it would give a substantial amount of employment to men who to-day are out of work and thus be a saving to the revenue of this country?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, not at this moment; that is not the fact. We have signed a trade agreement so that we may take such advantage as there may be of the opportunities which are offered, but I can only say it would be a great mistake to hold out any hope of any substantial amount of trade coming from Russia at the present time.
  Mr. SWAN: Then can we assume that the statement of the Prime Minister is entirely wrong?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, certainly not. There is nothing inconsistent in what I have said with the argument adduced by the Prime Minister.
  Colonel WEDGWO0D: Is the right hon. Gentlemen not assuming that the Anti-Dumping Bill is already passed by making such an allegation?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

  HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the Bill for the reform of the House of Lords?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the intention of the Government to make proposals on this subject as early as possible, but having regard to the press of public business I see no prospect of legislating this Session.

  INCOME TAX
  Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the ruling of the Inspector of Taxes at Huddersfield with regard to the three years' average; whether he is aware that appeals were lodged against this ruling on the ground that the applicants were entitled to be assessed under Schedule D, and that the appeals were disallowed; whether at Manchester and other districts persons in similar positions are assessed under Schedule D; whether he can state if this is the usual procedure; and, if so, will he give instructions to make this ruling uniform?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young): I assume that the hon. Member

  113
  is referring to cases of employed persons in which the question has arisen whether the particular person holds an office or employment of profit in respect of which he is assessable to Income Tax under Schedule E on the actual emoluments of the year of assessment, or whether his assessment should be based on the average emoluments of the three preceding years in accordance with the rules of Schedule D. This question is decided by the local Income Tax Commissioners and not by the Inspector of Taxes, but Inspectors have instructions to offer no objection if the local Commissioners should decide that subordinate employés of companies, etc., are to be assessed on the three years' average basis.

  NATIONAL GALLEEY
  Major BARNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the English National Gallery is the only national gallery in Europe or North America that charges the public for admission four days per week, he will consider increasing the grant from the State to make up any deficit and so enable the trustees to revert to the four free days in the week?
  Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The hon. and gallant Member's statement as to the galleries of Europe and North America is, I am informed, incorrect. The receipts accruing from the recent increase in the number of paying days at the National Gallery from two to four days a week are earmarked for the purchase fund. I fear that, in present financial circumstances, it is out of the question for the Exchequer to increase its contribution of £5,000 per annum to that fund, in addition to bearing the increased cost of running the gallery. To revert to two paying days a week would, therefore, diminish the money available for purchasing new pictures. As regards the concluding words of the question, there are now three free days a week, including Saturdays and Sundays.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (RESIGNATIONS).
  Major BARNESasked the Chan cellor of the Exchequer the number of permanent civil servants who have, during
  114
  the last three years, resigned to take up private appointments?
  Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: There are no collected statistics showing the resignations for private reasons of permanent civil servants. It does not appear to me that the information desired by my hon. Friend would be of sufficient value to justify the considerable labour involved in its collection.
  Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask whether these resignations are always accepted, or whether they can be refused?
  Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: Undoubtedly there are certain services in which resignations can be refused.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    PIT PONIES
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary for Mines whether steps have been taken to remove the pit ponies and horses from the mines, and so save them from starvation or drowning; whether any cases of starving or drowning of those animals have been brought to his notice; and whether the Government will give all needful assistance for saving these animals?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): Speaking generally, the answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. My information is that at a group of collieries in South Wales 620 horses were below ground yesterday, but the Divisional Inspector of Mines reports that arrangements have been made to withdraw them to-day. At Benhar, in Scotland, 25 ponies are underground, but I understand that they were fed yesterday. At another colliery in Scotland the inspector understands there are two ponies underground which cannot be got at owing to the action of the men pre-venting steam being raised at the boilers. Since I have been in the House I have had a message saying that, in the Rhondda Valley, there is also some difficulty about getting the ponies out. I have not yet had time to investigate it. My Department is doing all that is possible to see that all horses are withdrawn, and will continue to do so. I understand from the Press that the Executive of the Miners' Federation is doing the same.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a statement in to-day's papers to the effect that at Bargoed yesterday the local officials of the Miner s' Federation stopped the mine officials from working, the result being—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has not submitted that question to me. He ought to submit it to me.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Where the Government know that ponies are down in the pits still, and where the colliery owners are prevented from rescuing them, will the Government take steps to get these ponies out of the mines?
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Will the Government give an undertaking that, if there is any question arising as to ponies being in danger at the present moment, every step in their power will be taken to save them?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is the effect of my reply.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will you stop the pigeon shoots, too?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. A. HENDERSON: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will inform us as to the whole of the business for tomorrow, and give the House some guidance as to the procedure that the Government propose to follow in this Sitting? On the Order Paper there is the Emergency Powers Act, 1920 (Proclamation). I understand that the Government do not desire a full and general discussion to take place on that item, but rather on the notice that the Home Secretary has on the Order Paper. It is essential that we should know that the full right of debate is going to be preserved, because we are presented here with a very long list of items included in these Regulations, and I should like the Leader of the House, when replying, to say how far, if they adopt the system of discussion to which I have referred, we will be in a position to take these items separately, and, if necessary, move Amendments?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: To-morrow, we propose to take the postponed Financial Resolution on the Key Industries Bill, the Second Readings of the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Bill and the Housing Bill, and make further progress with the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.
On Thursday, as already announced, we propose to take the Motion for moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, the remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, and any business not completed to-morrow.
As regards to-day's procedure, I propose, first of all, to move formally the Resolution acknowledging His Majesty's Most Gracious Message. Then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will move the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I submit to you, Sir, that a general discussion on the policy adopted would be in order upon that Resolution; that is to say, perhaps you will, in answer to my right hon. Friend's question, indicate what are the limits of the discussion.
Sir D. MACLEAN: When you reply, Sir, perhaps you will kindly inform me whether in your view it is within the ambit of the powers of the House to make Amendments to these Regulations now before us.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think there would be, obviously, a general discussion upon this Motion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then after a reasonable time I should be prepared to accept Amendments for discussion. The House being asked to continue certain Regulations in force need not necessarily continue them all. The House ought to have an opportunity of pronouncing upon them, and the proper way would be by Amendment.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As to the business, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, if the discussion should be so carried out that it is obvious that many Members wish to take part—[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"]— I do not wish to take part—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]— the right hon. Gentleman will consider giving a second day to the dis-

117
cussion? The Prime Minister yesterday, it will be remembered, said that the Government wanted the general guidance of the House. On these occasions it is usual for only the Front Benches to get a look-in. If that should be the case here will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving a Second Reading day in view of the great importance of the matter?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Government must press the House to come to a decision on this matter to-day. The title of the Resolution shows that it is an emergency one and of great urgency, and it is necessary, therefore, that the opinion of the House should be declared at once.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell the House— having mentioned the Financial Resolution in reference to the Key Industries Bill— on what day will it be taken? May I say that I ask not merely on behalf of Members on this side of the House, but also on behalf of that pathetic figure, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), who has been for so long dis-appointed?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot name a day. The House will recognise that the conduct of Government business, and the progress of it is necessarily affected by the changes which have followed the regrettable illness of the late Lord Privy Seal. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is overwhelmed with work and responsibility at the present time. I am quite sure the House will not consider it unreasonable that he should ask for a little breathing time.

POLICE PENSIONS (RATES AND CONDITIONS).
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any sums payable to the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and to His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, under any Act of the present Session, to consolidate and amend the law respecting the retirement, pensions, allowances, and gratuities of members of police forces in Great Britain, and their widows and children—(King's Recommendation signified).— To-morrow.—Mr. Shortt.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920, (PROCLAMATION).
  Order for Consideration of His Majesty's Most Gracious Message read.
  Mr. SPEAKER read the Royal Message as followeth:
  "The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, having enacted that if it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons err body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists; and the immediate threat of cessation of work in coal mines having, in His Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act:
  His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act and dated the 31st day of March, 1921, to declare that a state of emergency exists."
  Resolved,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty thanking His Majesty for His Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that His Majesty has deemed it proper by Proclamation made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, dated the 31st day of March, 1921, to declare that a state of emergency exists."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

COAL INDUSTRY, WAGES DISPUTE.

  SIR R. HORNE'S STATEMENT.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): I beg to move:
  130
  "That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 1st April, 1921, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act."
  The Resolution which I am moving proposes to continue the Regulations that have been made by Order-in-Council to meet the emergency which has arisen, I do not propose at all in my speech to deal with the details of these Regulations. Questions which may arise upon these can be dealt with at a later stage in the-Debate. What I propose to do is to tell the House, if I may, what are the conditions out of which this emergency has arisen. Unfortunately for the second time within six months the House and the country are confronted with a stoppage in the coalfields. Such a situation would be a matter of the gravest anxiety at any time, but taking place to-day the effects are far more serious than would even ordinarily follow. We have come through a winter of the most severe depression. I doubt whether there are many people in the House who remember any time when trade and industry have been confronted with so many difficulties and troubles. We had only discerned the first flicker of reviving trade when this calamitous occurrence took place. It has extinguished it. When that flicker may be relighted no man can say. It is not, however, merely the general trade and industry of the country that are affected. The coal industry itself is going to suffer serious disaster. The result of the last strike was to rob us of many-markets to which our coal used to go. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" "Hear, hear!" and "The Peace Treaty did that."]
  Mr. J. JONES: You have robbed the, miners.
  Sir R. HORNE: For the first time in the history of this country American coal came to Europe in large quantities. [Interruption.] You may lay the blame where you like, but the fact is incontestable. 10,000,000 tons of coal came from America to Europe last year. Prior to that the export of coal from America; to Europe was absolutely inappreciable. In the month of October as much as 800,000 tons went to France alone from the United States. Already, as the result of this present threat, orders are being eagerly sought from America and some

  131
  have already been placed. I am not now talking about the responsibility. I am talking about incontestable facts. What has happened is not only a great injury to industry at a time when it has an intolerable burden to bear, but it is indeed a disaster to the coal trade itself.
  4.0 P.M.
  These conditions I know are apt to create feeling—and we have seen some signs of it already—a feeling on both sides of the House which may give rise;to some harshness of language. I hope, however, most fervently that we shall be able to conduct this discussion in a spirit of calmness as well as of candour. I am sure if we do that that we may be able in the course of this discussion to elucidate matters sufficiently to make a solution of things easier, and to create a spirit out of which a desire for a peaceful settlement may spring. I have referred to the fact that this is the second occasion within six months upon which I have had to deal with a condition of this gravity arising out of the coal industry. The contrast between that which was said six months ago and that which has happened in the interval is very striking and very interesting, and I refer to it because it tends to throw some light upon the present situation and upon the attitude in which it is being treated. At that time the Miners' Federation was demanding an increase in wages on the footing that there was going to be a surplus fund of £66,000,000 derived from the coal industry in the pockets of the Government by the month of July next. Not only is there no surplus, but already the Government has had to meet a serious deficit. Then also the Miners' Federation asked that we should reduce the price of coal to the consumer within these islands because we were charging them too much. To-day complaint is made that we have let off the consumer in this country so cheaply in the past that we ought now to tax him in order to subsidise the coal industry. The fact is that there has been a great slump in coal prices and that all our anticipations on both sides have been falsified, and we have now to meet that situation. Following upon the last coal strike, one of the terms of the agreement was that the Miners' Federation and the owners should set themselves to find a new basis for the payment of wages.
  132
  They had five months within which to do it. They arrived at certain agreed con elusions. It may seem to-day as if the negotiations have been abortive, but, in point of fact, very much has been done during that period. They first of all arrived at the principle that there should be, as a first charge upon the industry, a certain standard rate of wages paid to the miners. They next fixed that there should be profits paid in proportion to the wage bill, and that thereafter any surplus which the industry yielded should be divided in two portions, one for labour and one for capital in certain percentages. It is perfectly true that they never arrived at the exact proportion, but they came within comparatively near figures of each other, and I have not the slightest doubt myself that there is any insurmountable obstacle to an agreement as to what the precise share of the wage-earner and the owner should be in the profits of the coal industry.
  All through, however, there was one shadow which lay across the path of settlement. The owners desired that any wage basis that was fixed should be settled district by district. It was so in the days before the War, and the owners insisted that that principle should remain. On the other hand, the Miners' Federation contended that the settlement must be a national settlement, and that involved, as they admitted, the necessity of establishing a pooling system whereby unprofitable concerns should have their position retrieved by those which were successful in their operations. If you had, for example, deficits in Somerset, the Forest of Dean, or South Wales, these would be recouped by contributions from Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, or other districts which proved to be profitable. These were the two contending theories, and all the negotiations broke down because no settlement could be arrived at upon that great question. There came, about the month of January, a condition of things when the Government decided to decontrol the industry. I do not go into that matter at the present time, because it has all been so recently before the House. If any question be raised about it, I shall be only too happy to answer it, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House on a matter which was fully before it and discussed three weeks ago. At any rate, the conditions under which the Govern-

  133
  ment always said that control was necessary had disappeared, and we decided that the time for decontrol had arrived. When it appeared that no settlement was going to be arrived at, the coal owners decided that it was necessary for them within a fortnight of the time at which control expired to give notices to the men that the contracts under which they had been working must come to an end.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Including the people who were to get the ponies out.
  Sir R. HORNE: That is quite true, and I do not wish to make any distinction of that kind. From whatever aspect you view these notices, they were entirely necessary. They were necessary unless the coalowners were prepared to carry on the industry at the old rate of wages. They could not do it, as my hon. Friends opposite themselves admit. Therefore, they had to give notice that they could no longer carry on at those rates, but at the same time the notice stated that their pits would be kept open and employment offered to everybody in their employment after the 31st March at rates which would be published, and they proceeded afterwards to publish the rates. I noticed an observation in the Press this morning that animosity was excited by the use of the word "strike", and that it would be well to use the word "stoppage." [HON. MEMBERS: "Lock-out!"] I am perfectly prepared to use a colourless word, such as "stoppage," but, if prejudice be sought to be created by calling this condition a "lock-out," then I do wish to say something to the House on the matter, because it is only fair that if we are not to call what has happened a "strike" we should equally not call it a "lock-out." To give notice that you are going to carry on your pits at a lower rate of wages and employ everyone who wishes to come can scarcely be described as a "lock-out." Let me test it by a simple illustration. Precisely the same notices based on the same principle were posted in South Yorkshire and Leicestershire as in all the other districts, but the principle there worked out, not at a decrease, but at an increase in wages. Would any of my hon. Friends opposite contend that the miners of South Yorkshire have been locked out? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am content to leave the matter there. [HON. MEMBERS:
  134
  "Tell us about the others!"] As I have pointed out, precisely the same principle for adjusting the wage was adopted in every other district.
  Mr. SWAN: Can you tell us what was the basis?
  Sir R. HORNE: I shall come to that in a moment. The point about these notices with regard to wages is that the rates are district rates, and I shall immediately answer the question of my hon. Friend opposite. He says: "Will you tell us how they were arrived at?" So far as I understand the methods by which they were arrived at, they were based, in the first place, upon a standard rate which was the 1914 rate of wages, plus certain additions which are too complicated and too intricate for description in a speech such as I have to make. There was added to this standard rate another figure I have told the House that the lines on which discussion was proceeding in the negotiations between the owners and the miners was that the surplus profits over and above the standard wages and standard profits should be divided between the two parties in some ratio. The owners added to the standard rate of wages the whole of the surplus profit arrived at on the basis of the February figures. They said: "For the purpose of this period of tiding over, we shall forego all that we would be entitled to in the way of surplus profits."
  Mr. S. WALSH: Surplus profits only. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Order yourselves. Tell the truth.
  Sir R. HORNE: I am sorry if I do not make myself perfectly clear.
  Mr. WALSH: Seventeen per cent had to be guaranteed to them, as you know.
  Sir R. HORNE: I think, if my hon. Friend were listening, he would gather that, in the second place, I have been talking about surplus profits.
  Mr. WALSH: Make the matter clearer, and do not mislead.
  Mr. J. JONES: Lawyers are not starving; miners are.
  Sir R. HORNE: This arrangement was one which had been incorporated in a Report to the Government, and it con-

  135
  tained a qualification as to differences or modifications that might be made in the event of the March figures or a period subsequent to February showing that the proceeds of the industry could not bear it. My information is that in all districts except two no modification was made. At any rate, only two districts have been brought to my notice in that connection. [HON. MEMBEES: "Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire."] Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire form one district which I have heard mentioned, and the other is Durham. These rates which have been proposed have appeared in the newspapers, and there has been a considerable amount of canvassing of their merits and demerits. I should like to give this warning. Only the average rates have appeared in the newspapers up till recently, and these average rates cover all the workers from the piece-worker at the base down to the women and boys who are working at the pit-head. Accordingly, they give no proper information with regard to the wages which would be earned according to these rates by the more highly paid people about the collieries. The second thing I wish to say is this: I do not propose to-day to discuss whether these rates in particular districts are fair or not. I do not think we have reached the stage at which that kind of discussion is of any benefit to anybody, and I will tell the House why. The reason is this, that up till now the Miners' Federation have refused to discuss these rates with the owners, and they gave instructions that their representatives might meet the owners and hear what they had to say with regard to the district rates, but they were on no account to negotiate upon them, and until the rates have been discussed between the people interested and involved, there is very little benefit to be obtained by any outside person coming in to discuss them. I have also to keep this well in view, that one never knows what part one may have to play in the way of conciliation, and it is much better that I should pronounce no opinion at the present time.
  There is, however, a much stronger reason than those I have given. I met the representatives of the Miners' Federation last week just before the stoppage took place. The cases such as have been referred to where the Miners'
  136
  Federation thought that the owners had not quite done what they said they were going to do in the report to the Government were brought to my notice, and I immediately said: "If I can help by having these rates reconsidered by the owners, shall I be of any assistance to you?" The answer I immediately got was: "It is no good your going to discuss these rates with the owners for this reason, that nothing you can do can solve the situation except by the Government granting a subsidy." The reason was this. It was explained by a member from South Wales, who used to be a very honoured Member of this House representing the Miners' Federation, that in South Wales the owners were offering them all the money that was in the industry, and he said: "What is the good of discussing these rates, because they are not enough, and the only thing that can be done, and the only thing we can accept, is a subsidy from the Government." Accordingly, the House will now understand that the present controversy is not really about the particular rates which are being offered. The real controversy is whether the country is to come to the assistance of the coal trade with a subsidy, which may run to tens of millions of pounds in a single year. Associated with this question of subsidy is the other great question as to whether the Government is going to impose by legislation upon the coal trade a pooling system by which the more lucrative collieries shall make up for the deficiency of those which are less successful.
  I turn briefly to the consideration of these two points, the question of the subsidy and the question of the pooling arrangement. I shall not delay the House long upon this question of a subsidy by the Government either to the coal trade or any other trade. I cannot think of anything that would be more pernicious to industry as a whole than beginning to grant subsidies, but apart from that general principle let us consider how this subsidy would be paid. How would it be got? I suppose it could only be got by taxation. Who are the people who pay the taxation which is to go in the shape of this subsidy? There are many people from whom that taxation would have to come who are already overburdened and who have no war bonus at all, who endured endless privations during the War, and who now find it

  137
  very difficult indeed to maintain an existence. For the most part they have been bearing that burden quietly and inarticulately. In addition to that I suppose some of the greatest taxpayers of the country are the great industries. What is happening to them at the present time? There is scarcely a great industry which is not suffering the direst privation and tribulation. A large number of men are now working on short time, and there are 1,500,000 people who cannot get work in industry. Are you going to tax these crippled industries which are maintaining themselves with great difficulty in order to subsidise an industry which has better chances and more chances than any other with which I am acquainted at the present time? As I said to the Miners' Federation, there is no hope of a solution of this great question to be found along that line.
  The other suggestion is that this is not enough and that it still requires, according to Mr. Hodges, in addition to a subsidy a system of pooling profits. I have already said in this House that I cannot imagine anything which would so destroy the incentive to activity and enterprise than that people should feel that no matter how hard they worked or however greatly they developed their skill and efficiency, it was to be used to subsidize people who worked less hard and who took less trouble and were at less pains to make their industry profitable. Accordingly I told the Miners' Federation on behalf of the Government that it could not be supposed that the Government would come to their aid in that fashion. What then is the result. The result in our view is that an attempt must be made again, after the abandonment of these principles, with regard to which, so far as I can see, there can be no compromise, to come together and really discuss the wage systems for each of these districts.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: We shall not do it.
  Sir R. HORNE: I am very sorry to hear that, because they have never yet been discussed, and I hope before many days are over we shall see a change of attitude in regard to that matter. Two suggestions have been made. It has been suggested that we ought to carry on for a month under a revised system of Government control. [HON. MEMBBRS: "No!"] Whether this suggestion has occurred before or arises now for the
  138
  first time does not matter, but it must be perfectly plain to the House that that would have afforded no solution if the attitude is, as my hon. Friend says, that they must have this subsidy and this control. If that is the attitude, what benefit is a month's delay, because it only means a further expenditure of public money and the certainty of trouble at the end of it. I see it has been stated by those who wish to create a situation of prejudice that this is the first attack upon wages, but how can this be said to be an attack upon wages? Let me again take the case of South Yorkshire and Leicestershire where the wage offered under this system is actually higher. Can that be described as an attack upon wages?
  Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the offer made by the owners in South Yorkshire means a reduction of several shillings per day to thousands of workers in South Yorkshire?
  Sir R. HORNE: The average is actually higher than the existing wage.
  Mr. LUNN: No.
  Sir R. HORNE: If I am wrong about the figures, then I have been wrongly informed, but I am perfectly sure that it only requires a few moments between us to put the figures right. I am assured that in South Yorkshire and Leicestershire the average figure is higher. It may be that certain proportions come out at less, but, on the other hand, some others may come out at more. I venture to say that nobody can assert that a system or a proposal which is made upon the same system throughout all the districts of the country, which offers a higher average rate in two districts by creating a rise in wages, is a deliberate attempt on the part of anybody to make an attack upon wages. I wish to say something more upon this head. The Miners' Federation does not contest, indeed it acknowledges the fact that the industry cannot pay today the wages they are asking, because the money is not there, and the prices will not yield proceeds sufficient to do it, and that is why they are asking for a subsidy. Can you say that a reduction in wages which is involved in an economic system like that is a deliberate attack upon wages? Is it to be said that in every case you can construe it as a

  139
  deliberate attack on wages if the Government refuse to come forward to subsidise a particular industry in order to give them the wages they want? I leave that to the judgment of the House.
  The truth is that the country just now is in a position industrially of great difficulty, and every trade is suffering alike. It is impossible for the coal trade alone to escape. Many people to-day are not getting anything like the wages they used to have, but on the contrary are getting no wages at all, and we have to take account of these circumstances, and we shall all have to suffer. I venture to say to the coal miners, who have more opportunities of employment, and more regular opportunities than any of the other great industries, leaving out the railways, that they should take into account the difficulties of all the other trades, and the difficulties with which the country and every citizen in it are confronted. They can see in the principle the coalowners have offered, apart from the particular figures which are still open to negotiation, the opportunity for increased wages with every revival of trade that takes place in every industry in the country, and is it too much to ask them to bear like the others the difficulties of the present situation and to look forward to the more prosperous times that we hope for in the future. I do not believe that the coal miners of this country are impervious to these considerations, and I hope that the few days that have elapsed since the struggle began may have given them opportunities for reflection, and that they will be more ready now than they were last week to enter into negotiations for a peaceful settlement upon lines which will not involve further subsidies from the State or further taxation on the already overburdened taxpayers, nor yet the resumption of the control of an industry which, I am certain, everybody was anxious to be rid of.
  Mr. CLYNES: A combination of very rare gifts and qualities hastened the advent of the right hon. Gentleman to the position of great distinction and authority which at this moment he fills, and I can offer to him, apart altogether from the occasion of this controversy, the congratulations of the House upon his occupancy of the high office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Great as are his gifts, they have not on this occasion
  140
  enabled him altogether to conceal the degree of embarrassment which clearly he feels as a result of the policy pursued by himself and the Government in the last few days. I shall have a little to say on two or three very striking omissions in the speech to which we have just listened, but I want to begin by resenting the implication, for at least it was that, that the miners some time ago, by the steps which they took, were the cause of the loss of export coal trade. Many obvious and admitted reasons, not unconnected with the region of foreign affairs, have had much to do with the breakdown of the export coal trade as well as of the export trade of the country in many other particulars, and we must decline to shoulder the blame, and I think the miners are entitled to resent the imputation that they are to blame, or that any steps they have taken are responsible for the falling off in the export coal trade. I was very glad to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend when dealing as he did too briefly, with the history of the negotiations between the mine owners and Miners' Federation —I was very glad to hear him say that during the progress of those negotiations considerable headway had been made towards points of agreement. The right hon. Gentleman might well have spent more time in pursuing that theme and in explaining to the House why these negotiations were not continued, and why they were not assisted, and I will even say nursed and guided by the hands of the Government, for there was so much at stake that the Government should have exerted itself fully and used every possible resource to see that the negotiations were brought to a successful issue. The right hon. Gentleman referred also to the Conference which on one occasion he had with the representatives of the men. He met them—and it is not now a private story for it is recorded in public documents—he met them on the 11th March.
  Sir R. HORNE: Later than that.
  Mr. CLYNES: Yes, but I am referring particularly to that one occasion. The right hon. Gentleman met them and went exhaustively into the matter and Mr. Hodges, the chief spokesman for the miners' representatives, put before him the devices or proposals, call them what you will, for avoiding the threatened

  141
  stoppage and for arranging a settlement. And having heard a full statement from Mr. Hodges and his colleagues, this was the impression left on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I will read his own words—
  "I have listened to as lucid and well expressed a statement as it has ever been my lot to deal with, and I cannot fail to confess to you that I am very much impressed by the statement Mr. Hodges has made. It would be idle for me to pretend to give a reply straight away to a scheme which I have now only seen and adumbrated for the first time."
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: From what is the right hon. Gentleman reading?
  Mr. CLYNES: A quotation from a report. I will continue:
  "I would be less than candid if I did not say that while Mr. Hodges' explanation of your unification scheme gets rid of many difficulties which I have in my mind, I cannot admit that at the present moment it gets rid of them all, but I certainly would like to read the scheme at my leisure, and to give it the consideration which it undoubtedly deserves."
  That is more than the language of compliment, and I am quoting it merely to express the point that clearly the two sides were endeavouring to use every resource to avoid a conflict, to propound plans, and to seek their acceptance in the hope of work being continued in the industry, and the President of the Board of Trade, as he then was, was very exceptionally impressed, not merely with the lucidity, but with the substance of the proposals put before him. The document from which I have quoted is a report of a Conference between the representatives of the Miners' Federation and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, which took place on 11th March. I refer to this quotation again to ask—
  Sir R. HORNE: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he appears to be passing from the point. Was he informed that, after three days' consideration, I wrote a letter to Mr. Hodges explaining that I had carefully studied his scheme, and, after due consideration, had come to the conclusion it simply was a system of pooling the profits in a more detailed form, and that accordingly, on behalf of the Government, I could not accept it.
  Mr. CLYNES: That makes this particular point a little more clear to the
  142
  House, but it does not at all lessen, I think, the weight of the point which I am pressing, namely, that negotiations up to a certain point seemed to promise prospect of some settlement, and if one proposal was not acceptable it might be replaced by another. What I am coming to is this. In spite of agreement being reached in stages, in spite of the employers on the one hand making proposals and men on the other making them, suddenly something occurs to completely break down the negotiations and to produce these lock-out notices from the employers! It was for that reason no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman preferred only to glance at and then to turn his head away from the very important question of the Government policy on control. He did not wish to debate control on the ground, that it had been adequately discussed-with already. But really the House did not permit that Debate to proceed so long as many hon. Members desired to continue it. Apart from the effect of the Closure which suppressed discussion there is a definite policy of the Government suddenly reached for reasons yet quite-unexplained, and what I want to know is how is it that we have upon the Statute Book a law providing that control should continue until the 31st August— [An HON. MEMBER: "Not later than"]—I say until the 31st August, and why, with, that date on the Statute Book as the limit of the period of control, in the interim, while negotiations are being continued by the two parties, and to some degree assisted by the Government, there is suddenly this resolve to antedate the last day for control and to bring in a Bill, and force it through this House in spite of every effort either on the floor of the House or in Committee to fix the date of decontrol as the last day in March. I hope that is a not unreasonable request. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Budget."] Then are we not to have anything in this country which is going to cost the country anything at all? That seems to be the policy of some hon. Members, and I venture to say that all you will get on those lines would scarcely be worth having when you got it. You cannot balance this question in the scales of profit and loss. I had better try to make that clear to some hon. Members. You could save a given sum per month by decontrol. You have saved it to the Treasury, but what is it costing the country? The

  143
  balance of loss which decontrol has caused because of this stoppage of the coal industry, if contrasted with the amount saved by the abolition of control—
  Mr. KENNEDY JONES: It was a question of principle which was involved.
  Mr. CLYNES: I am sorry that some of the facts which I am trying to produce are so disturbing to the minds of hon. Members that they cannot allow me to proceed. I am putting the view to the House that, in these great questions of policy, Parliament, whilst it must have regard to principles, can so worship a principle as to be sacrificed to it. That it what I am now arguing. In spite of our repeated appeals to give still a short period of control—we pressed strongly for a month—in which period everything would be done to try and arrange matters and compose differences — instead of taking that line, which, I agree, would have cost the country something, a line has been taken which it required no prophet to see was certain to cost the country far more. The right hon. Gentleman chose to say that this was not now a stoppage resting upon any question of figures of wages. I press him to modify that view. It is a question of figures to the miner. To the wage-earner, the coal-getter, the greater of the two questions is, surely, that of wages, the second question being that of method. As to method, the whole mining community, on the men's side, desires a continuance of the hard-won right of national settlements. It desires to continue that method to the end of securing and retaining fair wages. It does not reject, as I understand, the possibility at some time or other, according to variations in the cost of living, of diminished wages; but, if there is to be a diminution in wages, it must be on the principle of a uniform percentage diminution, and not upon such a scale or plan as the employers have proposed.
  I repeat, therefore, that, while these negotiations were pending, it would have been higher statesmanship and better public policy for the Government to have insisted upon the two parties coming together, instead of coming between them with this Decontrol Bill and producing a spirit of embitterment and an atmosphere which made it impossible to arrange any settlement. Beyond doubt, prior to the War, there were low wages and cheap coal.
  144
  In some sense what is called the community—trade and business and industry —profited by cheap coal; but the miners, surely, had a right to rise and struggle for better conditions, and I need make no appeal to the heart or mind of any hon. Member to consider the miner as a wealth producer and a man. Even in those moments when there may be cause for anxiety, and when there is a lapse, from one cause or another, from the path of right conduct, let us not forget what the miner in the mass is. Judge him as a coal-getter, as a sportsman, as a soldier, as a citizen—judge him from any of those angles, and testimony as high as that which has been publicly expressed by the Prime Minister himself can be cited in the miner's favour. There must be, then, some underlying cause for the differences which have arisen and for the difficulties which now rest upon them. I therefore re-echo the sentiment expressed in the right hon. Gentleman's opening speech, when he appealed that this discussion should be directed upon some lines of trying to produce, from whatever quarter we can, suggestions, ideas, to bring the parties together again. It can be fought out, of course; but it might be better to think it out than to fight it out. The whole community must suffer deeply and for a long time, according to the duration of this struggle, and if anyone is to begin to consider ways and means for composing differences, this, of all places, is the proper place in which to do it, for it was here that the trouble started.
  I claim for the miner that his offence against the community, as it has been described by eloquent newspapermen and others, is not, at the worst, so great as to justify this intolerable reduction in the amount of his weekly wages. We have lists, and there seems to be no doubt about the figures. The proposed reduction appears to vary from anywhere about 20 per cent, up to 50 per cent., and I am told that in one or two cases it is even more than 50 percent. Even in an industry which is not paying, that is a very stiff proposition. The country, it is said, is in a state of insolvency and hardly paying its way. It is only by the ingenuity of Chancellors of the Exchequer that the State balance-sheet can be made to balance. What would all civil servants say, what would all those of us who are in the pay of the State say, what would members of the

  145
  Cabinet and the Government say, if they were told that, because the State is not paying its way, they must submit to a 50 per cent, reduction of their salaries? I have said that a stage may be reached where some reduction eventually might come as a matter of agreement, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister dare attempt any justification of a reduction so outrageous as this one of 50 per cent. If the miners as a body were a body of saints, they could not do otherwise, in face of this proposed reduction, than tell the Government to go to heaven and get its coal itself, rather than that they would submit to this reduction.
  Clearly, some new plan for the rescue of the mining industry from its old condition must be devised. The present proposals of the mineowners, apparently supported by the Government, or at any rate, neither criticised nor repudiated by the Government, are proposals to throw back the industry to the condition in which it was before the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Worse."] The evidence for a change was so overpowering that those who issued what we know as the Sankey Report declared that some other system must be substituted for it—either nationalisation or a method of unification by national purchase or joint control. Everyone appears to be agreed that there must be some plan other than the present plan, and yet this is the only plan which for the moment appears to command the sympathy of the Government. I would, then, ask the Prime Minister to address himself to the question of bringing together the parties to this difference. I think he was not in the House during the time when we were discussing in its later stages what is known to us as the Decontrol Bill, and I want, therefore, to inform him that hon. Members speaking officially for the Miners' Federation appealed fervently for a little more time—for a month or two. I am no judge myself as to the precise period which might be sufficient, but it would be better to give two or three months for the settlement of this difference than to have the loss even of two or three weeks' stoppage in the coal industry. Let me put the view, as I see it, as to who are the interests or parties having a definite responsibility in relation to this difference I suggest to the Prime Minister that there are four interests or parties to this unhappy difference. The
  146
  State is a party. It cannot wash its hands of the job and say that it is done with. It cannot, during the trade's period of prosperity, when millions of pounds were being made by the trade and were flowing into the Exchequer—it cannot during that period keep its hand upon control—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House)indicated dissent.
  Mr. CLYNES: I think it can be shown that that is true. In connection with the Excess Profits Duty, as a result of the fact that coal was being sold at far below the world's price, and was, therefore, indirectly a great source of revenue to the public purse, I say that the community, the State, has directly benefited financially by the control of the mining industry. Then the miners are a party. They cannot under any circumstances, nor do they under any circumstances, say that they will submit to no variation in their wages. The mineowners come in as a third party; and, lastly, there is the whole body of the consuming public. Here, then, we have four factors or partners to this great concern—the consumers, the State, the mineowners and the miners. It is, surely, a fair proposition that, whatever burden must fall upon the trade, if any burden has to fall upon it, should be borne in some part by each of those partners, and not by one alone. It would appear that the Government, instead of taking the initiative and bringing or keeping the parties together, so as to exhaust completely every possible means for arranging a settlement, has released three of the parties from their obligations, and has thrown the whole burden upon the remaining party. I put it to the Prime Minister that it is not-fair to throw the whole of this burden upon the producer. Indeed, I go further, and say that, of all the partners, the one who has the greatest claim is the producer himself. You may use Proclamations-they may be necessary—you may use all the King's horses and all the King's men and get the mines in your grip so far as the law is concerned, but they will remain absolutely useless until you get the miners down into the pits.
  5.0 P.M.
  There are lots of people in this country who, though they may indulge themselves freely in condemnation of the miner, will not go the length of taking his job. That is the miner's strength, but I do not want to use

  147
  it in the sense of abusing it. Clearly, however, the miner proposes to withhold his labour on the new terms. The silliness as well as the size of such a reduction as is proposed would stagger a body of men in any trade or occupation. Psychology is no monopoly, and had a similar proposal been made in any other industry in the same manner by any other body of employers you would have the same result. I hope, however eager some of us may be at times in expressing our views upon this question, we shall not close this Debate by leaving it absolutely barren of any suggestion which may produce good results. Let not the Prime Minister forget that it was. he who began to tell the workers of this country to be audacious, to unite, to band themselves together so that what they had been able to win in the War they would be able to hold. The Government surely can find no fault in the fact that occasionally working men take the advice of their elder statesmen. Those who take the view that in this case the miners were wrong but that this is an outrageous proposal to seek to impose upon them, appeal to the Government to return to its real function, a function which it deserted a few weeks ago when it threw these two warring parties together and said, "Settle it amongst you." Let it return to its function as mediator and compose the differences of which its policy was the first cause.
  Mr. INSKIP: I ask the indulgence of the House while, as a private Member, I intervene in this Debate. Anyone who wishes to suggest a basis upon which this dispute can eventually be settled has to come to close grips with the figures which must be the subject of discussion between the parties. I am not personally able to do so as a private Member, and especially as one not skilled in figures, but if I cannot really make a material contribution to the Debate, I hope I may at least try. We all agree that this is not a matter into which it is possible for reproach to enter on either side with advantage either to the country or to the House. The history of the coal industry is one which might be discussed with interest, but hardly with profit, at the present moment. If it were necessary to discuss the circumstances in which the fall in export price has taken place and how it has affected the country and the
  148
  industry, there is a great deal that might be said which might incriminate, if I may use that word, both the mining industry and the Government, because it is quite certain that the Government made a great many of their plans in connection with the coal industry in consideration of the high prices which were being extracted from our Allies. It is equally certain that the miners egged on the Government to bank upon the expectation that those high prices would be realised over a long period. I do not wish to enter into that discussion this afternoon, because there is no room for reproach or recrimination.
  What I do want to urge first of all is that it is incumbent upon all of us to try and see the other man's point of view. That is what I am going to venture to try to do. I have tried to measure how my life would be affected if my income were suddenly and unexpectedly reduced by 20, 25, or, has been said, even 50 per cent. There is more human nature involved in this subject of wages than we generally realise. It is more a psychological than an economic crisis, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) has suggested. I am quite certain that some of the results of the present policy of the miners were not intended; perhaps they were not even contemplated by them. I am sure it is not the cold calculation of material gain which has led the miners or the miners' leaders to insist upon the withdrawal of the enginemen and pump men from the pits. I am quite sure it is not callous disregard for the dumb beasts that has made them insist on the retention of those animals in the drowning pits. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true!"] I am sure it is not callous disregard of the mute appeal of the beasts. It is the result of emotions which, if we make an effort, we can understand. It is a mistake to suppose that all the miners in the various parts of the country are as well instructed as those of us who are constantly dealing with these matters. They are certainly not as well instructed as their leaders. They are very often the servants of those from whom they receive information in the lodge or in the private discussions which take place. When this tremendous reduction in wages took place—tremendous to them—I can imagine, when I put myself in their position, the feeling of surprise, based upon ignorance, and quickly ripening to dismay and then

  149
  to anger—mad, wild anger, if you will—but still an emotion intelligible in the circumstances, and leading to results which, I am sure, some of those who have felt the emotion already regret as much as we do. What I have tried to do in endeavouring to discover if there is any solution of this question is to seek to understand the point of view of those who are said to be responsible for the position at the present time. I have tried to measure my life by theirs. I have tried to picture to myself their hardships, their perils, their difficulties, their temptations, their pleasures—they have few pleasures compared with those which I enjoy—and the lack of the realisation of the good things of life which a great many of us have.
  When I try to imagine what the loss of all those things which I enjoy would mean to me, I can imagine how this emotion which I have mentioned would act upon the minds of men who are perhaps not very well informed about the economic position of this industry. What they are groping after, and groping after perhaps with steps which often go astray, is a life free from the torturing anxiety of privation in, I will not say the luxuries, but the necessities of life. We hardly realise the extent to which this torturing anxiety enters into the lives of these men. When I have tried to do what we have all been told to do, namely, look not on our own things but on the things of others, I can imagine how these emotions will lead men to do the wildest and most reckless acts. However much we regret—I regret it as much as anybody—what the miner is doing in destroying his means of livelihood, I do say that the very first step to the solution of this question is to try to understand the psychological process by which it is possible for these things to come about. This point of view has been too much absent from the discussion which has proceeded so far outside this House. It is necessary and interesting that figures should be presented to us, but what does the weekly wage mean? What is its measure? What does it convey to us who count our incomes possibly in hundreds or thousands? What does it convey to us when we say that the miner has £2 10s. or £3 10s. a week? We may say that is wealth to the miner, but what do we know of his necessities or of its relativity
  150
  towards them? That is not a matter which we can discuss, because needs are infinite and the value of the wage to the individual is as elusive as his needs are infinite. I hope I am not revolutionary when I say that we have to get beyond the point of view or the attitude which has perhaps been too common up to the present time, that these wage wars are merely encroachments upon the general wealth of the community which have to be resisted at all costs. We have to get beyond that point of view and we have to meet as man to man, each trying to understand the point of view of the other fellow and see whether, mistaken though he may be and mistaken though we may be, there is not some common ground upon which we can join for the benefit of both and, most of all, for the benefit of the country.
  Having said so much, may I say that the new spirit in which the owners have made their offer has not been sufficiently recognised. I hope hon. Members opposite will allow me to say without contradiction that I think it displays a really generous spirit on the part of the owners, when one knows and understands the history of wage settlements in the coal industry during the past. When one looks back to the days of those means of settlement so much associated with the names of Sir William Lewis and Lord Merthyr and thinks of what the owners are doing and what they are giving up now in the offers which they have made to the men, I think if the miners were properly instructed by their leaders they would recognise a new spirit in these offers. Then the additional fact also must be recognised that the industry is bankrupt except in certain coalfields at the present time. I have figures from a colliery in one of the richest parts of the South Wales coalfields which show that last working month the cost per ton was 61s. 2d., and the price realised free on board was 28s. 3d., a loss of about 32s. for every ton raised. In another pit the cost was 61s. 5d. and the price realised was 37s. 9d. These facts are perfectly well known in the House, but it is desirable that the public should have some actual information as to particular losses. How can it be said that the owners could do more than they have done, at any rate up to the present moment, in the extraordinarily generous offer which they have made to the miners

  151
  —not perhaps adequate to the individual miner, but generous from the point of view of those who are making it. I came down to the House with the idea of making a small suggestion which would have involved me in no particular loss, namely, that there may be those who have drawn comparatively large profits in the coalfields in the past who might have been prepared to surrender a portion or the whole of their undertaking for the benefit of the community or of the miners. It would have involved a small loss on my part, because what I possess in the coal industry runs into a few hundred pounds, but it does not exist because in one pit the gob is on fire and the other three pits are drowned and the company will come to an end. So that proposal is not one which I can make.
  That being the position, what are the suggestions that we can make1? I have no figures to give. I can only catch hold of something the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) said and throw it out humbly and respectfully, perhaps afraid I am suggesting things which are impossible or which the Government may not care to contemplate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that these reductions are from 25 to 30 or even 50 per cent., and said that must fall hardly on a miner's household. Of course, it must. It means a sudden revolution in his manner of life. It means, perhaps, a reduction below the proper subsistence of life level. What the right hon. Gentleman threw out, if I caught him rightly, was that, at any rate, the industry was entitled to a uniform percentage reduction. I would add to that a graduated uniform percentage reduction, by which," instead of 25 or 50 per cent, taking immediate effect, is it not possible that a reduction shall take place by a graduated process which will reach an economic datum? I contemplate what I think would be generally accepted, that if the industry could get to work with a good heart we should again have an increased output and a reduction of costs, which in time, on the basis of the owners' offer, would increase the wages, and the miners would get the benefit of the reduction in costs which will at once result from the increased output. Is it impossible for the. Government to consider some advance to the coal industry which will enable the wages to be reduced by a
  152
  uniform percentage all over the industry and which conceivably may be repaid out of the industry over a period which will be determined between the industries and the Government? I throw out these suggestions rather timidly, but I cannot help thinking we have to discover some way by which the burden can be eased to the miners of a sudden reduction. The last thing in the world I want to do is to embarrass the Government. The Government are entitled to sympathy, and the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to the admiration of the House for the fearless way he put the question before us, without passion and without heat, and certainly without any animus against the industry for which he has already done so much. If only his spirit can be imitated by those who are responsible on the other side—and I know they have the security of the country as much at heart as he has—I should have thought the men of great capacity that there are on both sides , could think of a solution, if not on the lines I have suggested, at any rate on other lines, which will enable the men to go back to work without thinking they have been treated hardly, and which will enable the country to feel that submission is not being made to a great threat. I should not like to think that any of us have yielded to force. I feel that as joint effort and common sacrifice won the War for us, joint effort and common sacrifice on both sides, miners and owners, will enable us to win peace for the industry which is so essential to the welfare of the nation.
  Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I sincerely hope the Debate will be continued in the same spirit in which it has begun. I re-echo the words of the last speaker on that subject. I should wish also most cordially to emphasise the fact that in my opinion the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Labour party was very much after that style, and was most statesmanlike. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Labour party have asked us if it is possible to throw out some suggestions which may perhaps be helpful for dealing with the situation. I think it is the duty of any private Member who knows anything about the business to offer any suggestions he may think might be useful.

  153
  In doing so myself I wish to make, it perfectly clear that I have no brief whatever for the Mining Association. I have had no conversation with the Executive of the Mining Association or the Central Committee, but speak simply as a private Member of the House, as a coalowner and as one deeply interested in other industries of the country. When these negotiations commenced and continued for some time we were told, with the consent of both parties, that they had come to agreement on two or three main principles. The first was that the first charge upon the profits of the industry should be the men's wages and the second charge should be a minimum profit to the owner, and secondly, that the wages to be paid should be such as the industry could afford. We hear to-day that we are at the breaking point and that the miners have had their wages suddenly reduced and they want more time for negotiating with the owners, and in order to enable them to have that more time they ask that the Government should subsidise the industry on the present basis. Another idea has been thrown out by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Inskip) that wages should be reduced by degrees. That also means the same principle of a subsidy from the Government. That has been entirely and absolutely repudiated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is dead as far as the Government is concerned.
  The second snag between the two parties is the pooling of profits. My right hon. Friend said the owners are unalterably opposed to this, for the simple reason that it would be the death of any industry were this to be carried on indefinitely, because all inducement for economical working or further developments would gradually cease. The worst thing that could possibly happen to any industry would be the pooling of profits. I should like to ask anyone interested in business how he would like to have all cotton businesses pooled into one, so that a man who managed his business well and made 20 per cent, profit had to divide it up with a man who made 2½ per cent. He would not bear of it. I do not see why, having tasted the sweets, or rather the bitterness of this pooling for four years, we should be asked to continue it now. It is unthinkable. The third snag in these negotiations is this: The owners
  154
  base their calculations as to wages on what each district itself can afford to pay. The miners, on the other hand, say: "We will not have these district computations; we must have it on a national basis." That is where the difference comes between the two, and where I hope to be able to throw out a suggestion which, if it does not lead actually to a satisfactory conclusion, may still induce the two-parties to come together and have more talk, and will also give more time for the other trade unions to think seriously before they take a step which may be fatal. We have in the different districts worked out what each district can afford to pay in wages.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Who are "we?"
  Brigadier-General HICKMAN: The coalowners. I am sure the hon. Member will not contest that point. They have worked out, as far as they are able, and I believe honestly and fairly, how far particular districts can pay to each grade of men.
  Mr. WALSH: Is the hon. and gallant. Gentleman really speaking with knowledge of the facts, or is he simply assuming that these calculations have been made?
  Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I can absolutely say with regard to the district I know that we even stretched a point to give the men more than a great many of the owners thought they could afford to do. I went into it myself. In every district there are good mines and bad. The good mines, of course, could afford to-pay, but it is quite a moot point whether the bad ones could pay, and I put it myself to the chairman that we ought to find out before we settled about this, offer whether all the mineowners present were willing to carry on and whether it paid them or not, because they must know on the face of it whether it would pay them or not. He put it to every individual owner and they said, "We are willing to try so as to have some way of carrying on." That is what happened in my own district, and probably the same thing occurred elsewhere. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes), from my knowledge of him, would be the last man to insinuate in any way that the owners have not on this occasion done their very best to come to a just conclusion.

  155
  The owners have made these calculations in every district and they have found out as fairly as they possibly could what is a fair wage that that particular district can afford to give to each particular grade of workman. Where my hon. Friends opposite differ from us is that they want these particular wages for each particular grade to be settled nationally. There is not very much between us. If you get the particular wages of every particular grade settled in every district, you have the number of men in every district of the particular grade, and it is very easy to add them together, to collate the different results in the different districts, and to make a national computation of what the average national wage of every particular grade would be for the whole country. That is what I believe the miners' leaders have asked for. If that average wage for every particular grade was worked out for the whole country, and if the miners who have been offered higher wages than the average, as in South Yorkshire, Leicestershire, and other districts, would consent to have their wages brought down to the average—which is what the miners' leaders have asked for; they want a national wage—so as to allow in the districts where the miners of every particular grade have been offered something in wages lower than the average, to receive the average, the same wages in the aggregate would be paid all over the country to every grade. Every man would be getting the same thing, and the owners would not have to find any more money because it would be the same amount that would be involved.
  Therefore, I throw out this suggestion to my friends on the miners' side, and to my friends on the owners' side. It is not very much for the owners to give in and say: "Well, in order to give us more time to consider these proposals, which we have all asked for, we will consent, say, for three months, to carry on this national wage. Although it is not really fairly and squarely an economic wage—we all know that—we will consent to have an average wage for the whole country for all grades of men, and will give up our point that we must have the thing settled by districts." If, on the other hand, the miners' leaders would recommend their men in the rich districts, where they have been offered higher wages than the
  156
  average to accept the average, then if that proposition is approached fairly on both sides, there will be some ground and reason for the two sides to come together again and for sober counsels to prevail, while the other trade unions who are considering drastic action in support of the miners will have more time to consider amongst themselves what their action might mean for themselves and their country.
  Mr. HOLMES: If we cast our memory back to industrial disputes of the past, we shall realise that there has always been some clear-cut issue, such as the demand for higher wages of a definite amount, or for the reinstatement of dismissed workpeople. In such cases independent persons were, able to pursue a policy of conciliation and compromise with tangible facts before them. To-day, the nation finds itself facing a most menacing dispute, concerning which not one person in a thousand can give the concrete facts. There is no definite issue; there is even a difference of opinion as to whether there is a strike or a lock-out. There is the greatest danger of a withdrawal of labour by the workers in other industries, and there are possibilities in the situation that appal one to contemplate. It is, therefore, well, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that in the calm atmosphere of the House of Commons we should review the facts concerning the recent history of the coal industry, and the House will perhaps forgive me if in view of the new situation I repeat one or two points which I made on the Report stage of the Coal Industry (Decontrol) Bill.
  Coal control commenced in November, 1916, when a serious dispute had arisen between the South Wales coalowners and miners. Prior to that time the coal industry had regulated itself according to districts, such disputes as arose being settled by District Conciliation Boards. The coalowners were organised by means of District Associations, and each District Association was affiliated to the Coal Mining Association of Great Britain. If a strike occurred at an individual colliery, the other collieries of the district submitted to a levy on their profits as compensation to the colliery owner whose men had struck. The miners, too, were organised in districts. They collected and invested their funds locally, and each district was affiliated to the Miners' Federa-

  157
  tion. It will be remembered that in the strike last year the strike pay depended upon the invested funds of the miners' District Associations, and was not a flat rate for the whole country. The method of remunerating the miner in the pre-control days was on the whole a good one. He received a minimum wage, but his actual weekly earnings depended upon his output, and were augmented according to the selling price of coal; but the minimum wage was settled according to districts, and differed greatly in various parts of the country. One of the aims of the Miners' Federation for many years has been to establish a national minimum wage for the whole country.
  The imposition of control at the end of November, 1916, for South Wales and at the end of February, 1917, for the remainder of the country altered the whole basis on which the industry had been worked. The Coal Controller surveyed the whole area as one, fixed prices without regard to districts and the cost of production, and ordered coal to be despatched to the place where it was most required or to which it could most economically be carried by rail or coastwise traffic. The nationalisation of the coal industry which thus occurred so far as supplies and prices were concerned made it necessary that profits should be pooled. The method by which the profits were divided amongst the coalowners has been fixed and amended by four Acts of Parliament, and without going into details the result has roughly been to enable the coalowner to retain from the beginning of 1917 to the end of March, 1921, a period of 4¼ years, a sum equal to 4¼ times his pre-War standard of profits. The effect of this upon the position of the coal industry it the present time should be realised. The national supply of coal can only be maintained by the regular development of new pits, the sinking of shafts and the opening of fresh seams of coal. This also applies to the cost of production, for as you win the coal farther away from the bottom of the shaft, so the cost of production rises, and fresh seams are necessary to maintain a reasonable average of cost. Regular development work requires a regular supply of new capital, and in the coal industry this has been mainly raised, as in other industries, by setting aside a portion of each year's profits. The effect of 4¼ years of control has been, firstly,
  158
  that very little development work has been done; secondly, that owing to the owners only receiving a sum equal to their pre-War standard during the period little money has been set aside for now sinking new shafts and for opening new workings in place of those which are becoming exhausted; and, thirdly, that with the country's financial resources so limited the colliery companies have very little prospect of getting fresh capital from the usual sources. Four and quarter years of control have left the industry in a sorry state from the coalowners' point of view.
  Let us now look at the miners' position. I have already said that in the pre-control days his wages were fixed by districts and rose according to the selling price of coal. The limitation of prices put an end to this basis, and the miner after the imposition of control found that his wages remained stationary while the cost of living rose by leaps and bounds. He therefore, in 1917, appealed to the Government for a rise in wages to meet the increased cost of living, and an increase to the extent of 3s. per day was granted. So commenced the fixing of the miner's wage on a national basis. No further increase was given until this Parliament met at the beginning of 1919, when a very serious position had arisen in the coal industry. The Miners' Federation were then putting forward a demand for increased wages, decreased hours, and the nationalisation of the coal industry. A Royal Commission, with Mr. Justice Sankey as Chairman, was appointed, and in its interim Report recommended inter alia, an increase of 2s. a day in wages on a national basis, which was intended, not to meet the increased cost of living, but to improve the social position of the miner's life. The 2s. per day was granted and dated back to January, 1919. In the autumn of last year, the Miners' Federation applied for a further increase of wages to meet the further increased cost of living since the Armistice. The strike which ensued was settled on terms which practically said to the miners, "If you will give us increased output, we will give you increased wages." The miners gave the increased output, and for a few weeks received their increased pay, but owing to circumstances for which neither they nor the coalowners were responsible they had lost by the beginning of March the whole of the increase which they gained

  159
  from the settlement. The chagrin which must naturally result from such an occurrence must be generously taken into account at the present time.
  There is another matter connected with the strike settlement which must be referred to. One of the terms of settlement was that coalowners and miners should meet with a view to settling by 31st March the general conditions on which the coal industry should be carried on, and in particular that the miners should in future share in the profits made. These meetings were duly held, and while it would be incorrect to say that an agreement was in sight, the conferences had succeeded in eliminating many points of difference and were proceeding on lines that promised eventual success, notwithstanding that the conditions of the export trade changed completely during the period. But the negotiators on both sides received a bolt from the blue by the introduction by the Government of a Bill early in March to decontrol the industry on the 31st day of that month.
  It will be recollected that by the Mining Industry Act, 1920, the date of decontrol was fixed for 31st August next. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it was to be earlier why was it necessary for the Government to introduce a Bill to make it the 31st of March? Many of us, when the Decontrol Bill was discussed here, pleaded for an extension of time of at least a month or six weeks, so that the negotiations then in progress might be successfully concluded. We pointed out that the negotiating bodies were cumbrous and that time was necessary so that both sides might consult those whom they represented and obtain their sanction for various proposals. It was argued that, even if the result of continuing control for one month or six weeks should place a charge on the Treasury, such charge would be as nothing compared with the loss that would accrue to the' nation if the negotiations broke down. The Government were scornful at the suggestion. The Secretary for Mines said on the Report stage of the Decontrol Bill.
  "The argument that by fixing the date at the 31st of March we in some way damnify the amicable negotiations that have been going on between the owners and the miners' representatives is one that I find difficult to follow. We hear to-day that
  160
  excellent progress is being made, and I see no reason why an agreement should not be reached. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that as a rule agreements are not reached until the last moment that it is necessary to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1921, col. 1897, Vol. 139.]
  This wonderful prophecy that "it would be all right on the night" has proved incorrect. The Decontrol Act effectively damnified the amicable negotiations which had been going on, and to-day we find ourselves on a slippery slope, and are wondering when we shall be able to stop. Claiming, as I venture to do, some knowledge of the coal industry, I say without hesitation that the precipitate passing of the Decontrol Bill is alone responsible for the position in which we as a nation find ourselves to-day. The negotiations were proceeding between the coalowners' and the miners' representatives. The former were unfortunately placed, and the latter were in a very difficult position. But the miners' representatives had agreed that control could not be maintained indefinitely, and that the industry must be placed on an economic basis.
  Having reached that point, it was not unreasonably sanguine to anticipate that an agreement would be arrived at between the two negotiating bodies, the chosen representatives of coalowners and miners. But it must be remembered that these discussions were taking place behind closed doors, and that, if and when an agreement had been arrived at, the difficulties of the miners' representatives were not ended but just beginning; for it would then have been their task to go to their various districts, and even to the individual lodges, and explain to those they represent the whole position of the industry and the proposed method of putting it on an economic basis for the future. Such a task, requiring courage of the highest order, could only have been carried through with a plenitude of time. The Decontrol Bill represented the Government's refusal to give time, and coalowners and miners alike gave up the attempt to arrive at an agreement.
  So the matter passed into the hands of 1,000,000 men who spend their working days in darkness many feet underground and whose opportunity of learning the fluctuating economic position of their industry is small. They have been exhorted by their leaders for years to share

  161
  and share alike, and they hold this principle dear almost to a man. They consider that a man who hews 2 tons in an easy "place" should not receive considerably more wages than a man who wins 1 ton with equal exertion from a difficult "place"—and I venture to believe that the House will have some sympathy for this view. They went out on strike last October for higher wages, and after apparently succeeding have discovered that after a few weeks they are back in the old position. Considering the conditions and dangers under which they work, the increase of wages which they have received in the last few years is not unreasonable. These men had to decide the issue; their leaders were disheartened by the Decontrol Bill and had neither the time nor the inclination to attempt to persuade the rank and file. But a member of the Miners' Executive made a very brave and able speech in my constituency and succeeded in obtaining an unanimous vote from a meeting of miners against a stoppage; and this fact confirms me in the view that a postponement of decontrol would have avoided the present crisis.
  Of course, if the policy of the Government is to describe the miners as a million Bolshevists who are endeavouring to abolish law and order and property in this country, it is no use attempting to strive for a settlement. If the whole object is to prepare the ground for a General Election when all the moderate Labour leaders can be dubbed Lenins and Trotskys, nothing can be done by way of influence or suggestion to end the present impasse. But I am prepared to believe that everybody recognising the national dangers which the present situation is holding will be prepared to sink every other consideration to that of ending the existing dispute.
  The case for the miners has undoubtedly been prejudiced by the ghastly mistake of their executive in calling for the withdrawal of enginemen and pumpmen from the pits. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] To pull down the pillars of the house on their own heads as well as on others is devoid of wisdom.
  Mr. J. ROBERTSON: They got their notices like the rest.
  Mr. HOLMES: I can only give my own opinion on that particular point. Most of us at some time of our lives have vowed
  162
  that we would do this or the other thing, no matter what it cost us; and resolutions passed in moments of disappointment and desperation should not loom bigger than more important matters or obscure our vision from the main object. While it is necessary for the House to give the Government such necessary powers as they may require to secure the essentials of life for the people, it is also its duty to seek a way by which the dispute may be ended and by which the emergency powers may become unnecessary. It is necessary for us to turn a deaf ear to the hotheads of both sides; we need pay no regard to the man who says, "To hell with the miners" or to the man who is endeavouring to use the situation to bring about what is termed "the revolution."
  My object in speaking to-day has not been to heap blame upon the Government. My endeavour has been to prove that if the Decontrol Bill had not been passed the negotiations between the coal-owners and the miners would probably have had a successful issue; and I venture to express the opinion that this should help us to find the path that may lead the country from the present position. I suggest to the Government that the two bodies should again be asked to resume their negotiations. It will, however, be much more difficult for them to do so than it was a fortnight ago, and by way of assisting them in their joint endeavours I suggest that the Government should ask three business men and three trusted Labour leaders who are not connected with the mining industry to form an advisory committee in order to promote an agreement. The previous negotiations, protracted though they had been, were successful to the extent that the coal-owners' representatives and the miners' leaders were beginning to understand each other's point of view. The individual coalowner and the individual miner have not had that opportunity. Let the two sides get together again. We are not a nation of fools, and everybody realises that the present situation is hurting all and helping none. We must end it by common sense and good will.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: It is unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with this question, has practically made it impossible for anything in the nature of an agreement to bring the parties together to receive

  163
  the sanction and support of the Government, and I think it a waste of time on the part of hon. Gentlemen on either side to make suggestions of that sort. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer been as friendly disposed to the miners as he is to the employers the difficulty would not have arisen. He has omitted on this occasion to make reference to his sympathy with the miners, as he always does, because he was born in a mining district. I worked in that district and I know it underground better than he does above ground. It is almost the last place in which I attended a Sunday school. I had to go out to earn my livelihood much earlier than he had or any individual Member of the Cabinet who are responsible for the position in which we find ourselves to-night. Not only in the Sunday school, but in the ordinary board schools, I was taught that honesty was the best policy. Quite recently I heard the Prime Minister say that Christianity was good business. Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Prime Minister believes in that. If there had been an honest policy pursued up to the present, I say again that we would not have been in the difficulty in which we now find ourselves. The miners have been lied to by the employers; they have been betrayed on every occasion when the employers got an opportunity of betraying them; and on this occasion, particularly during the last six months, they have been betrayed by the Government and the Government has assisted the employers in making statements which are not true. I am going to be perfectly frank and I do not much mind whether what I say rouses bad feeling on the other side or not. I am a believer in constitutional government. I have done as much as anyone to get our men to realise the advantage of putting their faith to a considerable extent in Parliamentary action; but I believe the men are right on this occasion, and that they are perfectly justified in the step they have taken. The Regulations which you pass to-night by an obedient majority may involve a calling together of the military and the Black and Tans in the mining industry; but that will not get you any extra coal, it will not get you out of your difficulty. Suppose you were to defeat the miners and compelled them
  164
  to accept the conditions that are offered by the employers and the miners went back to work, I would remind Members of this House that the resources of civilisation are not yet exhausted. You cannot compel the miners to produce more coal than they are willing to produce. If the Government is not willing to ask the taxpayers of this country, among whom are the miners, to pay back to the miners or to the mining industry that which was taken by the Government from the industry during the past five or six years, or to give back a portion of it—we do not ask for all—then I as an official and as a responsible leader of the miners am prepared to advise the miners that they should themselves take control of the industry and that they should regulate the amount of coal that should go into the market and its price.
  I want to remind right hon. and hon. Members that before the outbreak of the War our wages were ruled by the realised selling price of coal in the market. If the miners from early in 1915 to the end of last year had been prepared to look at the question of their relationship to the State on a purely economic basis and had been prepared to demand all that their power would have given them, you would not have been troubled now with the reparations to be paid from Germany. If anyone won the War it was not the men sitting on the other side of the House nor the interests that they represent. I can speak with some authority and feeling on this matter because I have a son lying in France. [HON. MEMBEES: "Some of us have also."] I know you have. The nation entered into an arrangement with the miners and did not keep it. My son is only one of hundreds of thousands of miners who joined the Army, and only one of many thousands of miners lying dead in France According to your own theories of political economy every soldier in the British Army was estimated to have an actual value of £600. Had you given the miners organisation £600 for every miner killed in the War the position would have been different. The point I want to make clear is that from 1917 up to the present time there is no section of the community which has rendered greater national service than the miners have rendered. Yet they are the first to be attacked. You are asking them to accept a reduction

  165
  of wages to a point 50 and 60 per cent. below the living level. If you defeat the miners you expect to break the labour movement. You will do with the railway men exactly what you have done with the miners. The railwaymen's agreement expires on 15th August, but ours should have gone on until 31st August. You have begun with the miners; your policy is to divide and to conquer. You are not going to conquer this time, at least not by division. I am speaking quite frankly. There is no Member of the Cabinet who has a greater regard and love for his country than I have, and there is nobody who would be more sorry to see anything in the nature of revolution occurring. But I have two boys working in the mines, and if you gain your point of smashing the miners' union I have nothing to return to except the mines. Without a fight I am not prepared to go back to the conditions that existed before 1914.
  Many statements are made that are not true. They are made by prominent members of the employing interests. Before reading one or two of them I want to say that all our discussions with representatives of the Government were open, that the Government took a report and published everything that was said, but that every time there was a meeting with the employers the proceedings were secret. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears in his place as the advocate of the employers' position. I will read what Lord Gainford said quite recently in another place, and to put against that a reference to what was said by the chairman of Bolckow, Vaughan and Company at the shareholders' annual meeting. Lord Gainford said:
  "The average profit in the United Kingdom of the coalowners was 1s. 5d. per ton, after the reduction of 1s. 2d. for Income Tax, leaving Is. 4d. net for the shareholders. In the present year (that is 1920) we are making 1s. 8½d. per ton, with a reduction of 6s. in the pound Income Tax, which leaves a net payment to the shareholders of 1s. 2½d. per ton, as against 1s. 4d. per ton before the War. The profit made by the coal trade has been derived almost exclusively in recent months from exported coal, and it has been limited practically to the two districts of South Wales and Northumberland and Durham."
  I want to make a comment on that, and to draw attention to the fact that there are counties in Scotland which export coal. Almost the whole of the production of Fife and the Lothians is export coal, but
  166
  in fighting their own case the Government decided that practically the whole of the export of coal from Scotland should be stopped, and they compelled the coal produced in those districts to be disposed of in the home market. It is not good enough for Lord Gainford or any representative of the Government or anyone else to suggest that in Yorkshire or in Durham or Northumberland the reduction will be so much less than it is somewhere else. The position in Durham and North umberland and in South Wales during the period of the War was due entirely to the policy of the Government. So far as we are concerned, it was not the last strike, the strike of two weeks among the miners, that lost the trade. It was the Government's strike against the democracy in Europe; the Government, supported by the Coalition Members, were responsible for the losing of the trade. Lord Gainford goes on to say: "We take exception to the men grasping at this pool created out of export profits, with a view to increasing further their wages, when they are already receiving 25s. 1½d. per ton sold, as against 6s. 10½d. per ton sold, which they were getting in 1913. Their wages have gone up 265.5 per cent." That is what Lord Gainford said. I suppose he is an honourable man. Here is a reference to what the chairman of Bolckow, Vaughan and Company said:
  "At the annual general meeting of Messrs. Bolckow, Vaughan and Company, Limited, the great Middlesborough coal, iron and steel concern, the chairman gave some interesting figures with regard to the wages of the men employed in the company's collieries during the 12 months ended 30th June, 1914, and the 12 months ended 30th June, 1920. In the former month the number of men employed in the collieries was 8,844; last June it was 9,487. On the figures given the chairman seems to have proved his point right enough, that while the average output per man employed in 1914 was 262 tons, in 1920 it was 170 tons; while the wages cost per ton of coal had risen from 6s. 4d. in 1914 to 19s. 7d. in 1920, although I daresay there is another side to this question. The interesting point, however, is that this company has probably given figures that enable the outsider to see the average wage per miner employed and the percentage of increase on 1914. In giving the figures the chairman reminded the shareholders that in Durham, where the company's collieries are situated—and where a number of Lord Gainford's are situated—the men have a free house, or where that cannot be provided by the company, an allowance for house rent, and in all cases a more than generous allowance of free coal. It appears that for the twelve months ended June, 1914, the 8,844 men

  167
  employed in Bolckow, Vaughan's collieries received an average weekly wage of 31s. 11d. each, and that the 9,487 men employed during the 12 months ended June, 1920, received an average weekly wage of 64s. 5d., or just over 100 per cent, increase."
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON: How many days' work in the two cases?
  Mr. GRAHAM: That is a question to put to the Chairman of Bolckow, Vaughan and Company. That is his statement. It is the same company giving the figures of the wages earned.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member gives the figures of weekly earnings in two cases, but he does not tell us how many days were worked to earn those wages, and it is impossible for us to judge of the value of those figures unless he can also give us the further particulars which will enable us to average out the wage.
  Mr. GRAHAM: It may be that these figures are not correct. I am not a shareholder in that firm and do not get a copy of their balance sheet, but I do hope that when the time comes that an arrangement is arrived at between the miners and the employers, whether the Government or the present owners, we will get a more honest and more truthful statement of the actual position in the different companies than we have got up to the present time. I am giving statements as they are made by representative employers in the coal-mining industry. Lord Gainford said our wages are up 265.5 per cent., and the Chairman of Bolckow, Vaughan, and Company for the same year says that in his colliery the men only earned slightly over 100 per cent. increase. There is a Member sitting in this House at the present time representing a great South Wales firm which goes under the title of William Cory and Sons, Coal Merchants, Cardiff. Their profits at the end of March, 1915, were £215,300, and their profits in 1920, notwithstanding control, were £755,000.
  Sir C. CORY: That firm has no connection with my company at all, and they own no collieries in South Wales.
  Mr. GRAHAM: It may be that I am wrong, and I do not want to make any statement that is unfair or false. It may be that I am wrong with regard to the
  168
  hon. Gentleman who has made the disclaimer, but I am referring to the company, and the statement is taken from the "New Statesman" for 3rd July, 1920, and it represents a position which I am sure has never been very well known to this House.
  Sir C. CORY: They have no collieries whatever.
  Mr. GRAHAM: Well, it is in the "Mining Manual and Year Book" as a colliery concern, and if you turn up the pages of that book you will also get a similar statement. I will come nearer home and deal with that part of the country that I am acquainted with. Reference has been made to the very generous proposals or offers made by the employers, to the effect that they are going to forego all their profits for the purpose of tiding the miners and the industry over the present difficulties. That is not their game. Our wages in Scotland prior to the outbreak of War in 1914 were regulated by the realised selling price of coal, and in July, 1909, against a selling price of 6s. 8.57d. we had a standard minimum wage of 6s. a day. Our owners very generously offer to give us a 7s. minimum wage now, and they say for a seven hours' working day, but it is against 20s. 10d. costs, and they claim that against our 7s. a day they should have 1s. 9d. per ton, or 17 per cent., profit. In 1909, under the Chairmanship of a Member of the other House, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the representatives of the colliery owners said that their profits varied from 2½d. per ton to 11d. per ton, and what the colliery owners are asking that we should agree to under a district arrangement, backed by the Government, is an arrangement which will provide that our wages shall not be higher at the minimum than they were in 1914 and that their profits shall increase from 2½d. in one case and 11d. in another case to 1s. 9d. per ton. That is what they are asking the miners to agree to, and that is what you expect the miners' leaders to advise the men to accept. We are not going to advise them to do anything of the sort.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: Those figures—2½d. and 11d.—were the amount of royalties, not profits.
  Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend is referring to royalties, and I may just as well say what I have to say with regard

  169
  to royalties. Our wages have been reduced since September of last year; the miners' wages in Scotland—at least in a part of Scotland—have been reduced, and you do not know anything at all about it. As a matter of fact, one of the principal colliery companies in Scotland have intimated to our Association that when the miners resume work they will only be allowed to resume work on condition that they are prepared to accept a very substantial private or personal reduction in addition to the general reduction, and if they are not prepared to accept that the collieries are to shut down. That is their position. With regard to royalties, our wages have come down, but royalties have risen in Scotland. That is a curious position of affairs, but it is a fact, according to the returns published by the Government. If you get the September "Quarterly Statistical Return" you will find the payment of royalties in Scotland is at 10½d. per ton, and if you get it for February, you will find that the payments to the landlords for royalty rent in Scotland is 1s. 0.23d., or nearly 1¾d. per ton more than it was in September, while our wages have very considerably fallen. I want to give another statement here, because I have been at the trouble of finding out what the position of the employers is, in Scotland at least. I have here a statement taken from the "Mining Manual and Year Book" for this year, showing the position of 16 companies, eight of whom are purely coal companies, and eight iron and steel and coal companies. These companies employ 40 per cent, of the people engaged in Scotland in the mining industry above and below ground, and in the six years before the War they earned on their ordinary capital a profit of £5,984,313, and in the six years since the War they have earned a profit of £6,448,429, or fully 107 per cent., so that they have done fairly well out of the War. One of these companies is represented on the Negotiating Committee by Sir Adam Nimmo, a native of more or less the same district that the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes from. That company for fifteen years before the War earned an average profit of 6.86 per cent., and in the five years since the War they have earned an average profit of 18.33 per cent. That is one of the men that the Government employ to control the mining industry.
  170
  There is absolutely no hope that the miners' leaders will be prepared to advise the men to accept the conditions that are laid down. We cannot do it. We know it is absolutely impossible for the men to live under the conditions that are proposed, and we are not prepared to advise them to accept conditions "of that kind. I want to suggest that if the Government had played an honest game with us this sort of thing would not have happened at all. No miners' leader or official, and very few of the miners working at the coal face, are at all anxious for stoppages of work. They are the last thing they want, because nobody suffers more than they do when there are stoppages of work. Our men are idle to-day because they have no choice left. They feel that they might as well starve idle as starve working, and unless the Government are prepared to pay some regard to the promises made during the last five or six years to the miners, I see nothing but a very hopeless and black prospect in front of this country from the point of view of the mining industry. The Prime Minister met the British Miners' Federation Executive in 1919 and offered us a Commission. He begged of us to accept a Commission, and I will give his exact words:
  "Human nature is not so bankrupt in resource and sense and conscience as all that, and therefore I beg you, and I am not ashamed to beg you, as head of the Government, to agree with us in the setting up of a Commission that will investigate these facts, with an imperative order for them to report by the 31st March, which is only a fortnight later than your own time, and that they should also investigate all these other conditions to which you attach so much importance, and to which I attach importance as well—mining royalties and their effects upon the industry, profiteering and its effects upon the industry, whether you could best conduct your industry by means of joint control, nationalisation, or any other method, in the interests, not merely of the miners, but of the whole community, because after all the coal is not there for the interests of any industry, but it is there for the benefit of the whole nation. I want all that investigated, and I ask you to assist in the formation of a tribunal, which will not be merely a good one, but a tribunal which will command the confidence of the whole country, and not less the confidence of that very important branch of industry which you so ably represent."
  That was the statement made to the miners on the eve of a stoppage of work fully two years ago—a statement which induced our officials and leaders of that time to advise the men to accept the

  171
  Commission. We did accept the Commission. We had three members on that Commission out of 13. The Prime Minister appointed the Chairman. We would not have chosen him if the choice had been left to us. He was not in favour of nationalisation when he took his seat as Chairman of the Commission. He was the only man, however, that was open to conviction, and he was convinced. He recommended not only in favour of nationalisation of mines and nationalisation of royalties, but he said that the coal control should continue for three years from 30th June, 1919, and when the coal control passed away then the State should become the owner of the mines. He recommended that fair compensation should be paid. Nobody on this side of the House will object to fair compensation, but everybody here is very much opposed to, and will fight to the uttermost against the acceptance of the principle laid down by the Government, that a colliery owner and a land owner in a particular part of the country is entitled to get all the advantages which follow from the easy working of the coal in the situation in which it is found. The man who works in a bad place in a pit works harder than a man who works in an easy place. I know from experience, and all the Members here know from experience. We are against anything in the nature of a district agreement, because the employers do not mean a district agreement, but a colliery agreement, a pit agreement, and there is as much logic and sense in claiming that there should be an agreement for every individual man as there is for district arrangements in the sense that the employers understand that particular proposal. We may be compelled, as I say, to go back to the districts. We have no desire to see the country in any difficulty at all.
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Why are you wrecking the mines?
  Mr. GRAHAM: We have not wrecked the mines.
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: You have tried to do so.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I want to be quite frank. The child of a miner is of more importance to me than the horse of a colliery owner, and we have nothing to do with the mines. The Government say
  172
  that a mine is the property of a private individual, and it is his business to get out that property which is in danger or likely to be lost, and not us at all. I want to be further quite frank. The employers, before they had finally finished with us as a negotiating committee, knew what the attitude of the Government was. They knew it months ago, and they have only been playing with us the whole of this time. The men have got that in their mind, and they are not as unintelligent as many of the public in London believe them to be. I am prepared to address a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and see that good order is kept, in my own constituency in Hamilton, which is a mining town, and deal with these questions and the honesty of the Government with regard to this particular matter. I have had handed to me here a statement, which shows the position of Cory Brothers and Company, Limited—chairman, Sir C. J. Cory, Bart. I understand that is the gentleman who denied having any connection with this particular company, and this is taken from the Stock Exchange Year Book.
  Sir C. CORY: I denied connection with William Cory & Sons. I did not deny connection with Cory Brothers.
  Mr. GRAHAM: This is the statement—Cory Brothers and Company; Chairman, Sir C. J. Cory, Baronet. The Company was registered on 9th April, 1888, to take over the business of colliery proprietors, of the firm of the same name. I think that should be quite sufficient. I can speak three languages more or less correctly—English, Scotch, and unparliamentary. I do not wish to be unparliamentary. I want to point out that this statement justifies all I have said with regard to Cory Company.
  Sir C. CORY: The hon. Member has justified nothing whatever. He has read out the profits of another firm, and now he gives the name of my Company to point out facts with regard to the other firm.
  Mr. GRAHAM: It is quite obvious that I have hit the mark. It is equally obvious that the figures supplied by the Government to us during the last few years cannot be depended upon, and the miners want, in their own interest and in the interest of the nation, a national

  173
  arrangement, which will make it possible for the miners to have a reasonable living wage for their labour. We are anxious that the industry should be taken over or controlled by the Government, in the interests of the nation. We are not so anxious for revolution as some people imagine. The revolutionists are not on this side; they are on the other side, and, unless the Government are prepared to change their policy, and the Prime Minister takes up a more accommodating line in replying to-night than that taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am afraid that very considerable damage will be done to the national interests, and it will not be the fault of the miners.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I shall not occupy the attention of the House more than a very few moments, because I confess I think this is a case in which, at this stage, it is peculiarly difficult for anybody, whose governing object is the attainment of industrial peace, to offer, with any confidence, useful or fruitful counsel. But I feel that I cannot remain altogether silent, partly because I have had an experience, which has fallen to the lot of very few on either side of the House, of dealing with a coal strike of great, and, indeed, most formidable dimensions, which lasted for a considerable time, which plunged the country into every kind of industrial anxiety, and a certain amount of turmoil, and which caused myself and my colleagues days, and indeed weeks, of arduous and anxious labour to compose. Speaking from the experience so gained, I will say at once that I know enough, and learnt enough then, of the miners of the country to be quite satisfied that they do not embark on struggles of this kind out of motives of mere pique or passion, but only under a conviction, which may or may not be well-founded, but which I am sure is honestly entertained, that, unless they resist, they will be called upon to face hardship in this case in the way of a reduction in wages, which they do not think justified in their own interests, or required in the interests of the community.
  On the other hand, I listened with almost complete agreement to what was said at the opening of the Debate by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on two vitally important points, namely, the cessation of control—I say nothing for the
  174
  moment as to whether the process might not judiciously have been more gradual—the cessation, or rather the non-resumption, of control, and, equally important, the impossibility, in the state of our national finances, and of the general industrial conditions of the country, of calling upon the taxpayer to maintain in a condition of solvency any particular industry by public subsidy. The question, to one who holds both those views, as I do very strongly, is whether it is not possible even now for some step to be taken to avert what is already a most serious, and what threatens to become, if it develops, as we are told it may not improbably develop in the course of the next few days, an overshadowing and overwhelming national calamity. The suggestion which I make—and I make it with all diffidence, and not in any dogmatic spirit, and, of course, with a very inadequate supply of the information which is in the possession and at the disposal of the Government—but the suggestion I make is this.
  I listened with very great care to the speech of my right hon. Friend who leads the Labour party, and it appeared to me that the point which he made—at any rate, the point he made most strongly, and with most feeling—was that the miners found themselves more or less suddenly faced with the alternative either of submitting to what they conceive to be unreasonable, sudden and substantial lowering of their remuneration, or of ceasing work. Now, where is the root of the difficulty between the two parties? It is in the distinction, or very largely in the distinction, between regulating wages in this industry upon what is a national or a district basis. That is the root of the whole thing. We were concerned in the settlement of the strike to which I have referred, and we were responsible for setting up district boards. I believe that we were perfectly right in doing so Subsequent events seem to show that matters were gravitating in a different direction. From the moment when under the stress of the War you established a system of control which was regarded—rightly or wrongly—certainly regarded by many miners as the first step towards a more complete system of nationalisation—there are other causes which contributed—there can

  175
  be no doubt that there has been in the mining world a very strong and growing dissatisfaction with the district system as leading to inequalities and injustices, and a desire for the substitution for it of a national system.
  I am not at all satisfied—and, as I say, I am speaking merely by way of suggestion and for the purposes of discussion—that further deliberation between the parties, with the assistance of the Government, might not show that the gap between these two things is not so unbridgable as at first sight it appears. I can conceive of your accepting the principle of what I may call a national standard, taking that as the norm by which the system of wages is to be regulated, and at the same time finding within its limits the means for elastic variation in regard to special local conditions. I believe if it can be thrashed out in a friendly spirit with a desire for accommodation—I do not wish to give expression to any sanguine feeling—I should hope that in the course of such discussion it might be possible, with a certain amount of elasticity and flexibility, for the miners not to sacrifice the principle and main purpose with which I and many others have a good deal of sympathy. I think probably such a discussion might show—and here again I do not dogmatise—that it is possible to graduate in point of time, and what is perhaps of more importance in point of amount, what is proposed in the way of reduction, so that it should not come suddenly and precipitately—as it has done—upon the wage-receiving classes; but that the process of decline should be gradual, so that in the first stages it was not so severely felt.
  These are two practical suggestions. Let me add that I think it is an essential preliminary condition to any such discussion that in the meantime the life of the mines should be preserved in its integrity. After all, these are the great potential sources on which the prosperity not only of this industry depends. We are all directly concerned, practically every household and every trade in the country is concerned in the industry, and dependent upon it. It is a national duty not to squander or wantonly to injure that infinitely valuable source of our future
  176
  prosperity. If, that condition being fulfilled, it were possible for the Government to encourage the bringing together even at this stage of the interests concerned to discuss the matter in that spirit and more or less on that basis, gloomy as the prospect appears to be, I cannot altogether abandon the hope that we may yet be saved from what threatens to be an irreparable national disaster. I make these suggestions with great seriousness to the House, and as the best contribution that occurs to me in the crisis with which we are faced.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: There is one point upon which we shall all be agreed, and that is that these continually recurring crises in the mining industry must come to an end unless disaster is to overtake the industry, and affect the well-being of the nation. Of that there can be no two opinions, and anything that can be said to bring about that result will be to the good. I want to say that in my opinion the first essential to that end is for the Government to act in relation to this problem in such a manner as to eradicate from the minds of the miners what has become a deep-rooted conviction, namely, that the Government are in league with the owners to thwart the ambitions and aspirations of the miners and to side with the employers. Rightly or wrongly that conviction is deep-rooted in the minds of the miners. It is not without some reason. After all, the handling of the coal problem during the last two years can hardly be described as of a satisfactory character. Two years ago we had a great crisis. The Government appealed to us to submit our case on its merits to the arbitrament of reason. They said: "You are asking great changes, seeking to introduce revolutionary changes: you can hardly expect the Government to be a party to these great alterations without adequate inquiry. Submit the case in all its bearings and facts to an impartial tribunal."
  We accepted the suggestion. Everybody knows—it is common history—what happened as a result! There is no miner in this country but considers that the Government betrayed him in the treatment accorded to the Report of the Sankey Commission. The Sankey Commission Report stated amongst other

  177
  things—not a Report signed by our representatives, but by a very distinguished Judge of the High Court, and by three very distinguished employers of labour—that they were satisfied on the evidence before them that the present system of conducting the mining industry stood condemned and ought to be changed. The Leader of the House speaking on behalf of the Government said, "We undertake to accept and adopt that Report in the spirit and in the letter." So far from treating the old method as being condemned, and as something which must be replaced, they are seeking to put us back into exactly the same conditions and the old terms—[HON. MEMBERS: "And worse."]—so far as the methods are concerned, the old machinery, and the old relationships, it is simply reverting to the same thing.
  The Government introduced a Bill recently to embody their policy for the future governance of the industry. They embodied in that Bill proposals for area boards. The Government knew perfectly well that we were not prepared to accept such boards. They knew the whole industry had been in revolt against it. We absolutely refused to touch the Bill, to sit on the committees, or to set up the machinery. The Government knew exactly what was the position. This demand for a national wage-system has not grown up during the War. It is the very basis upon which the miners' organisation is built. When the Miners' Federation of Great Britain was first established it consisted of what is now called the English Conciliation Board area, embracing Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Nottingham, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, and North Wales. These were the coalfields which were then organised, and they had one Wages Board for the whole of that area. Subsequently, Scotland joined, but Scotland had an agreement which overlapped the English Conciliation Board agreement. Wales joined. They had an agreement overlapping. Subsequently, Northumberland and Durham joined. At every national conference which was held prior to the War resolutions were passed that no future agreements must be entered into that were not coterminous. If England had an agreement overlapping by a year, then Wales must make an agreement for one year only so as to bring it into line. We were for many years before the War trying to get all our
  178
  agreements coterminous so as to get one national agreement.
  7.0 P.M.
  The year 1915 was the first occasion when that desired result would have been achieved. We had already decided by resolution what were the principles to be embodied in the national wages agreement, and had there been no war this fight for a national wage agreement would have taken place in 1915. The miners, by resolution, decided to suspend the realisation of their ambition during the War in the hope that they would get through with it later. This is nothing new. It is really the foundation on which the whole structure rests. To suggest now that we should revert to the old district system of regulating wages is to put us back into a position to which we are not prepared to go. It is of vital importance that that fact should be borne in mind. Whatever is the result, whatever the outcome of this disturbance, peace in the mining industry on a district basis is an absolute impossibility. You cannot ensure peace in the mining industry on a district system basis, however much you may try. That is the first fact that must be borne in mind. Last year during the strike we discussed on the national executive—I was then on it—the deplorable position which was developing in the mining industry. We saw our output going down—our output per man. We saw distress coming on the industry. We knew that the state of things was growing largely out of the determination on the part of the miners to get nationalisation and the determination of the coalowners to get rid of control. The one was trying to bring private enterprise into disrepute, and the other was trying to bring control into disrepute; and they were both working for bad results for entirely different purposes. We said that was a state of things which could not possibly result in any good to the miners ultimately. It must be ruinous to the miners' interest, and as an Executive we deliberately came to the conclusion that we ought to advise the Miners' Conference to eliminate, entirely and completely, from their consideration of the negotiations all political considerations; and that whatever was done politically in relation to this question should come as a result of elections or through the ordinary development of political thought. We decided that it

  179
  should not weigh with us at all so far as industrial considerations went. In the absence of the Government, we met the owners' representatives; we told them this, and we said: "We think the time has now come when a proper relationship should be re-established between the owners and the workmen. We have deliberately come to the conclusion that, as a first essential to that end, we must get rid of political considerations, and we ask you to agree that the next step shall be that any agreement entered into must, be on a national basis." Sir Adam Nimmo and Mr. Evan Williams, who are both in the Gallery listening to what I am saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I am only speaking of this—stated, on behalf of their side, that they regarded the very frank statement of Mr. Hodges, on behalf of the Executive, that they intended to eliminate political considerations as a tremendous step in the right direction, and one which went a long way to ensure peace. They added that they were now prepared to admit that any settlement that could be effected, having regard to the circumstances and conditions prevailing in the industry, at any rate for some time to come, must be on a national basis.
  When I left the National Executive I did so under the clear impression that both sides were agreed on that one great broad principle, which had been publicly stated in their presence, that negotiations were to proceed on a national basis. I understand that since then conversations have been proceeding with a view to getting some kind of national agreement, or a basis on which to build a national agreement, but that the owners, when they received notice of the Government's intention to decontrol, said, "In face of that, we can no longer consider a national basis of settlement and we must revert to the district basis." I know of no period in our history more inopportune than the present for decontrolling the industry, and for making an attempt either to establish a national or a district agreement. The conditions in the industry to-day are not only abnormal, they are exceptionally abnormal. I wish to say a few words in reply to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the last strike. He stated that the result of the last strike was to rob us of many markets to which our coal used to go. In my opinion the
  180
  facts are all against that statement We had practically but one market at the time of the strike, and that was the French market. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Practically, we were sending 17,000,000 tons to France and our exports were only a little over 20,000,000 tons. We were reduced almost entirely to one foreign market, and the strike had absolutely nothing whatever to do with our loss of the French market. American coal did not come over as a result of the strike, it was coming in large quantities long before there was a strike at all. In 1914 America sent to France 57,000 tons. From June, 1918, the time of the Armistice, to June, 1919, she did not send more than 22,000, but after June, 1919, she began sending in more, and by June, 1920, she had sent 1,500,000 tons. Month by month it crept up until by September, 1920, she was sending in coal at the rate of 6,000,000 tons per year. That was long before the strike was commenced.
  Sir R. HORNE: I said a strike was threatened from the month of July.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: Whatever market there was in France was being supplied by us to the extent of our ability to supply it up to the time of the strike. Before ever there was a threat of a strike American coal was coming in in large quantities. It was coming in because they were bound to have coal, and we could not supply them with sufficient. What happened? Just about the time of the strike, the Spa Reparations Agreement was made. That provided that Germany should supply more coal to France than Germany and Britain had ever supplied to France in its history. In 1910, the United Kingdom and Germany supplied to France 11,750,000 tons.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The French mines have been destroyed.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: In 1910, the French mines were all right. In 1911, Germany supplied to France 13,000,000 tons. In 1912, 13,000,000 tons; in 1913, 16,000,000 tons. During the War, when Germany was not supplying France at all, we sent, on the average, 17,000,000. Now I understand that Germany has to supply 24,000,000 tons a year, or 2,000,000 tons a month. That has destroyed not only our

  181
  market but the American market also. It is not that the American has come in and taken our market; German coal has come in, and has destroyed our market and that of America so far as France is concerned. As a matter of fact some of the American coal, which was sent into France at 28 dollars a ton during the strike, and which had been contracted for before ever the strike took place, is still unused, and they cannot even get a market for it at 7 dollars a ton. It was offered in December at 13 and 14 dollars a ton. The German reparations arrangement is simply destroying, absolutely and altogether, our market for export coal. That being the case, in what position has it placed the miners employed in export districts so far as employment and wages are concerned? Let me give just two or three particulars about the South Wales coalfields. I read a letter in yesterday's "Times" from Lord Askwith, in which he asked for fuller particulars of the meaning of the owners' proposal. He said that if, as is sometimes stated, the owners' proposals mean that the miners' wages will be two and a quarter times their pre-War wages, he did not think they had much to complain of. Two and a quarter times would only mean an increase of 125 per cent.—one and a quarter times increase. The cost of living is 141 per cent. more, so that if the wage actually stood, under the proposals of the owners, at two and a quarter times above the pre-War wage,, it would still be substantially below the pre-War standard of living. What is the position in South Wales? We are offered our pre-War wages, plus 46 per cent., while the cost of living is 141 per cent, above pre-War times. We are asked to meet that additional cost with 46 per cent. increase on our pre-War wages. That is an absolutely hopeless proposal. It is a wage on which people cannot make both ends meet in this time of high cost of living. Let me give one or two illustrations, because when my hon. Friend was quoting figures just now he was asked to give the number of days, the time worked, and so on. I could give cases by the hour, if you liked. We have a very considerable number—
  Sir C. CORY: I would point out that the percentage over the pre-War rate is 55.83, and not 46, as the hon. Member stated.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not understand his own proposal, and I would certainly suggest that before he interjects again he should inquire as to its real result. We had some of the 55.83 per cent. in pre-War days, and the only increase over the pre-War wage is 46 per cent. I want to give-some individual illustrations. We have a considerable number of grades of workmen in the Welsh coalfields, and prior to the stoppage they were getting 14s. 9½d. per day. They are asked to accept 7s. 9½d.; 7s. a day reduction out of 14s. 9½d. There is not a person in the Welsh coalfields over 18 years of age who is asked to accept less than 7s. a day reduction. Our surface labourers, for instance, work 7¾ hours; that is their contract term, and they are offered 7¾s.—7.9d.—for it. That is 1s. an hour. There are employers in all the industries of the country sitting on the other side of this House. Can one of them get up and say that any body of workmen in this country are asked to work to-day for Is. an hour? Nobody; but that is what our men, thousands upon thousands of them, are asked to work for. Some road-making is going on in the district. There were a number of men unemployed before the general stoppage took place, and they were put on to road repairing. The Secretary of the Municipal Employées Association arranged terms for the work to be done. The rate they receive is 1s. 10d. an hour if they are paid in wet or fine weather, and 1s. 11d. if they are only paid when they work. These men are getting 1s. 11d. an hour, and our men are asked to work for 1s. an hour; yet people cannot understand why they do not accept the proposal. I had my gas bill last Saturday for the March quarter, and I saw on the back of it, "Five shillings for repairs, and for two hours for a fitter, at half-a-crown an hour." I asked the gas manager if that was what they paid their fitters. He said, "Yes, half-a-crown an hour." I looked to see what our colliery fitters are getting in South Wales. During the War an agreement was made which raised the fitters' wage and before the stoppage that came to 16s. 1d. per day, which, at 7¾ hours, worked out at 2s. 1d. per hour. They are now asked to accept 1s. 2d. per hour, yet the gas works fitters in the same locality, and, I am told, those in the engineering works, get 2s. 6d.,

  183
  2s. 8d., and 2s. 9d. Are we to understand that the colliery owners or any body of employers are to say to their men, "You can take 14 days' notice; you are to have 7s. a day reduction in wages, and you must accept it, and you must not get unemployment pay, regardless of whether you can live on it or not. You are not to be regarded as unemployed." Is that what they are going to be told? If this is to be the attitude of the Government, then they are putting a weapon into the hands of the employers' class which is much too dangerous for any body of men to wield, and the men who represent the miners will have something to say upon this matter. If the mineowners are allowed to force this on to the miners under the pressure of starvation, such a state of things will have developed which I should have thought was absolutely impossible. That is the kind of thing to which we are asked to agree. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there was very considerable agreement between the negotiating parties, but I am disposed to think that he has rather exaggerated it. It is true that the broad principles were agreed to, but it is on the question of the details ultimately that the whole value of an agreement depends. I wish to say that when the coalowners suggest that they should have 17 per cent profit on standard wages and 20 per cent. of the surplus they are making a proposal which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as reasonable. Last year the ratio of profits to wages was 10 per cent., and there is no reason why they should in the future have 17 per cent, on one part of the wages and 20 per cent. on the other part. At any rate, there will have to be some different proposal before there is any hope of agreement in the mining industry. I would like to reply to the suggestion made that the Miners' Federation are wrecking the collieries. What has actually taken place? Every miner and every mine worker in the Welsh coalfield received 14 days' notice, and at the termination of that notice the coalowners put up printed notices at each colliery as follows:
  "Notice is hereby given that all workmen who shall be employed at the above collieries on and after the 1st day of April, 1921, will be employed upon day to day contracts at the existing rate of wages known as the 1915 standard."
  184
  That notice was put up telling the pumpmen, ostlers, and the stokers that they must accept 7s. less than they have previously been getting. Could any of these men possibly accept such a reduction?
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Is it not a fact that in the majority of the collieries the pumpmen wanted to come back and remain at their work, and that their leaders and Mr. Hodges have forced them to come out?
  Mr. HARTSHORN: If anybody has come in contact with one individual in the mining industry who wishes to work on these terms, then he has done something that I have not done. I have not found a single individual who would consent to work under those terms.
  Sir C. CORY: As a matter of fact, certain classes of men have been offered the present rate of wages to remain at work, and they have been prevented from coming on to the colliery premises at all; in fact, they have all been prevented except the manager. There are a number of horses absolutely starving.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: I am not talking about what individual workmen have been offered. We met last Tuesday at the conciliation board, and we got the terms officially which were offered to the workmen. Anything done outside of that I do not know anything about. I am speaking about the official terms supplied to the Press and the public. I want to say where I think we have gone wrong. When the Reparation Agreement destroyed our export trade, I think it called for something more than the ordinary procedure. I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was President of the Board of Trade, seeing the good conditions that were developing in the industry, should have said to the miners: "When there was prosperity and when the cost of living was going up, you asked for increased wages. Now that the tables are turned and the cost of living is going down and there is less prosperity, you ought to help us to bear the loss." You should have said to the employers: "You have had profits guaranteed while there was prosperity, and now when there are no profits at all, you ought to bear some of the burden, in order to help us over this trouble." That should have been done, and if it had been done I have no doubt that by

  185
  negotiations an arrangement could have been entered into which perhaps would not have wiped out entirely all the deficit, because that is due to abnormal conditions, and you really cannot under present conditions wipe out by a reduction in wages an abnormal deficit.
  You get in the South Wales coalfield three days' output, but the wages cost is not two or three days' wages but it is two or three days' wages of the men employed at the collieries including the clerks, ostlers, mechanics, winding enginemen, colliery officials and a huge army of men who have to receive a week's pay with the result that you get an abnormally high labour cost. If you are going to wipe that cost out by reducing wages, it means that the men working short time must have their own wages reduced in order to find wages for the other men. That is not a sensible proposition, and in these circumstances I suggest that the Government should adopt a very different attitude, and I think this House wishes to adopt a very different attitude. In the Debate on the Decontrol Bill almost everything we said has now come to pass. We appealed for some assistance by the Government to get a settlement but there has been no response. We might come here and make fiery speeches and denounce teach other; we might adopt a stiff-neck attitude but we may get nothing done, and in addition to the miners' strike certain other developments may take place. Nobody knows what may come of it. It may be a bad thing for the miners and it may be a bad thing for other people. I think it will be a bad thing for everybody.
  This is a business which is of the deepest interest to the Government as well as to the miners and employers of labour. We are not appealing for ourselves alone. After all, we have as much interest in the well-being of the nation as anybody else, and I feel convinced that the Government should adopt an attitude of meeting both sides, realising that there is a very serious abnormal situation in the industry which must be met. If necessary they should call upon all sections to give some contribution towards bearing the burden, but to ask the miners to bear it all is an utterly unreasonable proposition. I am not on the negotiating committee, but I am satisfied from what I do know of the general outlook of the miners and the executive
  186
  that they are as anxious as anybody can be to get a satisfactory solution of this problem, and I trust the Government are not going to adopt an attitude of saying that under no circumstances and to no extent will they give assistance in order to tide over this period and assist in getting a settlement arranged.
  I do not think anything is to be gained by saying, "We will do it for two or three months." The Government should get down to this thing with the miners and assist in getting a settlement. The Government can exert pressure and exert their authority, but they can only do it when they are helping to mould a fresh policy and that is what they should set about doing. We can all make fiery speeches but they are no good. The Government should adopt an attitude of the kind which I am certain is being adopted by everybody on our side because we are anxious to avoid a, repetition of this kind of thing, and we are anxious to get a settlement at the present time.
  It is only by adopting that attitude of mind, and by the Government getting the parties together not merely to patch up the question, but to secure terms which will provide a basis for a permanent settlement to govern this industry for the future, that, in my opinion, any good can accrue from this Debate.
  Mr. KIDD: If for no other than selfish reasons hon. Members representing mining constituencies are bound to be anxious on this occasion to find some way out of the difficulty. They rightly recognise that extraordinary distress must be occasioned by what is going on. But my difficulty, a difficulty which is shared by other hon. Members, is that, after all, despite the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) and other speeches which we have heard, no one among the miners' leaders in the House has given us much assistance. There has been an appeal for extra time. It would be as well to know how the miners' leaders propose that that time shall be occupied. Are they proposing to use it in reconciling the miners to the acceptance of the hard facts of the situation? Will they use it in seeking to foster ideas with regard to nationalisation, or will they use it for the promotion of doctrines of national as against district pooling? If they will say

  187
  specifically in which of these ways they are going to occupy the extra time they ask for, they will help some on this side of the House who are desirous of assisting them.
  No one will deny that something very serious must have happened to so disturb the mentality of the miner as to lead him to exhibit the unreason represented by allowing the mines to go to waste, and animals to die for want of water or from suffocation. The something which has happened is not so much economic as psychological. One might seek for the source of the miners' difficulties to-day in what was known as Control. That control may have been well intended and cleverly devised, but in it we can discover the source of the difficulty at the moment. If I am right in that—and I think the Labour party will agree with me that the control has brought about this confusion of mindx2014;then they will further agree that, inasmuch as they largely dictated that control, they must take a large share of the responsibility for the present position. What are the facts with regard to it? Control, I take it, was only devised and adopted by the Government to escape the chaos threatened in the country when the miners' leaders demanded nationalisation. The Government did not see their way to grant nationalisation, and, as a kind of middle course—a temporary course—control was instituted, and instituted as a direct result of the arguments of the miners' leaders and the threats of the miners' leaders. I am not now going to discuss nationalisation. I presume I would not be permitted to do so, but had I been free to do it, speaking after extensive consultation with the miners, I think I would be able to show that nationalisation would inevitably have meant lower wages, less security, and the destruction of the liberty of the miner.
  Leaving nationalisation aside for the moment, we cannot escape the fact that control was dictated by the demand for nationalisation. How did that control work? In my opinion it worked to the serious detriment of the miners. I have heard in this House statements with regard to miners' wages which, in my opinion, are absolutely without justification. Time and again we have heard it declared that miners are overpaid. How are they overpaid? Anyone who takes
  188
  the trouble to investigate will find that at intervals the miner, like other workers, has his harvest. The nearest approach to the harvest which they should have enjoyed in recent years was that resulting from the Franco-Prussian War, when they got a wage of something like 30s. per day. That was one particular harvest. It was earned under conditions of freedom of the coal trade, but in the recent War there was an amount of interference with his trade which rendered it impossible for him to earn anything like that wage. Instead of giving him freedom of trade, we restricted the export of coal. That export was bringing a lot of money into the country at the very moment when money was most required. Then we stipulated that coal should be supplied to the home industries at cost price, and we supplied it at that price to industries which were paying an Excess Profits Duty. The House will, I think, agree with me that an industry which paid an Excess Profits Duty could not have required any bounty from the coal industry. The pool maintained by the profits of the mining industry was largely reduced by these restrictions attached to the export of coal and to the prices of home-consumed coal and the wage of the miner suffered. The miner under free trade would have got a higher wage. He knows there was interference with his industry which prevented him getting that higher wage. But his leaders insisted on control. If his wages had been allowed to rise freely, and he had thus got the fat, he would have realised that in these days he would have to take the lean. The difficulty is, however, that he did not get the fat. At any rate, he believes he did not get it, and it is an extreme probability that he is right, taking the facts as we know them and contrasting them with similar facts under similar conditions at the time of the Franco-Prussian War. Hence his irritation now. I hope Labour leaders will at least have the moral courage, in order to give peace to the country and to avoid chaos, to say that the control was a mistake, and to admit that they had a large share in the responsibility for it, and thereby destroyed the cream of the miners' trade. The mere consciousness that they did not get what they might have had is, I think, the cause of their irritation.
  Am I to understand that the Labour leaders take this view—that the slump in

  189
  the coal trade is not the beginning of a general slump in our industry and might have been avoided? Are we at this time of day, knowing that the accumulated wealth of the world has been destroyed, to remain under the delusion that we can live as comfortably as we did in pre-War times? It is an obvious absurdity, and for the Labour leaders to encourage that absurdity at the present time is to threaten the country with chaos. It will involve a serious responsibility on the Labour leaders if they do it. We may all talk nonsense at times on public platforms, but there is only one way by which we can make up the wealth which has been destroyed. We must bring our living down to a lower standard. That experience will not be confined to the miners It will extend to other classes, even to those which are no less workers even if their faces are clean. We shall all have to bring down our scale of living, and if the Labour leaders will tell the House that they accept it as a necessary and inevitable consequence that wages must drop, if they renounce nationalisation as a gospel, and if they repudiate control as having been a wrong policy, although dictated by themselves, if they will give these assurances to the House and simply appeal for genuine sympathy in order to relieve the distress from which the miners are suffering, then they will get much consideration. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) indicated that instead of a sudden drop in wages it might be useful for the country, even at some little cost, to cushion the fall. There are many hon. Members who will be ready to support that proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but before doing it, we must have some indication that a time allowance is to be put to the expedient. If the time is going to be occupied in explaining that there is no slump and no necessity for bringing down wages, in misrepresenting the mine owners—who certainly have not had any profits—or in misrepresenting the Government, who have not got a halfpenny as the equivalent of the Excess Profits Duty paid by other industries—if the time is to be spent in that way, then we are simply prolonging and adding to the agony of the miner, and in those circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do well to stick by
  190
  his present position. In my country there is a proverb which, translated into the language of your country, is to the effect that you cannot take the trousers off a Highlander. [An HON. MEMBER: "The breeks."] I am glad that you say that; I was trying to accommodate myself to you. The Labour leaders at the present time are attempting that feat. It is the sartorial equivalent of squaring the circle, and the Labour leaders will find it to be so.
  Why cannot we meet the miners with perfect frankness? Why cannot we tell them that, however much the Government may have erred in regard to control, and however much the Labour party may have erred in concurring in that control, we are sufficiently conscious of his courage-and endurance and spirit of adventure to make us entertain the most earnest desire to save him at this time from the calamity which threatens him? If we tell the truth to the miner, as man to man, in that way, if the Labour leaders will join with us in simply stating the elementary facts, if they will exhibit the moral courage to admit that they were wrong in demanding nationalisation, in maintaining their demand with threats, and in compelling control, then we can settle with the miner to-morrow. He is a man of common sense. You do not find a man of adventure, courage, and endurance squirming in a difficult situation. Why cannot we try and get the miner to realise that we are all in a difficult situation, that he is only the first to be struck, and that, as he is struck to-day, others will be struck to-morrow; and that making allowance for his irritation, so far as it refers to interference, with his liberty to get the biggest price he could for his work during the War, we are prepared to meet him now and make some gradual descent to a proper basis? Before that gradual descent can be made we want to know the proportions of the stages of reduction; we want to know the output which is to justify the reduction; we want to know if the basis to which we are going and which the Labour leaders are going to accept, is that the wage finally fixed must be the wage which the industry can bear. If they will not accept that as the ultimate test, then, whether we con tinue the trial for one month or two months, there is no use in attempting any compromise; we are up against an impossible proposition; we are being asked to

  191
  do something which no Government could do; we are being asked to repudiate the idea that the industries of this country are to be self-supporting.
  The argument of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) was rather difficult to follow. At one time he seemed to be arguing that he wanted a subsidy; at another time he seemed to seek to justify his demand for a subsidy by saying that it was not really a subsidy that he wanted, but that he wanted something back which the nation had got from the miners. What has the nation got from the mining industry? While other industries were paying millions in Excess Profits Duty, the mining industry—our basic industry, our greatest industry—has not paid a single copper to the Exchequer. The mineowner has had nothing extra; his return has been kept at pre-War level. Where has the money gone? Possibly because of the control we did not earn as much as we could have earned, but that brings us back to where I began. The control is responsible for the irritation in the minds of the miners. Those who were responsible for the control are the parties who must to-day do their very utmost to assist us out of our difficulty, and I venture to express the opinion that the Labour party, by reason of their action on the subject of nationalisation, and of their threats at a time that was most critical for the country, cannot escape responsibility for having dictated control. Therefore, they must give their substantial support to the Government in its efforts to redeem the country from the present crisis.
  Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member who has just sat down divided his speech into three categories. Firstly, he blamed the Labour leaders for all the ills from which the country is now suffering, and he pointed out that the miners are really innocent, honest people who have been gulled and influenced by their wicked leaders. He proceeded to give sound advice to the leaders; and then he assumed the rôle of speaking for the Government, saying, on their behalf: "If you will do so-and-so and so-and-so, then I will deliver the goods." I would remind him that the position is far too serious for playing that rôle to-night. We are not face to face with the possibility that some mere political advantage may be secured by one side or
  192
  the other. We are not debating some party measure in connection with which we may hope to gain some advantage from the electorate. We are debating something that will not only affect the miner and the mineowner, but will affect every man in this House, and every man, woman and child in the country. Therefore, I am not going to follow, or be tempted to reply to, the method or manner of the hon. Member's speech, except to say that the best comment I can make upon it is that his facts are wrong. He stated that the control of mines was due to the miners' demand for nationalisation; but he probably did not know—I am sure that if he had known he would not have made that statement—that control of the mines commenced on the 29th November, 1916. There was then no demand for nationalisation of the mines, nor any talk of it, nor had there been any conference to discuss nationalisation of the mines. Control of the mines was adopted by the Government for precisely the same reason as control of the railways, of food, and of shipping, namely, that the whole resources of the nation might be directed towards winning the War. That may have been a good reason or a bad one. I think it was a good reason. I think it was justified by the circumstances, and that the Government had no alternative but to say, "We will concentrate and direct all our efforts upon winning the War." If taking charge of the coal industry was a means to that end, they were justified in doing it. Therefore I hope that when my hon. Friend speaks next he will keep clearly in mind that the agitation, whether right or wrong, for nationalisation followed the Armistice, and was not a question that was raised during the period of the War. Then my hon. Friend lectured us for, to use his words, refusing to tell the working classes that they cannot be so comfortable to-day because of the War. I would respectfully submit that the people who should be lectured are the Gentlemen sitting on the Bench opposite, and that they should take into consideration how many of them got in under an election pledge of a new heaven and a new earth for the workers.
  Mr. KIDD: I said specifically and quite clearly that everyone had to come down in their scale of living. My statement did not refer to the manual worker particularly, but embraced all classes.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am within the recollection of the House, and they will know that the substance of my hon. Friend's speech was, first of all, a general lecture to us as to our duty to the men. I leave it at that, and come back to my first point, namely, that, of all the industrial disputes which have occurred—and they have been many and serious and difficult—I know of no dispute or industrial crisis in which the position, for reasons into which I will go in a moment was so difficult to handle, and in which the possibilities were so serious. I think, therefore, that I am justified in saying that, speaking generally, no one can complain of the tone of the Debate to-day. We are all agreed that the House generally is seized with a sense of responsibility, and that none of us, and especially those of us who are entrusted with responsibility, ought to say a word during the Debate that may make the possibility of settlement more difficult. It is in that spirit that I, at least, intend to approach the question. The House of Commons will have to contribute to a solution of this question. I know of no better sounding-board than the House of Commons, and I want it always to be the sounding-board, especially in a matter of this kind. If, however, this House is going to contribute to a settlement, it must not only try and, ascertain the facts, but must try and ascertain what it is that is influencing the men. You may say to a man, "You are wrong," but that man may be as honest in his view as you are, only he does not look at the question from precisely the same point of view. That the miner is not an inhuman man is shown by his record, whether in war or in peace, and especially during the recent War. The man who, when there is an explosion, will be the first to volunteer to save life, whether of horse or of man, is not an inhuman man. Therefore, I want to try to get the House back to the position of feeling what is in the mind of the miner at this moment. What is it that, in your judgment, makes him so cantankerous, if you like? I will try to put it. Firstly, there is a general feeling that there has been a breach of faith on the part of the Government. The Government, on the one hand, say, "We never intended, said, or implied that control should continue until August." That is the Government's case in a few words, as stated by the
  194
  right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines when decontrol was being discussed. He said, in substance, "All the statements that are made that we contemplated control up to August are-foreign to the fact."
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): What I said was that we contemplated control would terminate as early as possible after that.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. THOMAS: There is no difference in substance. That is the statement of the Government. Our answer to it is this—and I want the House to follow the point because it is the real point in the miners' case—"No, that is not true, not only on evidence of general understanding, but it is not borne out by the facts and documents at our disposal." The point I am making is that by decontrol on the 31st March you acted in bad faith with the miners. When the last agreement was, made—I only want to deal now with agreed facts—there was a Clause in that agreement which said that the masters and men must get together and submit to the Government an agreed scheme before the 31st March. I ask the Prime Minister and I ask the Leader of the House whether any man reading that agreement would not anticipate that the Government assumed the existence of control on the 1st April? I do not say a word about August, because I will not bring in any disputed date, but if the Government said, "Bring us an agreed scheme by the 31st March" the Government must have had in their minds that they intended to control after the 31st March, because there would be no point in saying it otherwise. What earthly use was it to ask the leaders of the men and the coalowners to bring in a scheme before the 31st March if they did not contemplate control. [An HON. MEMBER: "They contemplated decontrol!"] I am trying to put clearly before the House what the miner thinks. If the Government did not mean what I have said, then the position becomes more serious, because the miners' leaders will then be entitled to say, "You were bluffing us in talking about the 31st March. If you did not anticipate control after the 31st March, why did you mention 31st March?" It is because, rightly or wrongly, they assumed that control was anticipated after that date that they now feel the

  195
  Government are responsible for a breach of faith.
  My right hon. Friend (Sir E. Home) this afternoon asked, What is the use of talking about a month's extension in this matter? I agree that at this stage it is no good talking about a month's extension. I desire the Prime Minister to remember that previously, when we were here at three o'clock in the morning, I myself, in answer to my right hon. Friend who had said, "My information is that the negotiations are going on so smoothly that there is the strongest assumption that there will be a settlement," got up and said that my information was absolutely the reverse. I then said that my information was that there was no possibility of a settlement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson) had hours before that tried to negotiate privately. It is no secret to say that so anxious were we on this matter, so seized were we with its importance, that we asked the miners' executive to come here, and the miners' executive were here at 12 o'clock at night. Why? Because we felt that they were discussing things in an atmosphere that gave them a little more time to see if they could get agreement. That is why my right hon. Friend was right in saying there is no good talking about a month's extension now. The mischief is done. Temper, passion, feeling have been engendered now, but the month when we pleaded for it would have been invaluable. No notice was taken of the plea we made. That is what is responsible for the atmosphere I have been trying to describe to the House.
  My right hon. Friend said another thing, and I am sorry he said it because the miner knows it is not true and the facts cannot justify it. He said that the last strike was responsible for the slump in the coal trade. I want to examine that statement. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hartshorn) gave some figures which proved that American coal not only came into France prior to the War, but since the War and before the threatened strike more than was ever known before. Last week I was in the Ruhr Valley, where the German coal comes from, and I discussed with the German miners' leaders the problem of their supplying 2,000,000 tons of coal to France every month. This is a statement that they can prove, and I
  196
  should like some answer to it. Not only has the supply of 2,000,000 tons per month to France had the first effect of throwing the French collier out of work and lessening the demand for coal from the English coalfields, but I am assured that Belgium is sending back to Holland at 45 guilders per ton coal supplied by Germany to Belgium, which wipes out a market that we hitherto supplied. What is the use of talking about the miners' strike being responsible? All the facts are against that, and because they are against it I am justified in telling the Government that the miner says to them, "Not only are you wrong in decontrolling at this time, but our case ought to be considered in connection with the Government's own policy on the question of Reparation."
  My right hon. Friend says he does not propose to examine the wages figures of the miners. That is just the sort of thing the miner wants examined. He not only wants it examined but some answer given to him upon it. I ask the House of Commons who, after all, want to do justice to the miner, do they know that the men who are locked out to-day in Kent are locked out because the conditions which they are asked to accept provide for underground labourers receiving 43s. 4d. per week or an equivalent of 17s. 6d. pre-War? Let the House of Commons clearly understand that. When you are talking about this being a strike, remember that these men are simply saying, "We accept the notice you have given us because we cannot live on an equivalent of 17s. 6d. pre-War." When we go to South Wales—everyone knows the kind of existence and the abnormal conditions which obtain there—we find underground enginemen with all their responsibilities and knowledge and work, are refusing to go into the pit, or in other words, are accepting the lock-out notices, because they refuse to agree to 44s. 9d. a week, an equivalent of 18s. pre-War. I could go on quoting these figures, but what I do want to impress upon the House is that if the House of Commons is going to support the Government and is going to justify the Government's action then they must accept the responsibility of saying that they believe miners in South Wales should to-day work for a wage equivalent to 18s. pre-War.
  Mr. GOULD: On the minimum basis?
  Mr. THOMAS: On the minimum basis. I ask the House of Commons whether there is any man who would attempt to justify those figures? If so, they can do it during the remainder of this Debate. That being the case, I want to meet quite legitimately the argument of my right hon. Friend when he says, "Yes, but the only means of dealing with this question is by subsidy, and the Government are not going to have any subsidy." Hon. Members heard the general cheer which greeted that statement. So far as I am concerned, I opposed a subsidy in the case of the railway service, and I can speak with consistency because I am opposed to subsidies of any kind, including subsidies to the farmer. Curiously enough, a large number of those who this afternoon cheered the opposition to a mining subsidy seemed to forget the subsidy that is paid annually to the farmers. What is the difference in the subsidy paid to the railway companies at this moment? Just let us examine the actual position of affairs. Supposing the Government announced calmly that on and after 30th April they proposed to wipe out control of the railways, what would the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) say and what would a large number of the other railway directors in this House say? There would be a howl about breach of faith. It is because the Government seem to have squared the coal owners in a different way to that in which they could square the railway directors that they do not propose to deal with the railways as they have dealt with the mines. But when the Colwyn Report was being considered, and a Committee of the House of Commons was asked to examine the railway situation, all the Press of the country, all the railway chairmen, and scores of hon. Members, including myself, said to the Government, "You took our property. You have no right to hand it back to us in a less advantageous condition than when you took it." That is exactly what you have done with regard to the mines, and the claim we make for the continuance of control is not a claim for a subsidy, because if the strike ceased to-morrow, on your railway finance alone, it will have cost you £2,000,000 to-day, and you know it as well as I do. What is the use of saying you are not going to be influenced by a subsidy?
  198
  Under the same agreement that you have cancelled with the coalowners and are continuing with the railways you are paying a subsidy, and this strike is increasing the subsidy that you are paying as the result.
  It is not fair to call it a subsidy. Is it not true to say that during the War the Government paid the market price for all the coal they bought? Is it not equally true to say that in South Wales, to give one illustration, if the industry had been uncontrolled the men would have got £2, £3, £4 a week more? Anyone who knows the facts of the sliding scale, which was based on the selling price of coal, knows that during the period of Government control the South Wales miner would have got pounds more than he got under the existing arrangement. No one can dispute that. Therefore, the miners said: "We will sacrifice this in the general interest of the community." Who benefited? The Government and the community benefited by paying less for the coal they received, and yet when the period of decontrol takes place the Government says: "You people who have benefited shall not contribute. The only people who shall contribute are those who made a, sacrifice by receiving less wages during the War." Can you blame the miner for feeling that this is an unfair attack, when he says: "I sacrificed my wages during the War, I abandoned the sliding scale that gave me more money than I got under the Government; I advocated the consumer benefiting, I supported the Government benefiting by paying less for the coal, and then when retrenchment is to take place the only people who are called upon to make a sacrifice are the miners," and the miner says, "No, this is not playing cricket."
  We have heard a lot to-night, and rightly, about the callous, brutal action of the miners in flooding the pits. I do not believe in the destruction of property of any sort or kind because when this strike is over, whether it be short or long, the fact remains that the men have got to work. There is no value whatever in the destruction of property. But let us examine here again, in order to ascertain the facts, who was responsible for the situation. It is one thing to deplore it and to condemn it as I do, but let us be quite fair in allocating the responsibility

  199
  and the blame. Who advised the miner to give this particular kind of notice? In one case they gave notice to the men and said, "on and after a given date you can go to work at 7s. a day less than at present." If any Member of this House was the servant of a corporation or the director of a concern, and merely received a brutal notice that on and after a certain date he should resume work on terms which he did not want, could he be blamed for not accepting it? But the owners' position is less justifiable when we remember that in one case to my knowledge—there may be more—in Yorkshire they actually said to the pumpmen, "You can go to work on the existing terms and not at reduced rates."
  Mr. S. WALSH: And in Lancashire, too.
  Mr. THOMAS: Which means that in one case they were prepared to bribe the men, and in the other case they were prepared to throw the responsibility on the miners' executive of having two policies and a division in their ranks. This ought to be understood by the public, and the owners, before they gave notice to these very vital and essential men, ought to have satisfied themselves that they were capable of protecting their own property. I should prefer to see those responsible for bringing up the ponies or for pumping working for nothing than that the mines should be ruined. I have no hesitation in asking this House to join in apportioning the real responsibility, and seeing for themselves how criminally callous some people have been with regard to this deplorable dispute. I also observe, from statements in the Press, that they are at last making up their mind that this is to be a fight to a finish. I read some statements in responsible journals this morning that all good and true citizens must rally to the side of the Government. Now was the time to fight this matter to a finish. I do not believe in any such policy. We have already, from responsible quarters, had too many speeches indicating a class war. We have already had too much talk of the division that is to be created in two classes, and that at this moment is not helping us in our difficulties. I have no hesitation in saying to these people who believe this ought to be a fight to a finish, and that both sides must rally their respective
  200
  forces and fight it out, that whoever may win in a battle of that description, the nation will certainly lose.
  I have endeavoured up to this moment to deal with what I conceive to be the miners' point of view, but I want to conclude with one word with regard to the worker's general point of view. Whether we are right or wrong there is a deliberate and unanimous opinion in the minds of the workers that this is only the first of a determined effort to reduce the level and the standard of life among the population. The railwaymen say to-day: "If the miners go under, we are the next line of defence and we shall follow." Then there are the transport workers who say, "We shall be in the same boat." Can you wonder why some of us know that even to-morrow there may be a grave danger and possibility, more than a possibility, that this will cease to be a miners' strike? I do not want to say a word that will aggravate or render the position more difficult, but this House of Commons ought to know it. This House of Commons ought to know that at the moment, whatever we may say upon the question, the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of this dispute spreading, and those people who talk glibly about a fight to a finish, those people who talk glibly about fighting it out, may to their bitter cost find what fighting it out really means. That policy the Government ought to calmly reject.
  There have been from all quarters suggestions to the Government to realise that the sooner this dispute is ended the better for all concerned; but the Government would be deceiving themselves if they did not clearly understand that the figures offered to the men are figures that would justify them in saying: "No, we prefer to starve to death than to work to death under those conditions." That is the feeling of the miners of this country, and in that opinion they will be backed by organised labour. I have no hesitation in saying that I would not stand by, whatever the consequences, and see men called upon to work for an equivalent wage of 18s. a week. Not only organised labour, but every decent employer ought to rebel against any such thing. It is no good talking about the sacrifices of the War. It is no good paying tribute to the memory of a million dead, and it is no good paying lip service to the sacrifices of the miner during that troublesome

  201
  period if he is to be rewarded with a starvation wage such as is offered to him to-day. He will not accept it; he ought not to accept it, and we will support him in not accepting it. That is why we say that this House of Commons ought to examine the facts. It is not sufficient to say: "I am not going to bother with these wages." The people who have to live on these wages are the people who must bother about them, and it does concern them. I hope the House of Commons will use this opportunity and this Debate to bring both sides together, and not only to bring both sides together, but to point out to the country, as has already been indicated, that they have no right to suddenly call upon one section of the community to bear the whole of this burden. Much as we deplore the circumstances of this Resolution, much as we are opposed to the substance of the Resolution, if the bringing forward of this Resolution and the Debate in this House enables the Government to have behind them the common sense and the overwhelming desire of this Parliament to try to bring this dispute to a speedy and honourable settlement, no one will regret the gracious message we have received from the Throne.
  Colonel C. LOWTHER: May I preface the very few remarks that I intend to make by an appeal? Nobody knows more than I do that we are confronted by a very grave and serious crisis, and I want to plead, more particularly with those who have influence with the miners, on behalf of the mining ponies. It is a terrible thing to think that at this moment there may be ponies in the mines, and I believe they are none too rare, either drowning bit by bit or gradually starving to death.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think it is only right to say that I have received a promise from the acting leader of the Miners' Federation that he will send a telegram to any place which I know of if ponies are still below to assist in getting them brought up. It is well that the House should know that. I am extremely grateful for the action which he has taken.
  Colonel LOWTHER: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance? I knew that failing, that assurance I only had to appeal to the humanity of the
  202
  miners and to their sportsmanlike feeling.
  Mr. GRUNDY: Did you ever know the miners to leave a pony in a pit?
  Colonel LOWTHER: I heard that there were ponies which were drowning, and that was sufficient for me to make the appeal. I have listened most carefully to the different speeches to-day. I came here for enlightenment. I knew, naturally, what the dispute was about, but all that I could gather from most of the speeches was a reiteration of what the dispute was about. Nobody could inform me as to any solution of the question. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) attributed the dispute to the deep-rooted conviction of the miners that this was a direct capitalist attack or an owners' attack upon the miners. He went on to say that the ideal of the miners was a national wage agreement, that they had been promised that, that it was discussed by the Miners' Federation and the Prime Minister. He said that the day had passed for any settlement other than on a national basis; but just as I was expecting to hear how this could be settled he went on to say that it could neither be settled on a national basis nor on a district basis. He did not say how it could be settled.
  The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Labour party in this House said that there were four different parties—the State, the consumer, the miner, and the owners. I should like to know what is the difference between the State and the consumer. What is the State if not the consumer? It is true that Louis IV. said, "L'état c'est moi"; but 200 years or more have passed since then, and much water has passed under the bridges. There are those who think that the owners are right, and there are those who think that the miners are in an untenable position. I am not at all certain that I do not see the miners' point of view. I think they are in an untenable position on this occasion. I quite understand that their wages have been cut down by 50 or 60 per cent.; I learned that this afternoon. I thought it was 80 per cent, in some cases. That was my information. If a workman's wages are suddenly cut down by 80 per cent., can you expect him to thank the Government which is in power for that, or can you expect him not to be bitter against the

  203
  owners who he thinks are bloated capitalists, and who he is told by Bolshevik agitators, paid by German gold—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I am talking of the extremists—who he is told by Bolshevik agitators have only one desire, and that is to ruin him, to profiteer, and to get everything possible out of him? Therefore, I do understand that the right hon. Gentleman who presented the case for labour was right in saying that this had been thrust upon them with lightning suddenness.
  Is it this suddenness with which they find fault, or is it the diminution in the wages, or is it both? If it is only the lightning suddenness with which this has been thrust upon them, if it is simply that he and the other Labour leaders and the miners expected that the control would last after the 31st March for another six months, surely the matter can be arranged. Surely it is not too late for discussion between the Government and the miners and the owners to avoid this hideous contest? But if it is that he wants to create a perennial minimum wage, I think that it is impossible. I have got the interest of the miner and the working man at heart, and therefore I would like to know with what money are you going to pay this extra wage? Nobody has told us that. Some have said, "Subsidise the mines;" others, including, I think, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas), who spoke last, say that they object strongly to a subsidy. Even if you do subsidise the mines you put your hands into the pocket of the taxpayer who is already overburdened by taxation. You can no more call for higher wages than you can call for rain to come down from the Heavens. No one has told us yet how these extra wages can be got. It is easy to say, as has been said, that if the Government re-control for another six months or a year it would cost very little in comparison with what this strike is going to cost the country. I agree. But will the Labour leaders, who have influence with the miners, agree that if the Government agree to do everything in their power to effect a settlement, and to re-control for, let us say, another six months, they on their side will do everything in their power to bring about a solution of this question? That is the only hope that I can see that a settlement will
  204
  be arrived at. I hope it with all my heart for the miners' sake, the owners' saker and above everything, for my country's sake.
  Captain ELLIOT: I have no special knowledge of the problems under discussion, and I should have been doubtful about intervening in a Debate of this sort except that at this hour it seems to me that it might be useful for one or two members of the general community to put forward a more general view perhaps than has been taken yet in the technical discussions which we have had. In my own constituency there are many miners, and I have the highest respect for them, but it is not particularly as a miners' and coal masters' quarrel that this matter interests the nation at the moment. There was recently published in the Press a cartoon which seems to me to put the case in a nutshell—the unhappy "John Citizen" sitting in a cell with a label on; the door, "To be shot at dawn," and saying to himself, "What have I done I should like to know?" If it is the fault of the community, the community is suffering for it. But whether it is the fault of the community or not, the community is suffering. We cannot stand by indifferently and look on at this great struggle which is being fought out by the masters and men, because it is being fought out over the bodies of the women and children and of the ordinary plain citizens of the country.
  Is the objection raised by the miners an objection to the suddenness of the change or to the rates of wages which has been proposed? The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) put with great force and fire the proposition that in no circumstances could these wages be accepted and that everybody would rather starve than take them. Suppose, however, that what I fear is true, and that this is not a struggle between the miners in this country and the employers in this country, not between the coal masters, who are at present merely agents, and the miners, but between the miners in this country and the real masters who live in Brazil, the Argentine, India and America. As far as we can see the people who will no longer pay the wages to the miners in this country do not live in this country at all.
  The people who in the long run have to send the food to the population of this country do not live in this country. We are faced on a gigantic scale with

  205
  what is taking place all over the continent —the strike of the countryside against the town, the countryside refusing to send food to the industrial worker. I beg the Labour party, and particularly the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) to give us if he can some information as to the attitude which the miners will take up if it is proved that the present wages rates are being dictated, not by the coal masters in this country, but by coal consumers on the continent, and South America, and other places, the people who send us the four loaves out of five which are eaten in this country. They are the real masters in this country. The people who control the bread control the worker in the long run. Great Britain is not a country. It is simply one gigantic town surrounded by salt water. It is the people who send food to this town who in the long run are masters of the town and dictate the wages to be paid to the people in the town.
  If it is a quarrel between the coal masters and the miners in this country the men in the long run can enforce their will. If it is a quarrel, as we fear, between the men in this country and the men in foreign countries, then the men in this country cannot enforce their will. The right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) and myself were recently in Scotland on opposite sides in a by-election in which his party won a great victory. There the coal mines standing along the seashore were run largely on an export trade. How are we to induce foreign consumers to buy that coal and to pay the wages which the West Fife miners say they must have? That is the crux of the difficulty, and it has not been faced by speakers on one side or the other. Mr. Frank Hodges has put forward a suggestion which savours of Bedlam. He suggests subsidies, which I presume would not only be paid for home coal, but also for export coal, or it would be of no use to the West Fife miner. We are to dig up the coal, the irreplaceable asset of this country, carry it to the foreigner, and pay him £1 a ton to cart it away. Could any proposition out of Bedlam be more absurd? I cannot conceive that it is put forward seriously. Certainly it could not be put forward as a remedy for the stagnation occurring at the present time in the West Fife coalfields. Is it a dispute as to the ratio in which the proceeds from the coalfields are to be divided? I understand the present pro-
  206
  posal is 83 per cent, for the men and 17 per cent, for the masters. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) shakes his head. I understood that 17½ per cent. was to be the return to capital, and also that Mr. Frank Hodges suggested that the return should be 10 per cent, to capital. I may be wrong in those figures, for it is a very difficult and technical subject. If it is a dispute as to the ratio of the division of the money from the coal industry, then we can come to an agreement, but if it is a demand for an absolute sum of money out of the coal industry, it may be impossible to come to an agreement, because that absolute sum of money in the long run does not depend on the people of this country, whom we can reach, but on the people overseas over whom we have no control.
  On another point which has been made with a good deal of justification, I should like some information. It has been said that the miners suffered from the price of coal being kept down during the War by the Coal Controller, and that, therefore, they are entitled to have sums of money paid from the country to them when they are in difficulties. There is again a dispute here. It is said that this is a temporary expedient to tide over the difficulty, but what difficulty is it that we are supposed to be tiding over? If we are to tide over the difficulty until the foreigner is again willing to pay £7 103. a ton it is not a temporary but a permanent expedient. If it is a temporary difficulty, to what factors of relief are we looking forward? It seems to me that as a nation we have committed a great sin. We have indulged in a piece of national profiteering to a gigantic extent, with the hearty agreement of the Socialist and Labour parties and of the Conservative and Liberal parties. There is no party that has clean hands in the matter. When the last demand was made for an increase of miners' wages it was specifically stated that the increase was to come entirely out of the profits on export coal, which is to say that it was to be paid entirely by a piece of national profiteering. We have now the drop that awaits every profiteer in the long run— the consumers' strike. It is true, as an hon. Member said, that the demand for our coal was falling off before the strike of last autumn and that American coal had begun to appear in July. That was the beginning of the consumers' strike.

  207
  It is no use saying that the difficulty was due to the Spa Reparations Commission or anything of that sort. In the long run an extortionate price exacted, as this nation exacted it, meets its own Nemesis. That is one of the great facts of the situation.
  We shall not again get the exorbitant price for export coal by means of which we were able to pay the high wages of the miner and to produce home coal at a reasonable cost. Is it not true that the Belgian mines are producing five per cent. more coal than in 1914; that the ruined French mines are producing more and that from those mines and from the Germans the French are getting the supply they need; that in America the huge 30 feet seams are being developed and that a current of communication is being established between those 30 feet seams and the blue water? A cargo of coal in blue water competes with every other cargo of coal in blue water. It is a competitor whether sold to a gas company in South America or to drive the tugs on the River Seine. We have discussed this question all day to-day as if it was a domestic problem. Great Britain is simply a ship tethered in the middle of a sea. We are on a boat. If two men quarrel in the middle of a grass park and merely tear up the turf with their boots it does not matter very much, but we are fighting this quarrel on a life boat in the middle of the Atlantic and if one puts his foot through the side of the boat the boat and all on board will go down. As to the miners' sacrifice of wages during the period of coal control, it has been said that if the miner had had a higher wage he would have been able to stand the strain now. There were others producing articles under control during the War, and if they had all been allowed to get the highest possible wages the miners' high wages would have brought him very little indeed in value for money. If we had allowed the price of food to rise to what it might have risen in this country had there not been a stringent control on the, price of wheat, the agricultural labourer would have received enormous sums, and he could have profiteered on ah article of prime necessity. The Scriptures say:
  "Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life."
  208
  A man will give more in the long run for a loaf of bread than for a sack of coal, and if the agricultural industry had profiteered to an unlimited extent, it could have exacted wages which would have made the miners' wages look like a mere fleabite. It did not, however, and yet the agricultural industry has no right to come now and ask for a subsidy. It is all very well to say the agricultural industry has been promised a subsidy. That is not quite accurate. An hon. Member, speaking below the Gangway, said he would not dare to ask his men to go back to work for 1s. an hour, but what is the agricultural labourer getting to-day? For a 50-hours week he is getting a 48s. wage, or less than 1s. an hour. Are we to ask him, after sacrificing his wages during the War, not only to go on sacrificing them, but to subsidise out of his scanty wage the wages of the men in the coal industry?
  When it comes to a question of sacrifices made during the War, we admit that the coal industry made great sacrifices, but so did every industry, and unless we had all made them, we should never have got through the War successfully. There is no doubt to-day that if the miners and the transport Workers and the railwaymen like to drag down this country they can do it. I am no optimist in this matter. I believe we are skating on the thinnest ice we have ever gone over in this country. Blinded Samson has got his arms round the; pillars of the temple, and if he likes to pull, the temple will come down, and there is no doubt about that. Samson, when he pulled the pillars of the temple, knew very well that in falling the temple would crush him too, and if that is the state of mind of the industrial masses of the country, there is no doubt whatever that they can accomplish their object.
  If they would sooner starve than accept a reduction in wages, undoubtedly they can wreck the industrial fabric of this country, and this country, which has only food for less than half of its population, will go through a period of misery and tribulation which has never been equalled in the history of any country since the world began. If they are out for an absolute standard of living, as against a relative standard of living derived from what the industry will bear, I do not see a hopeful prospect for the future of this

  209
  country, but if they have regarded these factors from the world point of view and claim that, in spite of the world position, they can see their way clear to the industry paying its way on wages considerably larger than the ultimate wages which have been published in the lists given by the owners, then I am sure that this House will gladly do its best to see the quarrel settled along these lines; but if it is a question of getting a quart out of a pint pot, no votes passed by this House will do any good. If the money is not in the industry, we cannot get it out of the industry, and if the money has to be paid by the men abroad to be given to the men at home, we must realise that we have no control over the men abroad, and if in the long run we find we are up against a consumers' strike, then the will of the world consumer will have its way in this case, as I believe it will have its way in every other case and in every other economic problem before the country.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I do not want to say one word in this Debate which would cause bitterness. It would be a very easy thing to answer many of the arguments put forward from the other side of the House, and to discuss the question as to whether this is a strike or a lock-out, but I do not think there is any need for bitterness of any kind, because this is not really a, quarrel between the mineowner and the miner at all; it is a quarrel in which the mineowner and the miner are on one side, and on the other is an economic fact and circumstance over which they have had practically no control. Five millions of money a month seems, when you hear it spoken, to be a figure that none of us can really comprehend; it does not convey much to the minds at any rate of the big majority of Members, but when you reduce that £5,000,000 a month down to shillings and pence by seeing what it means in wages, and when you find that in some districts reductions of £1 13s. 5d. in wages are proposed simply to meet the loss, it shows how bankrupt the trade is. It shows how great is that loss, and what a big burden it is proposed to put on the State by those who ask for a subsidy, or what an enormous burden it is proposed to put upon the coalowner if his is asked to go on carrying on his business, paying the wages paid in the month of February, with this loss of £5,000,000 a month running at the same time. I do not know
  210
  that the House fully realise that in the month of February losses were made, in all districts except two, that ranged from 2s. to 18s. per ton, and in the two districts where profits were made those profits were 3d. and 1½d. per ton, and the average loss all over the country amounted to 6s. a ton. This including no capital charges and no figures for profit whatever. Of the total amount of the proceeds from the sale of coal in the month of February, 90 per cent. went in wages, so that there is practically no other fund from which a substantial sum can be taken that will enable the trade to be got back to an economic basis.
  One hon. Member said there were various sections of the community that all ought to bear their share, and that it was not right or fair that the loss should all fall upon the miner. In this case the coalowner is prepared to take his share of the burden. The offers that have been put forward by the coalowner mean that on the present figures there would be an average loss to the coalowner of 4d. a ton, taking the whole of the industry from one end to another. I do not suppose the coalowner is making these offers, which will put an average loss of 4d. a ton on the industry, for any reasons of philanthropy. The reason why he is prepared for the moment to carry on at a loss is in order to make an endeavour to get back the trade and the markets, to recapture the export trade and get back the goodwill which has been lost, so that this trade may once again be run on a proper basis. I think that is where we can find a hope of settlement, if all sections of the community would only get together. We have had a good many arguments on the figures that have been offered in the different districts by the coalowners to the men. All the arguments based on those figures and attacking those figures are quite beside the point, because the miners' representatives have refused to discuss them. If they had been figures which were stuck to definitely, after a reasonable discussion and an attempt to come to some form of settlement, then those figures might have been used. They were brought forward, but not discussed, not on the merits of the question, because in many instances the men would have accepted them on the merits, but because they were on a district and not on a

  211
  national basis. But if the parties could get together on the basis of trying to come to some temporary arrangement until the industry could be got back on to a proper footing, the owners, I am certain, are prepared in the meantime to do without profits. If there is to be a settlement without a subsidy, it is necessary there must be, to some extent, a reduction of wages, but I do not believe it is beyond the wit of man, if there is only goodwill, to get the industry back on to a paying basis. A subsidy the country will not stand. But I believe, with goodwill on either side, and the owners showing quite plainly and quite openly that they are prepared to do without profits during the period of distress, in that way some settlement could be come to, and I am perfectly certain that it is the wish of every Member of this House that a settlement should be come to of the most terrible trouble which hangs over the country at the present time.
  Mr. ADAMSON: We have had a very interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot), in which he put forward certain questions and propounded certain proposals. He made a personal appeal to me, as one of the officials of the Fife miners' organisation, to tell the House what was going to happen to the Fife mining industry. He pointed out that, like other districts in the country, we were an exporting district, which is perfectly true. Prior to the War, 70 per cent, of the coal of that district was seaborne. It did not mean that all the 70 per cent, was exported abroad, but a large proportion of the 70 per cent. was exported abroad, and he seemed either not to have been in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for the Hamilton Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Graham) dealt with this very point, or, if he was in the House, he failed to note that my hon. Friend had pointed out, in a very interesting and valuable comparison of figures, that the Government, by the action they had taken during the War, practically water-logged the export trade so far as Fife was concerned, and that by their action during the period of control they had diverted the greater portion of the export trade to South Wales, to Northumberland, and to other more easily reached ports than
  212
  the West Fife ports. Consequently, the West Fife coalfield has had to depend very largely upon inland sales since then. Another point that the hon. and gallant Member made was that someone during the course of the discussion had stated that the Government should have done so-and-so in order to carry us over a temporary difficulty, and he wanted to know what was meant by "a temporary difficulty." I did not hear the particular speech to which he referred, but I take it that some Member during the course of the discussion had been urging the Government to continue the period of control for a time longer in order to carry us over a temporary difficulty.
  Captain ELLIOT: Not specially in the Debate, but in the whole course of the argument in the Press, the suggestion is made that it is to carry us over a temporary difficulty.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Then let me deal with this temporary difficulty. Whoever is writing or speaking has in mind two facts. He has in mind, first, that the cut in wages that is proposed by the coalowners of the country is a very serious one, and is sought to be brought about at a time when the cost of living is still 141 per cent, over the pre-War cost, and that one of the factors that would have been affected, in all probability, if the Government had continued to control the industry, would have been the cost of living. It is in the process of coming down, but it has not reached such a figure that would anything like justify the cut in miners' wages that has been made. That is one of the points which, I think, the hon. and gallant Member, and many who think like himself, had better seriously keep in view in discussing this matter. Another of the points he raised which, I think, calls for a word or two in reply, is that evidently this nation, through its successive Governments, has been guilty of an enormous sin in bleeding the people to whom we have sold coal. They have been charging too much money for export coal and have been guilty of a heinous sin, and he added —and this is the only point with which I want to deal—that this was with the consent of the Socialists and the Labour party. He seems to be unmindful of the fact that at the beginning of the War the statement was then made by the President of the British Miners' Federation,

  213
  on behalf of the mining community of this country, that if the Government of the day would prevent profiteering and the cost of living from rising, he would undertake on behalf of the mining community not to ask for any increase of wages. They made a substantial offer to the Government of which the Government did not avail themselves.
  Captain ELLIOT: I would like to make this point clear if I can. It was not the home man I was talking about, but the foreigner. That offer was a firm offer not to ask for an increase in wages. There was nothing said there about not selling coal abroad at a high price, and when it was done, it was done with their hearty approval.
  Mr. ADAMSON: But the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that he and his right hon. Friend blame the extraordinary rise that has taken place in the wages of the workmen for the high price that was charged both at home and abroad. He cannot have it both ways. So far as the workmen were concerned, they made a specific offer to the Government, of which the Government did not avail themselves, and therefore they cannot be blamed. You must blame the Government and the nation, but please do not blame the workmen for being a consenting party to a policy of the kind mentioned in the hon. and gallant Member's very interesting speech.
  In his interesting speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that the House and the country were face to face with a most serious and dangerous situation. The right hon. Gentleman added that it deserved the careful and serious consideration of all the Members. He urged that we ought to examine the position as calmly as possible under the circumstances, and possibly be able by that to come to some decision that would get us out of the difficulty. He pointed out that the two parties had been together and that certain advances had been made in the course of negotiations. He pointed out the direction of the advances, but added that he was unable to say whether the offer made by the coalowners was equitable or whether it was the fullest offer that they could, under the circumstances, have made. Let us for a moment examine the offer, because certain hon. Members are labouring under difficulties
  214
  as to the respective offers that have been made by the owners, on the one side, and the miners on the other. The owners proposed that, when the period of decontrol took place, instead of there being a national arrangement for regulating wages, we should revert to the old district arrangement; that instead of there being a national pooling system there should be a district wage; and, further, that the wage to be paid to the men under the new conditions should be the July, 1914, wage. That wage is one that varies as between one district and another. But it is a common wage from one end of Scotland to the other. It was 7s. a day. That was the standard wage the owners were prepared to pay under the new conditions.
  So far as profit was concerned the owners suggested that they should get 17 per cent, of the wage paid to the miner as their minimum, and all surplus over the minimum and standard should be divided on the basis of 80 per cent, to the workmen and 20 per cent, to the employer. What does that percentage of profit mean? That the owners were asking from the workmen a minimum profit equal to their pre-War profit. The miners' wage was to be 7s. at the lower point. Their minimum profit was to be the pre-War profit. That does not square very well with the pledges of the Government, the employers of labour, and various other sections of the community, that when the War was over and we were back to normal times we should be living in a new world, and dealing better with each other than we have been accustomed to in the past; that there would be a different feeling existing between the owner on the one hand and the workman on the other. If my hon. and gallant Friend opposite will just remember that the profit claimed by the owners was equal to their pre-War profit, he will see that all these oft-repeated pledges go by the board. The owners' offer further was that this arrangement should be governed by monthly ascertainments, which again meant that the miners might have further reductions imposed upon them month by month—with no guarantee given to them.
  During our discussion with the owners, as a matter of fact they pointed out that they were aware that while the February prices would justify a certain rate of wages offered to us, that during March there had been a still further fall in the

  215
  selling prices, and that that would rule in the arrangement for the succeeding month. The offer made by the men was that this national wage arrangement should continue, and that we should have a National Wages Board; that there should be a national pool from which wages and profits should be met. We suggested that the present wage—that is, the wage previous to the dispute—should continue, and that the minimum profit of the owner should be 10 per cent., not 17; and that all surplus profit over the minimum should be 10 per cent., and any reduction from the present wage figures should be a matter to be settled by negotiation between the two parties. These are the respective offers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of his interesting speech said he was not competent to judge as to the employers' offer—whether fair or not. He then went on to deal in a fairly exhaustive way with the salient features of the men's offer. Evidently he felt quite competent to deal with this. The first point the right hon. Gentleman dealt with was that if the present wage was to be continued there would undoubtedly require to be a subsidy by the Government; that if the Government continued to subsidise the industry it would bear heavily on certain sections of the community who were already very much overburdened; and that a section of the community got no War bonus during the War, and were not in the same position as that other section of our people which did get a bonus.
  He also pointed out that if we continued to subsidise the industry we should be taking a step that would cripple other great industries in the country and would place on them the burden of assisting an industry that was in a better position so far as employment was concerned. I suggest that that was a very unfair way for the Chancellor to put the point at issue between the miners on the one hand and the Government on the other. I am not inclined to call the suggestion made on our behalf a subsidy at all. In the course of the Second Reading Debate on the Government's Decontrol Bill, I pointed out that I would rather call it a repayment by the Government of part of the large sums taken by them during the period of control from the mining industry. Not only was it taken by the Government, but the benefit was partici-
  216
  pated in by both classes of the community to which the right hon. Gentleman referred — by that section which he describes as the already overburdened taxpayer and by those engaged in this great industry. Owing to the fact that there was a limitation of coal prices, which existed from 1914 until a few weeks ago, the mining industry undoubtedly did not get the benefit of the world's price for coal. If they had got the benefit of the world's price for coal possibly another £800,000,000 or thereabouts would have been earned by the mining industry and divided between the owner on the one and in workmen on the other.
  Mr. WALLACE: What about the Excess Profits Duty?
  Mr. ADAMSON: I will deal with that in a moment.
  Mr. GOULD: At the expense of our Allies.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I would like to know what some other sections of the community did for our Allies. The less we say about that phase of the question the better. There are very few people sitting in this Chamber who could throw stones without fear of breaking glass, and if they begin to discuss the question along those lines glass will be broken all round. Those two classes of the community, and also the Allies to which the hon. Member has just referred, got the benefit of the limitation of the coal price to the extent of something approaching £800,000,000. That did not end all the benefits that the Government got. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) drew my attention to the question of excess profits. Taking only six months I will give hon. Members an example. During the last six months of 1918 the Coal Controller thought it necessary to put an extra half-a-crown on the control price to the people of this country. He did so on the ground that the miners had had an advance in wages, and that it required the extra 2s. 6d. to meet this advance. In the beginning of 1919, six months thereafter, it so happened that we had a Coal Commission sitting over the way. One of the Government's chief accountants was summoned before that Commission and was asked a question about the 2s. 6d. which was put on the price. He told the members of the Com-

  217
  mission point blank that the Government did not require to put one penny on the price to meet any advance that had been given to the miners in wages, and that in the course of the six months, owing to the additional 2s. 6d. which had been put on the price the Government had made no less than £25,000,000. He further let the cat out of the bag to the extent of informing the Commission and the country through the Commission that the Government had dealt with this on the basis of handing £23,750,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and £1,250,000 to the much-burdened coal-owner, to whom the hon. Member who spoke last referred. The hon. Member said that 90 per cent, of the total received for the coal went away, and that a very small part went to the poor coalowners. The amount I have referred to was only a slice of what the Government obtained during one six months. In addition to that, huge sums were rolling in to the Treasury in the form of the Excess Profits Tax, and these were paid by the mining industry.
  Colonel LOWTHER: By the owners.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Produced by the miners. The owner digs no coal. The men who dig the coal produced the money that paid the excess profits. Suppose the Government had continued the control of the industry and had continued to pay the wages which were being paid up to the time that this dispute began. That would not have been a case of subsidising the industry, but of making a repayment to an industry from which they have been able to get a considerable sum of money during the War. Apart from that, I suggest that during the trying times through which we have been passing, and shall be passing for some time to come, it has been and is the responsibility of the Government to do their best to carry the people successfully through. One of the strange things I heard in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was that he was not in a position to deal with the salient features of the owners' proposals, but he was quite able to deal with the salient features of those of the miners, and to criticise and to cut them up. I am endeavouring, as best I can, in my lame and halting way, to reply to that criticism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His next point was that our proposals
  218
  contained a suggestion for the continuance of a national pool. He said that if we continue this national pooling system, from which wages and profits are paid, that that arrangement will kill any initiative in the better managed companies whilst helping the inefficiently managed colliery in this country. That was, he said, a proposition to which he could not consent. Is that really the position? Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer must realise—I admit frankly that his knowledge of coal mining is very limited—that coal mining is not like any other industry in this country. There is a marked difference. The mining industry is governed by certain geological conditions, and it is not a difference of good or bad management, but a difference in the fact that one colliery company has cleaner and richer seams to work than another. Already this country has lost countless, millions of money by the fact that there has been no sensible arrangement for working all classes of seams together. We have had colliery companies working the bigger and richer seams leaving alone the coal that did not pay large profits, and in that way you have had the wealth of this country wasted to a shameless extent, and it is high time that the Government took note of it.
  We have reached a stage when it is not good enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to simply ride off by saying that if we were to continue the pooling arrangement it would result in the well-managed company being exploited at the expense of the badly-managed company. Coal is a national asset, and one of the things that we have sufficient to supply our own needs and enough to export to other countries. It is one of the few raw materials in our own possession, and we cannot afford to see it wasted in the shameless, stupid way that it has been wasted up to the present time. Is it suggested, because there is a danger of killing the initiative of the best-managed collieries in order to assist the other collieries, that the miner in one district should have a much lower wage than that which is paid to the miner in another district? The miner in the worst class of mine is undergoing the same danger as the miner in the other mine, and we should not forget the great danger that the miner is undergoing. Miners are engaged working in the same hard and

  219
  uncomfortable conditions in the mean class of mine as in the rich mine. They are performing the same service to the State in winning what is so essential to our national well-being and comfort, and they ought to have the same wage in the one mine as in the other. Unless you have some pooling arrangement different to what we have been accustomed to you are only going to continue wasting your wealth, and at the same time you will impose upon the miner a gross injustice. You cannot expect the miner to be a ^consenting party to any such a rate.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there has been no attack on wages. Does he hold that opinion still? My hon. Friends have done their best to prove that there has been an attack on wages. Take the part of the country with which I am best acquainted. When this dispute began the standard wage was 17s. per day. If the men had begun work under the new conditions offered by the employers their wages would have been 12s. 10d. per day for the men underground. The above-ground workers are in even a worse position. When this dispute began their daily wage was somewhere in the region of 13s. 6d. per day. If he had begun work on the 1st of April, instead of that wage he would have been paid from 7s. 6d. to 8s. per day. In addition to that, within the two previous months his wages have been reduced by 3s. 6d. per day. The underground workers' wage in January last was 20s. 6d. per day. If he had started work on the 1st of April under the new terms his wages would have been 12s. 10d. per day, or a reduction of 7s. 8d. per day, representing a reduction in two months in the case of the underground worker of 37½ per cent., and roughly 50 per cent. in the case of the above-ground worker upon the January wage. If that is not an attack, and a serious attack, upon wages, then I do not know what is an attack on wages. Do not let us forget that in addition to the serious cut I have already pointed out in the wages of the men, the owners' terms are only from month to month, and still further serious cuts might be made in the immediate future if the men were consenting parties to any such arrangement as has been put forward by the owners.
  In conclusion, I want to point out, as I did on the occasion of the Second Beading of the Government Decontrol
  220
  Bill that, in this regard, the Government have a responsibility of which they cannot easily divest themselves. They were willing to control the trade, and to continue to control it, so long as there was something in the trade that made it worth their while—so long as they were able to make millions out of it. But as soon as they found that the industry was getting into deep water they attempted to shred themselves of their responsibility. They cannot do it so easily as they imagine. Both the mineowners on the one hand and the miners on the other have already pointed out, in the most emphatic terms, that the Government have broken faith with them. It is true that the mine-owner, in his anxiety to get recontrol of the industry, is not prepared to carry his protest as far as the miners have done, and it may be true that the Government have squared the coalowners of the country, and that is why they are not prepared to carry their opposition to the extent that the miners are doing. But both parties have been equally emphatic in pointing out that the Government have betrayed their trust and have been guilty of a breach of faith so far as this industry is concerned, and that therefore they cannot divest themselves of the responsibility in the manner they are attempting to do.
  I hope that before this discussion closes the Government will seriously think out the position and try to come to some amicable arrangement. I want them to calmly and dispassionately review the whole situation, and, before it is too late, to reconsider their responsibility so far as the miners and the country are concerned. I know it will be far more difficult to deal with the miner now that ho is locked out than it would have been if he had been dealt with before the lockout took place, but it is not too late for the Government to retrace their steps. I can assure the House and the Government that the longer the settlement of this dispute is delayed, the more dangerous will the situation become, both for the Government and for the country. Of this they may rest assured, that the mining community of this country is not going to calmly sit down and accept reductions of wages within two months amounting to from 40 per cent, to 50 per cent. As a matter of fact, they cannot do it and live, for it would make such a cut into their standard of life. There-

  221
  fore they will not be consenting parties to it, and it would be better for the Government and for this House to dispassionately think out the situation before it proceeds to a more dangerous extent. I hope the net result of our discussion will be that the Government will repent the error of their ways and be ready to meet in consultation the two parties to this dispute and fix it up on the basis of a spirit of equity and justice to all those concerned.
  Mr. FRANCE: I speak as one who has no direct interest in or connection with the mining industry, but rather as a Member of the House of Commons who is anxious above everything else to try and find out, at this time of great national anxiety, what one can do, in however small a degree, towards helping a settlement by suggestion or by attitude. The tragedy is this, that those of us who are not acquainted closely with the details of the trade find it very difficult indeed to know what are the true figures and what are the true facts. We hear it stated on one side of the House that the reductions proposed in wages range from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. and immediately that is contradicted from the other side of the House. A figure was given by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) who always speaks with authority, clearness and moderation on this subject, and he was at once contradicted by a representative of the industry who suggested that the increase was 55 per cent. and not 46 per cent. as stated by the hon. Member. I mention these incidents to show how difficult it must be for an average member of the public, as it is also for a Member of the House of Commons, to find out what is the truth and how it is possible to do something towards arriving at a decision which may be helpful. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that this was not primarily a discussion with regard to actual wages, but that the principal point is whether the settlement of wages shall be a national or a district settlement, and that it was not upon the various proposals made in the various districts that the actual quarrel took place. I understand that in certain parts of the country—in Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire—the rates proposed, while not regarded as entirely satisfactory, are considered to be
  222
  not altogether improper to the reduction which it is admitted by many must take place if the industry is to be carried on on an economic basis. I trust that the Government will consider some such suggestion as that made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley in his very helpful speech, namely, that provided the mines can be protected during the interval, there should be further opportunity for discussion between the two principal parties involved, as to whether it is not possible, in those districts which are particularly hardly placed, to find some method of give-and-take to meet the conditions prevailing. I would urge very strongly that such an opportunity should be given, and that the whole trade of the country should not be sacrificed through disagreements or misunderstandings about the rates or figures which have been used in these arguments. The figures used appear to me to be sometimes average figures and sometimes actual figures. What I should like to know is, whether some of the figures quoted include the wages paid to boys. Everyone admits that the industry is being carried on under great difficulties and is handicapped by the cost of production; and if it be true, as I am told, that while before the War boys in the collieries were receiving from 15s. to 19s. a week, their recent wages have been between £3 and £4, and if those figures are included in the average rates upon which the resistance to reductions is based, we must feel that to pay boys £3 or £4 a week in an industry which is not self-supporting is a position which cannot be supported on economic grounds. If we could know what are the actual figures for each class, it would help us in arriving at a judgment and in doing something to prevent a disaster the prospect of which is so terrible.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Every hon. Member must appreciate the spirit of the last speech, and the very proper desire expressed in it for definite figures. There has been, perhaps, some little confusion because percentages have been spoken of which were disputed, and it is desirable to give the actual figures, so that the exact position can be seen. In response to the hon. Member's appeal, I will deal, first of all, with men of 21 years and over engaged in the mines of Lancashire. I will give the actual figures paid up to the 31st

  223
  March, and the figures which the employers propose to substitute for them. The collier to-day, working in what is called an abnormal place, that is to say, where admittedly the geological and other conditions of the working place are such that he cannot earn a proper day's wage, and is, therefore, paid the admitted high rate—that man up to the 31st March, was receiving 18s. 1d. per day.
  Mr. FRANCE: Is that the minimum wage?
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALSH: No, that is the abnormal place rate—the highest rate paid to the man who is actually hewing coal at the face. It is the highest and not the minimum rate per day He is now being called upon to submit' to a reduction of 3s. 4d. a day, leaving him with 14s. 9d.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURROUGH WILSON: Does that include any portion of the 8s. 7d.?
  Mr. WALSH: It includes every penny that is paid—the whole of the bonuses and the whole of the advances negotiated by the trade unions or given by the Government. Every penny from every possible source is included in that 18s. 1d., and every penny from every possible source will also be left in the 14s. 9d.
  Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: How about his coal and his rent?
  Mr. WALSH: I will deal with every one of the arguments. The Lancashire miner, in nine cases out of ten, pays full commercial rates for his coal, and also pays rent. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not in South Wales."] I am speaking of Lancashire. The coal-getter who is paid on the minimum rate was, up to 31st March, paid 16s. 5d. a day. He will now have to undergo a reduction of 3s. 8d., making his wages 12s. 9d. per day. The adult drawer—the man who is engaged with his mates at the far end, who does the filling and the tramming of the coal, and is engaged in some of the most arduous work in the mine and always has youth on his side—this young man of 21 or over was, up to 31st March, receiving 15s. 9d. a day. He will now receive 11s. 9d.—a reduction of 4s. a day. The man known as the day wage hand or day hand, who is engaged in the repair work of the mine—the constructional
  224
  work, timbering, roofing, laying roadways, clearing away of debris, and the thousand and one other operations that must be carried out in the mine—was receiving, up to a few days ago, 14s. 3d. a day. He will now be called upon to undergo a reduction of 4s. 5d. per day leaving him with 9s. 10d. These are positive figures, they are not percentages, they are not disputed. These figures were supplied to the members of the Lancashire and Cheshire Coalowners' Association, the secretary being Sir Thomas Ratcliffe Ellis, one of the best known mining men in this country. These are his figures supplied to us and posted at the pit head.
  Mr. FRANCE: Can you give us the figures for the boys?
  Mr. WALSH: I will give you the boys' figures, only you are very anxious to find out as to what was the definite amount of reduction, -and I was about to give you the whole facts. As you have asked for it I will proceed to give you the figures relating to the boys. Instead of these boys receiving enormous wages of £3 and £4 per week, so far as Lancashire is concerned, no such figures are in existence. At the age of 16½ a young fellow was receiving 9s. 10d. a day. If you will multiply that by five—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not six?"]—people who submit a question like that simply show an abysmal ignorance of the mining industry. As a matter of fact you ought to know perfectly well, if you are sitting here as legislators, that falls must be removed, places must be ventilated, a thousand and one conditions must be attended to which make a six-day week impossible. There has never in the industry since it started been a continuous six-day week per man in any colliery in the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not true."] It is true.
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON rose—
  Mr. WALSH: If you care to put a question I will answer it. I am not going to sit down.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: May I ask a question?
  Mr. WALSH: Let any Government return be gone into and see what is the definite average weekly return of work, even in the most prosperous times, and you will see that to ask why there should not be a six day week is simply suggesting

  225
  a counsel of perfection. What about the men's health. Here are the figures. The boy of 16½ receives 9s. 10d. a day, and that multiplied by five is £2 9s. 2d. There is no three or four pounds there. The boy of 17 gets 10s. a day, which multiplied by 5 is 50s. The boy of 17½ gets 10s. 5d. a day, multiply again by 5, or if you like by 5½, for I do not mind if you take 11 days a fortnight as normal working time. This young fellow is to sustain a reduction of 4s. 5d. a day, bringing him down to 6s. So I could go on. In 1912 there was a great strike in the coal mining industry, and this House took part in the passing of a minimum wage Act, it being contended and agreed to that the miner was working under conditions which in a vast number of cases prevented him earning a definite living wage, and the House said that for every person working underground a minimum wage must be fixed. That minimum wage in the case of boys was fixed in many districts at 2s. a day. If you will multiply that 2s. of 1912 by the ratio existing between the cost of living in 1912 and the cost in 1921, these young people are being pressed substantially below the standard fixed by this House in 1912.
  It was said by the Sankey Commission —and I do not think there was anyone who agreed with it more completely than the Prime Minister himself—that the researches of the Commission proved that miners had fallen materially below the social level of other classes of workers in the country. Indeed, an advance of wages was recommended as a result of that Commission, and although it is disputed as to what was the particular amount that was to go towards raising the social level of the miner, it is admitted that some of that 2s. per day advance was for the purpose of levelling up the social status of the miner to that occupied by other working classes in the community. All that is now to go. A body of men admittedly below the social level of other workers are to he pressed lower than ever they were before. The Minimum Wage Act of 1912 is to be practically nullified. That is the effect of what we are threatened with now. Let me cite one or two other cases. A young man of 18, who was getting up to March 31st 12s. a day, will now get 7s. If you will divide this 7s. by the ratio of 240 to 100, that will really represent its pre-War
  226
  value. Everyone knows what that is. He will receive that which was represented by 2s. 11d. in 1914—a young man of 18 years of age! I want to know whether this House really has any responsibility for maintaining at least a fair level the standard of living of a vast body of people, namely, the miners and their families. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] We have no responsibility? Yet a few years ago this House did recognise the responsibility. It did recognise that there should be a minimum wage which gave a decent standard of living and some hope to the miners. Are we to be told to-day there is no responsibility at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says the industry must fend for itself. If we had been left to fend for ourselves, if the State had not interfered we would indeed have been able to present a far different result, but you did not permit us to fend for ourselves. For 20 years in the federated area we maintained almost uninterrupted peace without a serious strike or trouble. From 1894 right on to the outbreak of the War we in the English federated area managed to maintain the same rates of general wages in the whole of that vast area. Three-sevenths of the whole Kingdom had the same general rates of wages, and the changes, when they were made, were made for the whole of that area, showing clearly that what we are asking now was performed for 20 years and could and would have been performed for the whole time had the State not interfered. No one denies the right of the State to interfere. The State not only had a right, but I believe was under an obligation to interfere during the War, but it is because of Government interference that we have the present deplorable results, that we have districts that used to be very nearly uniform in their general conditions now divided. I have in the House now record after record for scores of months showing that the gradual effect of the management within the federated area was bringing practical uniformity throughout the whole of that big district, in which I should think there are at the very least 450,000 people in employment with their wives and their families, representing at the very least three-sevenths of the whole output of the kingdom. For those 20 years a gradual condition of uni-

  227
  formity was growing up, and it was a state in which there was almost unbroken peace. It is true that here and there there were comparatively small outbreaks, but over that vast area the general peace was preserved, and when the War broke out we said we would bind ourselves solemnly not to have any disputes, that any dispute should be settled by arbitration or by conciliation, and that would have been the case to-day.
  Now the Government, in face of these facts, which cannot be disputed, having completely overthrown that set of conditions, says, "We have no further responsibility." The Government has a grave moral responsibility for the conditions that exist to-day, and they cannot, merely by these easy gestures, get away from that responsibility. But a few weeks ago we told you exactly what would happen if the Government persisted in their policy. I was charged with being theatrical and with not meaning what I was saying. We said, "We are not using this as a threat." I appealed with all the solemnity in my nature to give us some little time to think where we were going, to recognise the possibility of the gravest social disorder that the mind of man could conceive. I appealed to you. That which was foretold has now happened, not because the miner has a double dose of original sin, but because he has the right to live, and so have his wife and children. If he gives fair labour in the mine his living conditions ought not to be governed by the geological character of the seam. That man has a right to live. Why do you deny to the miner what is given to every other artisan? The carpenter, the bricklayer, the engineer, will receive—I need not enumerate other classes of artisans—wherever they go a definite rate for their work. [HON. MEMBERS: "District rate!"] They will probably get more in the metropolis, but there is a uniform wage guaranteed to those men, and not merely because one particular job or one firm is prosperous. The man who goes upon that job is guaranteed that money. We are now told that the miner must have his living conditions and that of his wife and family conditioned by a particular mine. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which will be the worst mine."] Yes, as a matter of fact, it will be the worst mine in the district that
  228
  will bring the wage down to the minimum. In the meantime we are told how generous are the employers. I would like to examine that particular plea of generosity. The generosity of the employers is being exemplified because they say to the miner, "We will offer you a minimum wage, but consistent with that minimum wage we are going to have a minimum profit." That is held up as a condition precedent to employment. There is to be a 17 per cent. profit calculated upon the gross wages of the whole colliery. That is to be the minimum profit. I know of many cases. I will give one case, that of a colliery with a paid up capital of £200,000, which employs 3,000 men. The average wages of that firm may be at the present time £2 a week. The average wage for 3,000 people is £104 a year, or £312,000 per year. Seventeen per cent, on that £312,000 is to be the minimum profit, not the surplus profit of the colliery. That amounts to £53,000 which the owners must have if the workers are to work at all. If they are to start at all they are to guarantee that £53,000 a year upon a paid up capital of £200,000. About 26½ per cent, is to be the minimum profit of the owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] An hon. Member opposite need not shake his head. What I have stated is a fact. That is their generosity. One hon. Member, I believe he comes from Ireland, said he was surprised at the generosity of the employers hi the terms they were offering to the men. Their minimum profit is to be guaranteed every year. Even if they lose in one year it is to be made up in any subsequent year before the worker can get a single penny advance. A cumulative preference share is to be made good at the rate of 26½ per cent. That is the generosity of the employer. In addition to that we are to sign and to guarantee 20 per cent. to them in future when the minimum profits are made good as against 80 per cent. for the worker. Then we are told that the owners have been compelled to do this because, poor fellows, they have made no profits in the past. The withers of right hon. Gentlemen were wrung with sympathy for the poor profitless owners of the past. Here is the case of the Astley and Tyldesley Colliery Company. In 1909–10 they made 22½ per cent., in 1912 20 per cent., in December, 1913, 15 per cent., for the three half years to 1914, 17½ per cent., for the three half years to 1915 they made 12½ per cent. In June, 1916,

  229
  they paid 15 per cent. In December, 1916, they paid 20 per cent. In December, 1919, they paid 15 per cent, all free of Income tax.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: Are these dividends or profits?
  Mr. WALSH: Declared dividends, paid free of income tax.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Give us some earlier years.
  Mr. WALSH: I can give from the begining of that company. In the case of Bolckow, Vaughan & Company it was stated that there was great need for wages to be lessened, because there had been such a heavy burden on the fortunes of the company. That company in 1915 paid 11 per cent., in 1916–17 12 per cent., in 1917–18 12 per cent., in 1918–19 12 per cent., in 1919–20 12 per cent., and last year they paid 12 per cent. These are the firms that are so generous to us and are compelled by the hard facts of the situation to take this big slice from the workmen's earnings. The Broomhill colliery in 1915–16 paid 10 per cent., in 1916–17 20 per cent., in 1917–18 15 per cent., and in 1918–19 20 per cent., and in 1919–20 20 per cent, free of tax. These are the people for whom our sympathy has been excited. The Bullcroft colliery in 1917–18 paid 25 per cent., in 1919 it paid 15 per cent., and last year it paid 20 per cent. I am taking these collieries indiscriminately. They are not selected. The Carlton Main in 1912–13 paid 17½ per cent., in 1913–14 it paid 20 per cent., in 1914–15 20 per cent., in 1915–16 25 per cent., and the same in 1917, 1918, and 1919, that is, 25 per cent. for five continuous years. This is the kind of people who say their losses have been so heavy, who have had their profits guaranteed to four days ago to 90 per cent, of their pre-War controlled profits, and who now say they cannot afford to pay the men without driving them to conditions which are worse than serfdom.
  Take the Wigan Coal and Iron Company. This is a perfectly classic example of over-capitalisation. It is the one outstanding example in the whole mining industry of horrible over-capitalisation. In 1915 they paid 7½ per cent.; in 1916, 10 per cent.; in 1917, 10 per cent.; in 1918, 10 per cent.; in 1919, 10 per cent.; and recently the dividends have been free of Income Tax. Take another firm, Pease and Partners. In 1915 they paid 17½ per cent.; in 1916, 1917, and 1918,
  230
  17½ per cent.; in 1919, 12½ per cent.; and last year they paid 18 per cent., free of Income Tax. These are the folks who are in a ruined industry, who cannot afford to pay, even for a few weeks, wages that even now are less than what is required to meet the increased cost of living. Similar figures could be repeated almost indefinitely. I hope, for the honour of this House, that we shall hear no more of the miserable nonsense about the lack of profits in the industry. It is pure drivel, and hon. Members know it. As a matter of fact, the profits made in the industry have been enormous.
  Brigadier-General HICKMAN: Is it not the fact that Bolckow, Vaughan and Company, and Pease and Partners are not entirely confined to collieries and that their dividends are also paid from the steel works and coke ovens?
  Mr. WALSH: I have been in the trade union movement for 40 years. I have never known a deputation to meet the coalowners when the latter did not retort that the profits were not made from coal at all but came purely from iron and steel. That has always been the reply, but if you take companies that are purely collieries and have no connection with iron and steel, you have the same exaggerated dividends. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must have repeated that particular question to deputations scores and scores of times. These are colliery companies. I want to put a question to the Prime Minister. Does he think that he can divest himself and his Government of responsibility for the action of the employers? After all, are we to be driven back into the horrible maelstrom from which we have emerged only with great pains? Are we to have the existing generation and generations yet to come depressed into conditions of existence which, for the work involved, would not be equal to the cost of keeping people in the poor houses? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is a fact. Take the average family of a man and his wife with three children, which is about the average family in the mining districts—in fact, it is slightly under. That father, when he has been working a full week, will go home with about £2 6s. 2d. to keep a family of five on for seven days, because, although the average working week is five days only, the people must live for seven days. I ask the

  231
  Prime Minister whether, with all his past professions and declarations, made with what I know to be his honest feeling at that time, that we should never be driven back into the horrible conditions of the past, when he told us to be audacious, whether he really believes that that statement at that time is consistent with the pressing back of people into the conditions I have just named. It is impossible to live, and our people might as well starve and play as starve and work. No self-respecting body of men can accept these conditions. This will not only depress the miner now, it will depress his people for generations still to come, and that is too grave a social outlook for any nation now to be content with. I most earnestly appeal to the Prime Minister to give what we asked only a few weeks ago—time to call together all men of goodwill. That is what we implored you to do a few weeks ago, to call together the people in the industry, and yourselves, the Ministers of the Crown, not to stand on any false dignity, but to come with us and try to find a solution to one of the gravest problems that has ever confronted this nation. If you will do that, there is real hope. The miners are not stupid, stubborn people; they are perfectly willing to face the facts, but their right to a living wage, their right to decent conditions as citizens, their right on their own part and on the part of their wives and children, is undoubted and fundamental. That must be recognised; if it cannot be recognised, the gravest dangers will confront this State that the mind of man can conceive, and that is not a threat. I speak as one who has been in this movement for a good share of half a century, and I have never misled this House. I have always spoken frankly and told the truth, and we told the truth a few days ago, but we were scoffed at and sneered at. In a House with less than a sixth of the Members every statement we made was jeered at. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There was not a single Member opposite who got up. They simply sat there jeering at us, charging us with being theatrical, with threatening, and so on. We appeal in the same spirit again. Do not thrust us back. Give the movement time. Let us all get together and do our best to find a solution of this grave problem.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not propose to attempt anything in the nature of a debating answer to the points made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, or, indeed, to any of the preceding speakers. I refrain from doing so, not merely because there are only 20 minutes left, but for the reason that I do not think that at this stage any good could be achieved by my attempting merely to refute certain of the statements made and to controvert some of the arguments which have been advanced. What we are all really anxious to do is to arrive at a pacification of this very dangerous dispute, if it can be done in a way which is compatible with the interests of the nation as a whole. I will, therefore, content myself, before I come to examine one or two suggestions which have been made, with a short re-statement of the Government position, not that it is necessary after the very powerful speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but in the course of the Debate some of the statements which he made have been so overlaid with other issues which have been raised, that there is a real danger of the House forgetting exactly what the issue is.
  What is the Government position? First of all, there has been a general demand for decontrol in all industries. The feeling is almost universal in favour of decontrol—that the restrictions and the strict supervision of certain industries, which were rendered necessary by war conditions, should come to an end as soon as the war conditions had terminated. That demand was not confined to the mining industry, but it certainly included the mining industry. The second point I want to put about the Government position is that the subsidising of a great industry out of taxation is wrong in principle, and completely indefensible.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: What about agriculture?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Up to the present there certainly has been no subsidising of the agricultural industry. Under the Bill which was carried four years ago there has been no subsidy. That cannot be said about the mining industry. The third point is that a subsidy of that kind at the present moment is especially indefensible, having regard to the heavy taxation in the country and the condition of the

  233
  Exchequer. The loss, at any rate, before the 31st March upon the working of control and the payment of wages and of guaranteed profits came to over £1,000,000 a week. As prices were falling, that amount would increase, but even at the last rate it meant a loss of between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000 a year to the Exchequer, unless that arrangement were terminated, and it might very well have run up to figures like £100,000,000. No Government could possibly be justified in placing a burden of that kind upon the overburdened taxpayers of the country in order either to pay wages or to pay the profits of the mine-owners, for it was part of the guarantee that there should be guaranteed profits for coalowners as well.
  That is the general position of the Government. We have been told that if we guaranteed wages and profits for another month or so, all might be well. What prospect was there? Supposing at the end of a month there had been no agreement. Notice of decontrol had been given in January, and we went on paying till the 31st March. My right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) in his very able speech said that it might take two or three months. My other hon. Friend opposite was not clear that two or three months would be long enough, and thought that a guarantee might be necessary beyond that. Therefore if it were purely a question of amount it might be worth while placing even that burden on the taxpayer in order to avert the calamity of a great national dispute. But there was no promise, no guarantee, there was not even a sure prospect that at the end of the two or three months we might not be faced with exactly the same position. It was essential, therefore, that the industry should be brought face to face with the end of control; otherwise we should never have got rid of this increased liability upon the Exchequer. What made it all the more necessary was that there was no inducement, if I may say so—for either of the parties to bring the negotiations to a speedy termination. The coalowners had their profits guaranteed. The miners had their wages guaranteed. They were discussing how to bring to an end the present condition of things which neither of them were particularly
  234
  anxious to terminate. The only parties who had an interest in a speedy conclusion were the taxpayers, who were represented by the Government? The negotiations began in November. The parties undertook to come together immediately in order to arrive at a permanent settlement of the conditions of the coal trade. We gave them five months in order to arrive at that conclusion; but while the guarantees existed, there was no particular hurry to come to a decision. That is the position. Those were the conditions under which the Government came to the conclusion that you must bring to an end, by a definite and decisive Act, control and subsidy, and put the industry upon an economic basis.
  I want to state that, not in order to prolong controversy, but to make our attitude clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) and other hon. Members have asked the Government to assist in bringing this dispute to an end. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Walsh) has very eloquently reinforced that appeal. It is our business to do our best to bring it to an end, and we should be very glad to take any steps to promote further discussion between the mineowners and the miners' representatives with the view to arriving at a further and better understanding. We can either take part in this discussion ourselves or we can leave it to the parties to discuss these conditions amongst themselves. That is a matter for them to consider. During the last dispute they preferred for some time to meet without the presence of any Government representatives.
  That is a question which they have to consider, but I think we must make clear the two conditions under which we shall be prepared to enter into any discussions. We will not hold out any question of what wage the industry can bear. Figures have been bandied about, and some of those figures have been challenged by hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House. I am not going to enter into this, and I am not going to say whether they are adequate or inadequate. I am not going to say whether the industry can pay more, or whether it ought to pay more. To express an opinion on those subjects would be to cripple our effectiveness in any negotiations that may

  235
  take place. But we must make it clear that we could not enter into any negotiations which were based on the expectation that we could recommend to Parliament the maintenance of this industry out of the general taxation of the country. We could not enter into any discussion upon the assumption that it would be possible to resume control of the industry. With those two limitations there is a very wide field for discussion. The whole of the ordinary questions that arise in industrial disputes of what wages it is fair for workmen to demand, what wages it is fair for the owners to pay, and what the industry is capable of can be discussed.
  Mr. THOMAS: National negotiations?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The discussion would naturally be a discussion with the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association. All the discussions we have ever had have been discussions of that character. Anything that the Government can do to assist in promoting a good understanding between the mineowners and the miners, that we shall be willing to undertake. I fully trust that before anyone undertakes the responsibility of prolonging a controversy which may become a very disastrous one for the mining industry itself, and not only for the mining industry but for the nation, will make that further effort to arrive at an understanding. It is essential that the Miners' Federation should give every facility and assistance to prevent the pits from being destroyed and also to save the lives of those poor dumb animals which, I am sorry to say, in a few instances at the present moment are living under horrible conditions and have been allowed to remain down the pits. I only want to make that condition, and I think it is worthy of the House to protect these poor animals. I am perfectly certain that everybody in every section of the House will sympathise with that object.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about the miners' children?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I sincerely hope that the leaders of the miners and those who represent the coalowners of the country will be able to meet to see whether with or without representatives of the Government it is not possible
  236
  immediately to arrive at some permanent settlement so that not merely this dispute should be brought to an end but also that a repetition of these disputes should be prevented because they are not only damaging to the mining industry but they are also a menance to the whole industry of the country.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  I understand that the Government are willing to ratify an arrangement that this discussion should continue until 8.15 to-morrow evening.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government readily accede to that suggestion. We understand that the Debate will be brought to an end by 8.15 by common consent.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned accordingly; to be resumed To-morrow.

CORONERS (REMUNERATION) BILL.
Read a Second time; and committed to a Standing Committee.

DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER'S MARRIAGE ACT (1907) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a Second time; and committed to a Standing Committee.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PENSIONS, DEPENDANTS' GRANTS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. McCurdy.]
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I wish to raise a point with regard to a ruling of the Minister of Pensions on Article 22 of the Royal Warrant. That Article deals with pensions for persons other than wives, or dependants other than parents. They were in receipt of separation allowances during the War. It is pro-

237
vided in that Article, if they are incapable of earning a living, and if they are in pecuniary need, they shall receive a pension varying up to 16s. 6d. per week, and it is further provided that if the incapacity disappears or ceases, they shall lose the pension and that a final gratuity equal to 26 weeks' value of the pension, or a maximum sum of about £21, may be given. What is to happen if the incapacity has only ceased temporarily and returns? This is the point on which the ruling has been given by the Minister. It has been ruled that if the incapacity returns and the dependant is incapable of earning his living and is in financial need, the fact that he or she has been given a final gratuity of not more than £21 deprives that person of any right to a pension for life. These are people whose dependency has been recognised and with regard to whom the obligation of the State to pay a pension has also been recognised. I want to make clear who are the persons to whom that ruling applies. They are not parents. They are not the grandmother or an aunt or any other person who has acted in loco parentis to the soldier. These are provided for. They are not younger brothers or sisters maintained by the soldier. They are treated as if they had been his children. They are provided for until they reach the age of 16. The persons concerned in this ruling are entirely invalids—an invalid brother or sister or some other relative not of the age of children— adults who were dependent on the soldier and who are now, if they temporarily recovered from their incapacity for a few months, by this ruling deprived of all right to a pension in the future. The reason for this ruling is entirely technical. It is not a ruling on merits. It is entirely a literal interpretation, and the reason given is that because the Warrant says a final gratuity may be given that gratuity must be treated as finally ending the whole matter. I submit that that is not a correct interpretation of that Warrant. In the first place, if the incapacity has been intermittent, if it ceases for a few months, it has not ceased permanently, and the Department have made a mistake in regarding it as being permanently ceased and in giving a final gratuity. They have no right to put the onus of that upon a pensionable person. In the second place, although the gratuity has been paid, if the person becomes
238
eligible for pension, it can be recovered by the simple process of suspending the payment of pension for 26 weeks. In the third place, the Warrant only says that a final gratuity may be paid; it does not say that it must be paid. Therefore, even on the strictest literal interpretation of the Warrant, the duty of the Department in these cases is to give the persons concerned the option of receiving a final gratuity; and it should be made perfectly clear to them that the acceptance of the gratuity means the loss of right to pension for the rest of their lives. Seeing that it means depriving an acknowledged dependant of the right to pension for life, the person concerned should be given the option. It may be suggested that this is only a small grievance, and that only a small number of persons are concerned. I asked a question about a month ago as to the number of persons concerned, and was told that, even during four months, 151 persons had been deprived of pension in this manner by the award of a final gratuity. My hon. and gallant Friend shakes his head, but I have the answer here. It says that 151 final gratuities were awarded under Article 22. The capital sum paid in final gratuities was about £1,400, and by means of that Capital payment the Department get rid of the contingent liability to pay in pensions about £2,800 a year. The persons who received that £1,400 down were thus deprived of the contingent right to receive £2,800 per year. That covers a period of only four months. The figures for a year based upon that would be something like 450 persons deprived of pensions by means of a capital payment of some £4,000, and by that means the Ministry of Pensions would get rid of the contingent liability to pay over £8,500 a year. That is a niggling interpretation. It is ungenerous to those dependants of soldiers in a matter in which there ought to be no lack of generosity, and no niggling. It is unworthy of the Department, and it is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Warrant; and strictly considered, it is contrary to the letter of the Warrant to make that final gratuity compulsory.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The point on which I disagree with my hon. Friend is not as to the num-

239
ber 151. I was quite aware that that was the figure for the last four months. The point upon which I disagree from my hon. Friend is his statement that 151 persons were deprived of pensions. That is not the case. In four months 151 persons were not deprived of pensions, but were granted gratuities. The number who come under this arrangement is not 151, but only that small proportion of 151 who may possibly become eligible at some future date.
Mr. SCOTT: I said that 151 persons were deprived of the contingent right to pension if their incapacity returns.
Major TRYON: My hon. Friend and I are now in agreement, but the words he used were "deprived of pensions." We are now in agreement, and therefore I will pass on. He speaks about the question of the literal interpretation of the warrant, and I will deal with that. The people in question are not, as he has rightly said, the widows or the orphans of men killed in action. They are more distant relations who for various reasons have claims which we recognise. In the case of parents we recognise their right to come up again for pensions should they afterwards get into
240
financial difficulties or become ill, and the word "final" does not occur in that part of the warrant, but it is put into the other part of the warrant dealing with the more distant relatives because it was intended that this should be a final gratuity. The policy may be right or wrong, but I think there can be no doubt as to the clear intention of the warrant. He makes a point which is small, about the use of the word "may," but the word applies to all pensions. It seems to me that the only possible way of carrying out his suggestion is not to give an alternative gratuity, but to put them all on the same basis as parents. I will consider that, but I cannot say I am prepared to accept it. We are being urged to simplify our machinery by granting gratuities instead of the smaller pensions, and we are attacked continually for having too elaborate machinery. Yet in a case like this of distant relatives we are asked not to make this provision. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the points he has raised and the suggestions he has made, but I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of their being adopted.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PEACE TREATIES
  EX-KAISEE (TRIAL).
  EX-KAISEE (TRIAL).
  TURKEY.
  TURKEY.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ALLOWANCE)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ALLOWANCE)
SCOTLAND.
  LAND SEIZURE, BANRANALD ESTATE, NORTH UIST.
  LAND SEIZURE, BANRANALD ESTATE, NORTH UIST.
  UGANDA COTTON CROP
  UGANDA COTTON CROP
  DARTMOOK PRISON (DISCIPLINE).
  DARTMOOK PRISON (DISCIPLINE).
  NATIONALITY AND NATURALISATION.
  NATIONALITY AND NATURALISATION.
INDIA.
  GOVERNMENT SERVICE (CONTRACTS).
  GOVERNMENT SERVICE (CONTRACTS).
  PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (TECHNICAL ALLOWANCE).
  PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (TECHNICAL ALLOWANCE).
IRELAND.
  NEWSPAPERS (MILITARY REQUIREMENTS).
  NEWSPAPERS (MILITARY REQUIREMENTS).
GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND OFFICES.
  GENERAL REGISTRY OFFICE (SEARCH-BOOM ATTENDANTS).
  GENERAL REGISTRY OFFICE (SEARCH-BOOM ATTENDANTS).
  MINISTRIES OF MUNITIONS AND SHIPPING.
  MINISTRIES OF MUNITIONS AND SHIPPING.
  SPAEKLING WINES (DUTY).
  SPAEKLING WINES (DUTY).
  COST OF LIVING, GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES.
  COST OF LIVING, GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES.
PEACE TREATIES.
  TURKEY.
  TURKEY.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (ANNUAL RETURN).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (ANNUAL RETURN).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  MILK PRICES.
  MILK PRICES.
  CHILDREN, SCHOOL-FEEDING.
  CHILDREN, SCHOOL-FEEDING.
  CALVES (SLAUGHTER).
  CALVES (SLAUGHTER).
  TRINITY HOUSE SERVICE.
  TRINITY HOUSE SERVICE.
  COMPANIES (REGISTRATION).
  COMPANIES (REGISTRATION).
  PROFITEERING ACT.
  PROFITEERING ACT.
  POSTAL FACILITIES (REDUCTION).
  POSTAL FACILITIES (REDUCTION).